Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Solid States Devices => Joule Thief => Topic started by: resonanceman on November 23, 2009, 04:18:06 AM
-
This thread is intended to be a place for people to learn the basics of how to make a JT ( Joule Thief ) and what can be done with them .
This thread is not to be used for asking questions or casual dialog . This thread is to be kept short and clean . The goal is to pack as much knowledge into a few dozen pages .
With the recent turn of events and the possibility of proving OU new people are bound to show up . It is not reasonable to expect them to read 1000 pages before asking a questions .
It is also not reasonable for the new people to expect us to drop everything and answer the most basic questions .........over and over .
The schematic below is a basic JT
It is shown using a 2n3904 but 2n2222s and many other transistors have a proven track record .
The schematic shows a 1K resistor going to the base of the transistor I recommend using a potentiometer ( Pot ) in place of the resistor . In real life it is a good idea to sweep the whole range of the pot each time you make a change in the circuit .
ALmost any toroid can be used .
Low permeability toroids are easier, they require less turns of the primary .
By the way .......the 2 windings shown in this drawing are the JT primary .
One thing that causes alot of confusion with new people are the dots drawn at the top and bottom of the coils .
I do not know the technical name for them . I call them marks.
When you are winding your toroid use something to mark either the starting end or the finishing end of both wires .. Magic marker, nail polish, paint ........anything to mark the end.
WInd both wires together as if they were one . Try 6 or 8 wraps at first . A very high perm toroid may need more, a low perm toroid will work with less.
When you are donw winding find the marks you made on the ends of the wire.
You should have 2 wires on each side of the toroid .
One side will be wires with marks. The other side will be wires with no marks.
Take one of the wires with marks and connect it to one of the other wires with no marks .
The Positive side of the battery is connected to the 2 wires you just connected together.
The end of one of these coils is connected to the longer lead on your LED.
The other coil connects to your pot which then connects to the base of the transistor.
You now have one of the 3 wires of the transistor connected.
Connect the one of the other wires on the transistor to the same end of the coil that you connected the long lead of the LED to ( at the same spot )
Connect the short lead on your LED the 3rd wire on your transistor and the negative side of your battery together ....... If you did all this right , you now have a working JT
I will leave the technical terms to others . In theory you have to have the transistor hooked up properly ..... in real life it works either way . Just make sure you get the base hooked up right . ( at least with a 3904 and 2222 )
-
This schematic shows the basic JT with a capicitor ( cap ) added across the resistor to make a simple RC tank .
I always have use a tank when first trying a new toroid . Some toroids will work without a tank .......some will not
I have never seen a toroid that would not work with a tank circuit in place . I have seen quite a few that stop when the cap is removed .
I usually start with a 1uF cap but a .1 sometimes is better .
Another thing added to the basic JT in this drawing is a secondary .
A JT by itself is a novelty .
It is the secondary that makes the JT interesting.
What can you get done with it ?
How much voltage can you make ?
There may be many secondarys on a JT
The secondarys are always closed loops in and of themselves. There is no electical connection to the primarys.
The primarys ( the original 2 windings of the JT ) are called primarys because they are what makes the JT work .
The secondarys are also called takeoffs .......because they are used to take off power.
gary
-
I found these helpful
-
Gary:
Great topic! And very timely too. You boiled it all down to simple steps. So now, no one can say they can't make a joule thief.
Great job!
Bill
-
@ resonanceman
More recently, the "secondary coil" in the above diagram has also been called a "pickup coil" instead of a "secondary coil". Although both terms are used. This is because there can be more than one pickup coil used and it does not make sense to have several secondary coils.
-
A common question is, "how can I make a Joule thief that lights a fluorescent tube"? Well, there are many ways. I think this is probably the simplest.
-
At this moment the only thing I want to add is this excellent picture made by makezine.
There is a pdf that you can download that goes along with their excellent video.
Of course it is the basic joule thief, not the kind most of us are now making but the first one everyone should make.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTAqGKt64WM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTAqGKt64WM)
I say watch this 3 times. (5 minute video)
1- all through
2- return to 1:09 and watch till the jokes at the end. Really focus this time.
3- return again to 1:09 and as you watch it pause and try to predict what comes next, and start making it. You can keep it buffered while you make it too.
jeanna
In this pic you can clearly see that the 2 wires are different colors, and you are connecting the end of one of them to the beginning of the other.
I believe this is the mistake most often made by first jt makers, so watch carefully.
-
ALL,
Due to the different experience levels that one may have.
Those of you who are attempting to build this circuit or larger circuits.
Remember to take the time for SAFETY FIRST !!!
Accidents due happen.
High voltage does KILL
Capacitors due EXPLODE
Make sure proper grounding is used.
Make sure your face is shielded if not at least your eyes.
It’s wise to have a buddy around just incase of emergency’s
Please take the time to research safety and there is no such thing as a stupid question when it comes to safety. Just ask.
Finally, remember to have fun!!! Your building a really cool circuit.
Howard
-
Hey great topic!
Could somebody say something in regards to the wire gauge and turn count on primaries and secondaries?
Is it better to have a thicker wire gauge with fewer turns on the primary and thinner wire with more turns on the secondaries?
How might proportion affect efficiency?
Does it matter how tight or loose the wire is wrapped?
-
Hey great topic!
Could somebody say something in regards to the wire gauge and turn count on primaries and secondaries?
Is it better to have a thicker wire gauge with fewer turns on the primary and thinner wire with more turns on the secondaries?
How might proportion affect efficiency?
Does it matter how tight or loose the wire is wrapped?
Loosely wrapped wires will make the torroids sing. Having a larger number of winding on the secondary will create a larger voltage, the ratio on the primaries should be, but is not limited to 1:1, remember though that the current through the primary going to the collecter will be greater than the primary going to the base and thus the waveform on the secondary will be slightly offset ( thus it is more like pulsed DC than 'trued' AC. ( innovation_station has found ways around this )).
- - - -
Rationalized Schematics and Alternative Designs ( by me, these have been tested and do work ).
edit:
I was going to post more, but these should do for now. Currently I'm testing deviations of the circuit; though I lack super or ultra caps, I'll be writing up instructions of my own some time for the resistor-less circuits.
The images below are old, each representation of the winding should have a shared core ( as a line between them, more like in the original post ). My software is limited to Linux..and thus the output is hard to perfect.
-
I do not have much time for adding stuff here at the moment .
I thought if others here are like me they probably will be courious about kinds of things you can make a JT with .
I thought I would post a few pictures of some of the JTs I have made .
Maybe one of these pictures will give someone an idea .
The first is made from the around 150 ft of cat 5 cable
I used one pair as a primary the other pairs as a secondary .
The light is a LED array that I got out of a LED floodlight
The box said it used 5 W and replaces a 45 W floodlight .
I use this kind of array alot .
gary
-
The first picture is a JT coil made with the core of a flyback transformer .
Notice that the primarys The white and blue wires are in the MK2 style
3 wraps of each wire on each end of the core.
More on styles of primarys later .
The second and third are of an experment with feeback and flyback.
I am lighting a 25 W CFL and a 90 LED array .
The coil above is powering these lights .
Changing one wire changed the balance of the circuit causing a shift in where most of the power was going .
gary
-
Hey great topic!
Could somebody say something in regards to the wire gauge and turn count on primaries and secondaries?
Is it better to have a thicker wire gauge with fewer turns on the primary and thinner wire with more turns on the secondaries?
How might proportion affect efficiency?
Does it matter how tight or loose the wire is wrapped?
Hi sierraloewe,
After you have made your first jt and it works, then it is time to delve into those questions.
Follow the makezine or evilmadscientist youtube as closely as you can.
The gauge I use for the primary bifilar is 24awg. I got this from a telephone extension cord.
The length you will need to make this first one will be about 14 inches of each wire.
This depends on the fatness and diameter of your toroid, so this is just a guess. (I use a small one and it takes 11 inches of each wire and is very generous.)
After you have made a plain joule thief make a second one exactly the same way. Put the led into the led spot but do not solder it.
Remove the led when you prove that the circuit works.
Now, wind a secondary.
The choice of gauge for the secondary is up to you.
The thinner wire will make higher voltage, but the problem with really thin wire (like 30awg from radio shack) is the insulation is easily scratched. If it gets scratched you will have little to no voltage from your output.
One more thing about the secondary.
The side of the primary that connects to the collector coil is the part that is being "transformed" so, if you have 10 turns on the collector side (you do now if you are following the makezine video) Then double that will be 20. So, make your first secondary with 20 turns.
This will give you a starting point for reference voltages.
Now, you have 2 very useful circuits.
1-the plain jt is the best way to get the last bit of joules out of the battery. It makes a terrific emergency light.
2- The battery needs to be a little higher for the secondary to work. There are exceptions to this, but most of the ones that use a secondary run down after the battery is at about 1.1v.
So, you use the jt with secondary then when it is no longer bright you switch that battery to the plain jt.
This does not apply to a rechargeable battery.
Do not use a rechargeable in a plain jt, because it is not good for batteries to be so thoroughly drained.
(I could never figure out why but it seems to be so.)
After you have made these 2 you can start experimenting.
I have found that it is very important to make the wires wound snugly onto the toroid.
It is possible to have a good one that is loosely wound but if you want high voltage... get it tight around and try to have as many winds as you can actually in contact with the ferrite.
(I believe there is a difference in opinion about loosely wound together, but this is not about wound together, this is about being tightly wound on the toroid itself.)
That toroid is a powerful source of "something" that makes high volts.
I hope this helps.
jeanna
-
Here is one with made with a complete flyback transformer .
Just map out the continuity and the resistance of the coil Then choose your windings .
-
There is a MOT ( microwave over transformer ) as a JT
This is using 1.5 V
I have not tried this with 12 V yet
-
This is what I call a long wire JT
The JT coil is nothing more than about 6 Ft of twisted pair wire .
The first picture is just the longwire JT lighting a single LED
The second picture is the same wire with few wraps of it around a toroid . The secondary of the toroid is powering the LED array .
The 3rd picture is of the same setup with 2 more toroids with both of these the secondarys are being used for feedback .
The toroids I used for this were not wrapped just for this test.
I removed the primary windings and wrapped a few turns of the longwire JT where their primarys had been.
-
About using heavy or light wire.
I find that with my JTs wire guage is not very important on the primmarys.
I do not push the limits of the primarys
I intentionally keep my transistor biased at well under half power so that it runs cool.
If you think you might need heavier wire for your secondary ........ I suggest you use several smaller wires wrapped as one . It gives you many more options
The windings can then be used all in parallel series parallel or in series .........or separately
gary
-
g
i just love the jt longwire... 8)
thats the koolest 1 i have seen yet ...
great work!
w
-
g
i just love the jt longwire... 8)
thats the koolest 1 i have seen yet ...
great work!
w
IST
It took me a while to understand how to use it ...........but now that I have thought about it a while .......there is a bunch of ways you can use a wire once you get it pulsing .
gary
-
Is this really 101?
-----
I have made a picture of 4 toroids wound in various ways.
This is just to share the size and variety possible.
I did not include the enormous 3 1/2 inch one.
On the top left is one wound in the "normal" fashion. The black and white are the primary bifilar.
On the upper right is an example of one that is hard to use experimentally because it is all the same color. I cannot tell the primary bifilar from the secondary without a magnifying lens.
On the lower left is my favorite.
This is 0.5 inch and the other day I was able to wind it to produce enough to light a neon or a string of 32 christmas lights. 172 volts.
The lower right shows the medium 5/$1. I found the best tuning for it is 5T to the base and 6T to the collector.
Both the toroids on the right show a little trick that helps when the secondary wire is so thin it doesn't want to stay in a breadboard, or it breaks. Solder a short piece of 24awg telephone wire to it and it works... until it breaks off. ;)
j
-
Is this really 101?
j
Jeanna
Yes that is the name .
If it ends up meaning anything depends on the whole group
It may look like I am only trying to show people what I have done .
That is not the point .
The reason for this thread is to try to get people up to speed .
I can not teach people what I do not understand .
I can show people what I know and try to get them to think ......that is the best I can do.
If this thread is to be of any real help to others we will need others to share some of what they know ...... Others have did many things I have not done .........I will not try to explain any of those things because I do not understand them well enough .
gary
Edit
for this thread to be of much help we will also have to keep the posts like this one to a minimum.
Most of the posts should have the intent of helping someone understand something about a JT better .
-
double post deleated
-
i have over 2500 pictures of coils and such i have wound scope shots all that stuff
im just a little too left handed to have it all neat and tidy ..
air core
iron core
copper core
feroite
steel ie screw nail .. whatever ..
i have built all of thease ..
they all work it is almost impossible to not build 1 that works lol
i even used all steel wire the darn thing still worked
ill round up some pictures .. of odd things i have done and add them in this thred
all are basic jt's if you go air core on a solder spool you can go iron wire center pickup.. then you go tesla hair pin!! bridge the gap out to the cap ... :D lmao
and bang it slower .. power right off garden wire ..
the thing is you cant go wrong ..
i have used silver wire all diffrent gages .. and many many cores every colour ...
magnets no magnets 1 2 3 freq rappid seccussion random wild ..
npn pnp
i colud literly go on and on .. all work the same ...
w
-
here is a picture of my accidental tesla mini jt...
displaying radient spark from 1 wire ..
rectified and here is the youtube video ...
quick cold charge!
db107 bridge
ist! i forgot to mention this can be dubbled for output .. this is only 1 side and i can put as many as fit on that core .. however i so desire ...
was over 500v till the kick back from the cfl ;) fryed it ...
http://www.youtube.com/user/innovationstation#p/u/6/psRWo7wwtK0
-
here are some random simple jt's
is
-
more..
is
-
Photo By Jesus
-
here are a few 2 freq scpoe shots from a basic jt this is what happins when you intrurpt a jt ..
running at its natural freq! 8) :o
basic jt scope shots
ist
see my FAST CAR... jumpping across the screen? this is a 2 freq RECONNECT ON SCOPE 8) 8) 8) 8) :P
time travel .. thats all or transportation .. just the boring stuff ya know .. :D
-
All,
Here is my version of the JT.
Groundloop.
-
Hello all,
WOOOOOW, so nice JTs!
And not 1 pf of stray capacitance.
Maybe a bigger diameter of your cores with coils?
Otto
-
Hello all,
WOOOOOW, so nice JTs!
And not 1 pf of stray capacitance.
Maybe a bigger diameter of your cores with coils?
Otto
hello old friend ! welcome to wonderland!
like this?
;D
w814
this is my gold ring .. this is the coil im soon gonna build public with whoever wants to build it ..
were gonna grab the electric car market with this thing ... :o :o :o :o
what is showen here is the 140mm W material core . i have spoke of it is resonant at 1.5khz.. the last picture has 60 outputs... basic MK2 IST 60 Config..
this core first had to be tuned! 5 TURN BASIC JT! 8)
what you see showen in my driver pic .. is npn pnp switching this drives my first picture it is my
SKY
808 COIL this coil is sync banging rotating 2 freq and 2 phase it has built in recovery and i flip phases it is perpetual by coil winding and switching operation
THIS IS THE MOST ADVANCED COIL EXPOSED PUBLIC ON THE PLANET!
-
here is a picture of my accidental tesla mini jt...
displaying radient spark from 1 wire ..
rectified and here is the youtube video ...
quick cold charge!
db107 bridge
ist! i forgot to mention this can be dubbled for output .. this is only 1 side and i can put as many as fit on that core .. however i so desire ...
was over 500v till the kick back from the cfl ;) fryed it ...
http://www.youtube.com/user/innovationstation#p/u/6/psRWo7wwtK0
IST
That primary is one I have never seen before .
It is like half of a MK2 only wound with a twisted pair .
Very nice :)
What size is the wire for the secondary ?
I am guessing #30
gary
-
it was super fine im thinking 34ga
more pictures comeing ..
i have lots..
i have been unable to find the solder spool ones!
ill have to dig out a box full of em then ill snap a few pics. ;D
w
-
What's the purpose of the capacitor in parallel with the resistor?
-
it was super fine im thinking 34ga
more pictures comeing ..
i have lots..
i have been unable to find the solder spool ones!
ill have to dig out a box full of em then ill snap a few pics. ;D
w
IST
Great pictures :)
I look forward to seeing more .
I have a request .
This thead is for learning.
The pictures are great but do you think you could add a few words about these JTs.
I DO NOT want complete specs ....... just a few words .
Maybe what is unique about it .........or why it was hard to make .
Ir why it was a first for you. .......
Your pictures can be turned into a VERY valuable teaching tool with just a few words of description about each coil
:)
I am also courious about some of them,
If you don;t choose to say anything on your own I might ask you questions about them .......I imagin I could finish posting all my questions within a week or so .
:)
gary
-
sounds great!
i have seen cap is not needed on input ..
some will argue this it is because they want the thing to run on 1 ma for months...
no concern for my designs
i put the tesla mini .. first .. as it is the best one i have made ;)
infact not seen another yet! if you had 2 outputs like that coil then recitifer 1 from each side .. intresting results as it is mk2 winding config.. there out of phase of 1 another cold ac ?
w
here is a picture of yet another way it can be done and if you tune the coils to 7.xx hz might be intresting or perhaps a magnet
-
it was super fine im thinking 34ga
more pictures comeing ..
i have lots..
i have been unable to find the solder spool ones!
ill have to dig out a box full of em then ill snap a few pics. ;D
w
IST
Great pictures :)
I look forward to seeing more .
I have a request .
This thead is for learning.
The pictures are great but do you think you could add a few words about these JTs.
I DO NOT want complete specs ....... just a few words .
Maybe what is unique about it .........or why it was hard to make .
Ir why it was a first for you. .......
Your pictures can be turned into a VERY valuable teaching tool with just a few words of description about each coil
:)
I am also courious about some of them,
If you don;t choose to say anything on your own I might ask you questions about them .......I imagin I could finish posting all my questions within a week or so .
:)
gary
-
What's the purpose of the capacitor in parallel with the resistor?
Hi Broli,
This is not absolutely necessary.
It acts as a sort of 'repeater' and reduces the amps draw.
It seems that with it there( at the right size which is critical), the repeats take the place of more juice coming in from the battery.
This allows you to set the base resistor at 10k ohm rather than 1k ohms to get the same switching.
I only resort to using this with a fluoro tube. And, then it was the thing that got mine to start.
But, I believe I had too few turns on mine and it would not have needed it if I had more turns.
good question.
thank you,
jeanna
-
I just found a good picturs from early last winter.
This is 3 turns on a secondary.
These lights are very bright and I suspect they may all be in parallel, but the way they are lined up makes me think they are series as well... bright output.
This is a cam from the computer and not from the digital camera which adjusts for light.
This is to give a good example of how great it is to use the secondaryand NOT the regular C-E junction, for the light, if anyone is still in doubt.
egads it even still has the regular joule thief light in there too! this is a very old pic!!
jeanna
-
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8341.msg210330#msg210330 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8341.msg210330#msg210330)
I have been looking at those and I believe I understand the principle on all but the second one was tricky. It took me a bit to understand what was happening or so I believe.
So current flows to 100nF cap, this current causes induction in lower JT winding. Now current flows into base and opens transistor. This makes a less resistive path to battery so even more current is now allowed through upper winding, again this causes induction in lower JT winding and opening the transistor even more, while that is happening the 0.77nF cap quickly charges and stops current flow. Then the transistor abruptly shuts off and our discharge happens.
If this is correct, then whoever came up with that circuit thought it through pretty good, it's beyond me how you can find the exact values to get it working.
-
Can anyone tell me if a steel washer will work in place of a ferrite toroid?
Thanks.
-
a toroid is not required, you can wind the coils on a rusty nail if you want to. i would also add that you don't even need a core. i have a joule thief that uses a air core crystal radio coil, i have one where the coil is wound directly onto the body of transistor.
-
a toroid is not required, you can wind the coils on a rusty nail if you want to. i would also add that you don't even need a core. i have a joule thief that uses a air core crystal radio coil, i have one where the coil is wound directly onto the transistor itself.
Lol those are some extreme conditions, I was sort of starting to think that a JT needs luck. It makes my joulethief, was pretty close to generic specs, which didn't work look bad. But I'll retry when I have the exact parts and some electronic equipment.
-
Thanks for that info. It will make making the coils alot easier.
Dick.
-
I was planning on adding a few more posts but my internet connection was so bad today I had trouble just getting here to read ....... I have several double posts to deleate because the page timed out after it uploaded the page but before it loaded the new page .
gary
-
;D
never saw something soooo kooool so simple eh !
here is 1 worlds first public exposed jt! displaying ou
i built this a long time ago..
;D ;D
long time b4 the jt thred came along .. ::) lol
leds are wired a j says ... a special way ... ;)
-
Lol those are some extreme conditions, I was sort of starting to think that a JT needs luck. It makes my joulethief, was pretty close to generic specs, which didn't work look bad. But I'll retry when I have the exact parts and some electronic equipment.
here is the post from the jt thread showing the aircore coil. a toilet paper roll can be used as the coil form, heck you can wind it on a drinking straw if you want. ;)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6123.msg143373#msg143373
i dont think i ever posted a picture of the one wound directly on the transistor body but if you would like i can take a picture for you. worth a thousand words or something like that...
Thanks for that info. It will make making the coils alot easier.
Dick.
glad to help.
-
here a few pictures of tests i did with a neon and 1 wire ..
ist
-
@all
Ist made one watch http://www.youtube.com/user/innovationstation#p/u/22/Jiodkjo9hpk
I hope this will help !
First thing tuning, on step one the green coil is put on tight leaving room so that two other coil (for the jt)can be added 180 degrees
apart, the green coil needs to be connected to a diode bridge to get voltage readings .
On step 2 , you start adding jt coils one at a time and check voltmeter every time you put more turns , that way you see the difference it makes continue adding turns until the voltage on the voltmeter start going lower, this will mean you have reached the point where you start messing up with the turn ratio , meaning you add more you get lower voltage.
On more step i do is every time i change the jt numbers of turn i also tune the base resistor , usually a pot of 1k is used, you try to get the highest voltage on the voltmeter . i also keep the voltage data and the resistance at the base by checking the resistance used by the pot in the circuit.
At this point you will know that you have the right number of turns on the jt coil, and the green coil number of turns fitting in the toroid,.
At that point based on results decide to use smaller gauge the get more turns and higher voltage .
You will also have a good idea on the toroid working range.
To make a good design , you need to learn about the toroid first at this point you should have a good idea about doing so.
Step 3 , Start putting pickup coil on the toroid, you need to put the coil on both sides going one way and leave wire to come back over the coil the other way on step 4.Making a cross windings.
If you want more pickup coil , you need to put them all at the same time , so make sure to remember the green coil for the room available .
Lets say 20 turns fit , then on a mk1 you should have about 20 up then 16 down , mk2 having 2 pickup coils on each side numbers would be 10 up 6 down , you get the idea.
When you need more then 3 pickup coil , twist all those wire into a single one then do it all at once.
Now why the cross windings , you will then have the coil pushing and pulling , you can test it with a led that will now light both ways , it also helpful in charging caps.
I hope did not forget to much, i would really make a video but , i really don't have any money to buy a camera
, and none of my friends have one, but honestly most of my time and energy is on putting food in my stomach.
Mark
How to test dead spots use a single turn pickup coil , then connect it to a bridge and voltmeter and move it around the empty space left on the toroid , if you find a spot where there is no voltage that is a dead spot.
What could i have new to say ?
Nut much , but if i was to try this i would first try to find the best gauge for the jt side (bigger wire ) then try the match them gram for gram , since they will have the same mass and materiel they will share resonance at any freq.
The smaller you go on the secondary side , bigger resistance higher turn ratio for mass , same mass smaller gauge .
I think this will make sure that the current is not lost due to unmatched weight ...
Depending on the winding direction you get different sine wave .
Winding rotation direction , can help setting kick generation (+or-), when working with multiple core.
I hope this will help
Mark
-
Nut much , but if i was to try this i would first try to find the best gauge for the jt side (bigger wire ) then try the match them gram for gram , since they will have the same mass and materiel they will share resonance at any freq.
The smaller you go on the secondary side , bigger resistance higher turn ratio for mass , same mass smaller gauge .
I think this will make sure that the current is not lost due to unmatched weight ...
Mark
How important would you say matching weight is ?
Do you know of a chart or website that has weight per ft of wire so we can work out the balance with different wire sizes ?
gary
-
Just a question. Is it weight, or mass? For resonance, I suspect it may be mass, but I really don't know. I was thinking about Mark's idea here and it makes a lot of sense to me.
Bill
-
Just a question. Is it weight, or mass? For resonance, I suspect it may be mass, but I really don't know. I was thinking about Mark's idea here and it makes a lot of sense to me.
Bill
Bill
It seems to me you can use either mass or weight in this case .
Part of the equation is same metal same weight .
If you were making a bi-metal coil the weight or mass question would become important .
gary
Edit
After thinking about it ........ if you were making a bi-metal coil equivalent conductor volume might be the way to go
-
Hi everyone. I know this is off the subject but there seems to be quite a few (Electronic Experts) here.
I have a 12v regulated power supply that puts out 2.5 amps. Is there a way to make it output more amps? Like maybe 15 or 20 amps?
Thanks for any help on this.
Dick
-
Hi everyone. I know this is off the subject but there seems to be quite a few (Electronic Experts) here.
I have a 12v regulated power supply that puts out 2.5 amps. Is there a way to make it output more amps? Like maybe 15 or 20 amps?
Thanks for any help on this.
Dick
Nope . If its rated 2.5 amps that is the maximum you can get out of it
-
Hey Gagetmall. Thanks for the answer. It's not the one I was hoping for LOL; but thanks anyways.
Dick
-
Hi guys I have a white toroid don't know what is the material. Is this good for JT?
Thanks
-
If it is painted, chances are it is a powdered iron toroid. Can a magnet stick to it? If not, it will not work for the JT. If it passes the magnet test, go ahead and wind a basic JT circuit on it and see what happens. They do not take long to make.
Good luck to you,
Bill
-
Hi all, I know nothing about the Joule Thief and since this is a 101 you might want to add what the Joule Thief actually is, and what it is supposed to be capable of and what is special about it. Also maybe some overall efficiency details.
Thanks,
Steven
-
Hi all, I know nothing about the Joule Thief and since this is a 101 you might want to add what the Joule Thief actually is, and what it is supposed to be capable of and what is special about it. Also maybe some overall efficiency details.
Thanks,
Steven
A joule thief is A simple circuit that is basicly a simple oscillator.
The first JTs that I heard about were just a toroid with a few wraps of wire in it .......a transistor, a resistor and a blue or white LED
They were interesting because they can light the LED even with a battery that by normal standards would be considered dead.
The JT threads are all about what can be done with the JT circuit
Adding a secondary was a big step ........it opened up many doors .
~~~~~~~~~~
I could not watch videos for a long time ......so I do not have any links to videos that explain the basics
Perhaps someone that already has links for good videos can post them here for you.
gary
-
Well said, and good idea gary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTAqGKt64WM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTAqGKt64WM)
This is how I made my first 3. Then I made some personal adjustments, but this video is clear and easy.
My recommendation is always
watch it 3 times.
first run through
second- start at the 1:05 minute marker and watch it til they start with the jokes.
third time- watch it and predict what they will do.
Then you have it.
The tricky part about the first time is to get the center tapped primary bit.
That is why I say make it their way and get it into your head and hands then make some more.
Then begin to add secondaries and read the loooong thread for lots of info and ideas.
jeanna
-
As I see it one of the problems with using toroids is the big ones are relativly rare .
A way to get the job done with what is commonly available is required.
I will try to explain a way to use a group if small toroids in place of a larger toroid
The picture below is of several of what I call candy cane coils.
Why I chose that name is not evident in this picture.
When smaller windings are used the windings spiral around the the toroids like the stripes on a candy cane.
All the toroids in the picture are wound with 20 wraps of cat5 twisted pair.
All of the toroids are wound in the same direction.
I chose 20 wraps because that is all that will comfortably fit on this kind of toroid with this kind of wire.
The primary for each of these toroids is 4 wraps through the centers of all the toroids
4 wraps seems best for all the 5 for $1 toroids I have tested so far. I am sure that different kinds if toroids will require different numberes of wraps for the primary
Both the primarys and secondarys of all the coils are connected the same .....end of one wire with the start of the other .......traditional JT style.
The coil with 6 toroids produces 75 V with no load ...... 37 V driving my 90 LED array .....the array was bright but not full power.
The coil with 4 toroids produced 31 V unloaded 30 V loaded .......the array was much dimmer
The coil with 2 toroids produced 37 V unloaded 31 V loaded ..... the array was lit b ut just barely .
The voltage seems to be set by the number of wraps on the coils.
The power level seems to be a set by the number of torids
If you try your circuit and do not have enough power........just add a few more toroids.
It looks to me that all the toroids in a particular coil should be wrapped with the same number of wraps....... It seems better to use one coil less if wire runs out .......rather than having a toroid with less windings.........the odd toroid seems to drag the whole thing down.
gary
-
This is a coil with 8 wraps each toroid ( #20 bell wire )
Same configuration as above.
This coil produces 19 V loaded .
21 V unloaded.
-
Lets see what can be done with this system
Below is a picture of an unknown toroid.
It is from a power supply .
The toroid is probably iron powder or something.
It it takes quite a bit to get it going.
The second picture is the same coil with the 8 wrap coil
The output of the 8 wrap is the same as before.
The output of the unknown coil is 11 V foir the small winding 23 V for the larger winding.
The larger winding is clearly not putting out as much as it should........underdriven .
gary
-
I added 2 5 for $1 toroids to the unknown coil by putting candy cane windings over the empty spots on the coil.
I used 3 wraps each toroid with brown wire and 2 wraps each toroid with blue wire.
The intention is to couple the 3 toroids to catch more magnetic flux from the primary
gary
Edit
it turns out that this did not work out...... I am pretty sure it can be done.......but havn't got it to work yet
-
What happened?
but first start another thread so this stays 101
what happened?
jeanna
-
What happened?
but first start another thread so this stays 101
what happened?
jeanna
Jeanna
Nothing happened
I did not have time to add as much as I wanted......and others choose to add very little.
What I am posting now is a little more advanced......but it still needs to be where people can get to it without having to go through 1000 pages
gary
-
I put the 2 4 and 6 toroid coils in series
They produce 33 V loaded .......the array is near full brightness
59 V unloaded
gary
Edit
I switched the wires around so that the LED array is being powered by 6 toroids and the other 6 are connected to my Jesus charger ....... for feedback
I am getting 33 V with the array lit at least as bright as before.
The picture is of all the toroids in series
A picture of the toroids wired half for feeback would look the same except each set of 6 would be wired seperate one poweing the LEDs and the other feedback
Note
I chose to wire the toroids in 2 groups mostly to show that it could be done .........as long as the primary ( blue and white wires ) go through the centers of the toroids they are part of the circuit
-
Hi to all people who are having a hard time finding good toroids.
I want to offer a ray of hope.
I just made a really great jtc today and with it I will be able to light up a small room with many leds in both series and parallel.
So, first the toroid came from the circuit board that was part of a 13w cfl.
(I think 13 watt. It could be 10w or 20w,) but you can see in the picture that the toroid was next to the can type capacitor which is bent over.
You can see the space where it was.
Now, look closely and you will see a gold wire which is the base coil. 9T
And, a green wire which is the collector coil, 12T
I then wound the red in the space that was left and it was 10T.
The transistor is a 2N2222. I am sure you can substitute with a 2N3904 or even the transistor from the same board, will probably work just fine.
The resistor is 470 ohm. It is one that I got for free from the purchase of some leds from china. For some reason if you use these leds in a car with 12v they have it figured out that you need 470 ohm resistors, so I have a couple hundred of these.
As you can see from the scope shot, I am getting 54v-62v
at 62KHz.
If I were to make a jtc with a Light from the secondary using this toroid as it is, I would solder 7- 8 leds in series and 4-10 in parallel. This will give you one light that is as bright as a 28-80 watt light bulb which will run off one AA or AAA for a very long time.
Remember this is being connected to the secondary.
That fact means that the number of leds you use will make NO DIFFERENCE WHATEVER to the length of time this will run on one battery.
Do you see how the red secondary wires are stuck into the breadboard?
They are on the ends of the 8 leds which are arranged in series.
BTW, if I put the wires in the opposite ends the lights do not go on at all, so always try both ways.
I realize most people do not have a scope, so, I believe you can follow this as a recipe with some assurance.
I hope this helps,
jeanna
-
thanks jeanna
i like to see stuff recycled.. i was worried about those toroids in the cfl due to there yellow color which i thought was a powder iron core..
you know it was a electronic ballast that made me build my circuit that i video..
then i saw it was also a stun gun and strobe circuit so i have learn alot since march 09
-
I had a thought this morning as I awoke.
I remember jesus nievesoliveras had only 2 leds which he had rescued from some things at the dump. One day he was devastated because he had popped one of them with too high a voltage spike. I certainly do not want my recipe to pop anyone's precious leds, since this may be the case for many that leds are hard to get, or that purchasing through ebay from china with paypal or credit card is impossible, so I have an alternative to the recipe that uses only one led.
Everything is exactly the same, except that I wound the secondary through the core only one and a half times such that the wire goes through the center 2 times. Here are the pics of the breadboard with one led lit and the scope shot.
jeanna
-
Hi to all people who are having a hard time finding good toroids.
I want to offer a ray of hope.
I just made a really great jtc today and with it I will be able to light up a small room with many leds in both series and parallel.
So, first the toroid came from the circuit board that was part of a 13w cfl.
(I think 13 watt. It could be 10w or 20w,) but you can see in the picture that the toroid was next to the can type capacitor which is bent over.
You can see the space where it was.
Jeanna
Thanks for posting this
I got some CFLs to try a Jeanna light last week
I pulled the toroids out of them and tried making a candy cane coil with them......
I had hoped to light up my 90 LED array with 4 or 5 little toroids
I didn't get anything out of them.
Now I will try again..........maybe I will pull some windings off of them.
gary
-
Hi Gary,
I do not think this will work with 90 unless you resolder the leds in your bulb..
I would solder 7- 8 leds in series and 4-10 in parallel. This will give you one light that is as bright as a 28-80 watt light bulb which will run off one AA or AAA for a very long time.
I will be doing something like this today, and if I learn anything new I will post it.
jeanna
-
Hi Gary,
I do not think this will work with 90 unless you resolder the leds in your bulb..
Jeanna
I am not going to re arrange the LEDs in my array...... I like them the way they are.
I do understand that it might not be possible to lite my array with the little CFL toroids ........that is why I am trying it
I need about 100V to light the array to full brightenss.........
I can get that kind of voltage from a 5 for $1 toroid in at least half a dozen ways......
I think we will be much better off if we find ways to use smaller toroids for larger power applications.
My theory is....... wind a toroid to get the voltage you need........then make more just like it ......... keep adding more toroids in series until you have enough power.
To clarify....... the primary of the original toroid should be removed...... and a primary through the centers of ALL the toroids should be added.
gary
-
I added 2 5 for $1 toroids to the unknown coil by putting candy cane windings over the empty spots on the coil.
I used 3 wraps each toroid with brown wire and 2 wraps each toroid with blue wire.
The intention is to couple the 3 toroids to catch more magnetic flux from the primary
gary
Edit
it turns out that this did not work out...... I am pretty sure it can be done.......but havn't got it to work yet
I finally got back to the unknown coil
Adding a cancy cane winding did not do the trick.
I still think it should have so I will try again later.
It does work with a few simple wraps of wire around each extra core.
You can't tell by this picture but the 2 outside cores are there to " collect " more flux for the unknown coil .
The mumber of wraps does not seem critical.
I used 5 for one and 10 for the other.
I get 127 V with both connected ...... that is powering my LED array.
The start of the wire connecting the toroids must be connected to the end ...... if I disconnect either wire from its other end the voltage drops to 10 V
gary
-
...
I do understand that it might not be possible to lite my array with the little CFL toroids ........that is why I am trying it
yeay!! ;D
I need about 100V to light the array to full brightness.........
100 spiky volts?
That is nice to know.
I think I will pick up one of those next time I am in wallmart. I need another plaque, so that might be soon.
I can get that kind of voltage from a 5 for $1 toroid in at least half a dozen ways......
I might try to get that much from the little one.
I just made a bunch of turns and it seemed good at 50-60v at 470r, but with less resistance or more turns or both 100v is probably possible.
I was addressing the cfl. I do not think that is possible with the tiny toroid.
I made one at the end of the summer from my 3/4 inch toroid that lit a 4 inch 4watt tube, but it fizzled. I think there were so many turns, that they must have shifyed and choked it.
I notice xee2 has re-wound his that got choked and he is getting good HV from it.
I think we will be much better off if we find ways to use smaller toroids for larger power applications.
I completely agree.
To clarify....... the primary of the original toroid should be removed...... and a primary through the centers of ALL the toroids should be added.
This is something like the russian pictures from the other day.
I also had good results by winding the base coil around one toroid, and the collector coil around both. This gave me 2 toroids with similar voltage output, but if I remember, different shape.
I find it interesting to light a cfl, but it is not necessary nor very bright. Certainly using a bunch of leds is the brightest way.
jeanna
-
;D100 spiky volts?
That is nice to know.
I think I will pick up one of those next time I am in wallmart. I need another plaque, so that might be soon.
Jeanna
No..... not spiky volts......normal volts
From my experience the reading on a meter with spiky voltage means very little
With the meter connected across the LED array I have lit the array pretty brightly with as much as 250V and as low as less than one volt
How brightly the array lights seems to be dependant more on the power level that the circuit can deliver more than the voltage.
About this array .......was out of the first Light of America floodlight that I ever bought.
I use it as my general purpose load for my circuits.
It is great because it lights a little with almost any application of power.
With very low power just a few LEDs will glow purple .
The new flood lights do not react like this.......they require much more power to turn on........when they come on they are nice and bright.
Another thing to think about ........ my first flood lights were VERY easy to take apart ......but each new generation has gotten harder to take apart
The last one I took apart was a real pain ........I had to CUT the reflector around the circuit board then pull the board out.
The back of the array was also coated with some kind of glue.......effectively making it about twice as thick.
Because of these things I do not plan on buying more floodlights to take apart to get the arrays .
You might look for the light in the picture below.
It is a little smaller........ and cheaper......
If I remember right it has 24 LEDs but it is almost as bright as my 90 LED array because these seem to be straw hat LEDs
I have bought several of these.........the electronics burns out fast .......but the LEDs are still good.........and quick and easy to get to.
I might try to get that much from the little one.
I just made a bunch of turns and it seemed good at 50-60v at 470r, but with less resistance or more turns or both 100v is probably possible.
I was addressing the cfl. I do not think that is possible with the tiny toroid.
I made one at the end of the summer from my 3/4 inch toroid that lit a 4 inch 4watt tube, but it fizzled. I think there were so many turns, that they must have shifyed and choked it.
I notice xee2 has re-wound his that got choked and he is getting good HV from it.
I completely agree.
This is something like the russian pictures from the other day.
I also had good results by winding the base coil around one toroid, and the collector coil around both. This gave me 2 toroids with similar voltage output, but if I remember, different shape.
I find it interesting to light a cfl, but it is not necessary nor very bright. Certainly using a bunch of leds is the brightest way.
My goal with the Little torids was for lighting a LED array .......I finally replaced my Dewalt 18 V batterys ........ Now I have an 18 V light to convert to LEDs
I plan on using some feedback....... the original bulb only lasts around 4 hrs per charge........I am shooting for a week or 2 with LEDs .......
A LOA 60 LED flloodlight array just barely fits into the place the reflector used to be.
You got me wondering if it is possible to light a CFL with the little toroids ........ I wonder of it is possible to put the toroids both in series and parallel like we do with LEDs
So far with my candy cane coils the series coils only seem to add power not voltage.
Just maybe....... the base coil can be " shortened " by not putting it though all the toroids......... that might change the transformer ratio.
gary
-
Thanks gary, I have seen those. I will try one next time.
=====
I want to give a follow up picture of this tiny toroid as a finished lamp. With 42 leds, it is only marginally brighter than the 24led one, similar to itm which is a surprise, and may relate to very low amps per led. I turned the cluster and it got brighter, so I might just need to play with the directions of the leds.
I tried to make the lights face outward in a hemispherical way. You can see I was not successful, and I may be able to improve this light by carefully bending the led wires. I put hot glue on the legs so shorting won't be an issue.
1- the cluster run by the tiny toroid in place and on.
2- a piece of plastic bag (!) wrapped around the cluster to give an even diffusion.
3-all put together and on.
jeanna
-
Thanks to ALL for the great info on this wonderful circuit. I built my first basic Joule Thief this weekend and it worked as advertised. In reading this thread, I created a guide from the posts here and have made it available in the download section. It helped me and it might help others. Thanks again to ALL.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=441
Joule Thief 101.pdf
-
i am not getting optimum brightness from the leds.
i built the circuit from the 3rd post of this thread combined with jeanna's instructions on page 5 of this thread.
i tried 4 sets of coils, with CFL toroids:
A. 3T+3T/8T (default CFL winding)
B. 5T+5T/5T (cat5 wires)
C. 9T+12T/10T (jeanna's, #24 magnet wire)
D. 8T+8T (no secondary, cat5 wires)
my output is 1 led at the collector or 5 leds in series at the secondary coil. the leds light up but not as bright as when driven with 20ma constant current source.
the first 3 did not differ much in terms of brightness, both for 1led and 5led config. the last one seemed just a tad brighter but i could not fit anymore windings.
is it ok to jumble up the wires? can we establish a ratio to the windings? is it ok to use thinner wires to fit in more windings?
-
i am not getting optimum brightness from the leds.
i built the circuit from the 3rd post of this thread combined with jeanna's instructions on page 5 of this thread.
i tried 4 sets of coils, with CFL toroids:
A. 3T+3T/8T (default CFL winding)
B. 5T+5T/5T (cat5 wires)
C. 9T+12T/10T (jeanna's, #24 magnet wire)
D. 8T+8T (no secondary, cat5 wires)
my output is 1 led at the collector or 5 leds in series at the secondary coil. the leds light up but not as bright as when driven with 20ma constant current source.
the first 3 did not differ much in terms of brightness, both for 1led and 5led config. the last one seemed just a tad brighter but i could not fit anymore windings.
is it ok to jumble up the wires? can we establish a ratio to the windings? is it ok to use thinner wires to fit in more windings?
tikbalang
I made a similar misstake
the windings you have tried look to me like they are for a ferrite toroid.
The CFL toroids are not ferrite .....they are probably powered iron.
Powdered iron requires more primary windings.
My best CFL toroid JT was made with 20 windings of #30 magnet wire 4 strands twisted together and wrapped on the toroid as one .
2 of those wires are used as primary 2 as secondary
Both sets of wires are connected start of one to the end of the other.
This setup only puts out 1.6V according to my DMM but they seem to be very spikey volts......... by that I mean that the impulses are very strong and the JT can do more than its indicated voltage would indicate.
This JT will light a 1W LED pretty bright.
It also lights a MR 16 light with 32 LEDs pretty bright.
This light also was all its original electronics.
This light will not light at all with 9V DC
gary
-
i am not getting optimum brightness from the leds.
i built the circuit from the 3rd post of this thread combined with jeanna's instructions on page 5 of this thread.
.........
is it ok to jumble up the wires? can we establish a ratio to the windings? is it ok to use thinner wires to fit in more windings?
Yes, most of the time, it is OK to jumble the secondary wires, but be careful not to get them too close to the primary. It can choke the system if you do.
No, we cannot establish a windings ratio.
The numbers relate to the ferrite core and each one is different.
Yes, thinner wire is great.
Just be careful not to scratch the insulation. It is brittle on the thin wire and will break out and cause spark damage and the jtc will stop working. It will first work fine then inexplicably stop when this happens.
btw, the brightness never seems the same when using the high frequency as compared to the 20mA straight through.
If they are almost as bright, then this is the real deal.
Good job, keep going!
jeanna
-
No, we cannot establish a windings ratio.
The numbers relate to the ferrite core and each one is different.
i was hoping there was some way of quantifying something in this circuit that can be adjusted to get a similar result over and over. can the windings compensate for a bad toroid? to what extent? how to tell if the windings were not enough? or too much?
Yes, thinner wire is great.
Just be careful not to scratch the insulation. It is brittle on the thin wire and will break out and cause spark damage and the jtc will stop working. It will first work fine then inexplicably stop when this happens.
i can confirm this. it happened to me on several experiments and the solution was to rewind the coil with new wire and to coat the toroid with nail polish.
btw, before i started painting over the toroids, i get a reading of 15kohms to 30kohms between the toroid and the wires. it should be infinite, right?
btw, the brightness never seems the same when using the high frequency as compared to the 20mA straight through.
If they are almost as bright, then this is the real deal.
then i may already have been successful with a 1led joule thief circuit. i have built a few that were blindingly bright when LOOKED AT but can't illuminate anything useful at more than 4ft.
i did a few experiments before the holidays and one of the more successful coils were from a spool-type inductor salvaged from a CFL. the inductor itself broke so i took about 6ft of the fine wire, doubled it over to two strands of 3ft then jumble-wound it on a sharpie pen. i'll re-create it and post pics later. i'm mentioning it here because it took me a while to hunt for toroids when they were not needed at all, newbies take note!
some pre-built coils that failed: am coils with ferrite rods from two different walkman-type radios and an isolation transformer from a crt monitor.
surprisingly, CFL toroids work as-is with varying degrees of successes. i assumed they would be of the same quality since they practically have the same purpose in the CFL circuit. the plain black unpainted toroids seem to be bad performers. i found a yellow one similar to jeanna's that i will work on later with more windings, it already is bright as-is. there are a few reds and blues that i have yet to test.
CFL toroids come in different sizes and colors but the windings are more or less the same: 2T+2T/6T or 3T+3T/8T (that's "primary base+primary collector/secondary" in joule thief lingo.
i tried mixing it up with 3T+8T for a 1led jt but the difference is negligible.
thanks resman and jeanna, i'll come back later for pics and more results.
-
@tlkb...
Have you seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnNQrYy_Bw4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnNQrYy_Bw4)
I used the toroid from a cfl and took a hint from the existing turns on it, and made this light that has 42 leds.
I am able to see and if I were younger I could read by it because it is a good brightness.
There are umm 7 parallel rows of 6 series wired leds =ing 42.
I have decided that it really is no brighter than 24 leds and I suggest 6 or 7 might be good enough.
I wanted a light that would shoot in all directions (and, also I wanted to see if it could be brighter than 24 leds.)
jeanna
-
Hi Jenna ,You seem to to be the go to person for questions on this subject,..I was wondering about the transistors used, I just salvage parts from old pcb's,... does the heat from my soldering gun cause damage to the components?, because I've tried making a jt with several different transistors , none of the 2222 though, all different #'s, I just can't get it to work for me ,the torrid is out of a microwave,roughly the size of a quater but thicker.....I guess I need to know if you can re-use old components or do you need to buy new?...thanx .....shylo
-
Hi Jenna ,You seem to to be the go to person for questions on this subject,..I was wondering about the transistors used, I just salvage parts from old pcb's,... does the heat from my soldering gun cause damage to the components?, because I've tried making a jt with several different transistors , none of the 2222 though, all different #'s, I just can't get it to work for me ,the torrid is out of a microwave,roughly the size of a quater but thicker.....I guess I need to know if you can re-use old components or do you need to buy new?...thanx .....shylo
shylo
ALot of people use recycled parts for JTs.
I tried pulling transistors out of old equipment but I didn't have much luck with most of them.
There are tons of different kinds of transistors alot of them require 5V for the base.
I choose to buy transistors
it is just one less variable that I have to worry about .
Old monitors have some great parts
The flyback trnasformer works great as a JT
I save all the ferrite core transformers I find in the monitor.
There should also be some high voltage caps in there too
Just make sure you know how to ground the picture tube........it can hold a lethal charge for years.
have you been reading the joule ringer thread?
If you want to salvage parts I would look for a store that will give you a few used disposable cameras.......most of the parts in them should be good for JTs
gary
-
Hi Jenna ,You seem to to be the go to person for questions on this subject,..I was wondering about the transistors used, I just salvage parts from old pcb's,... does the heat from my soldering gun cause damage to the components?, because I've tried making a jt with several different transistors , none of the 2222 though, all different #'s, I just can't get it to work for me ,the torrid is out of a microwave,roughly the size of a quater but thicker.....I guess I need to know if you can re-use old components or do you need to buy new?...thanx .....shylo
yes you can use scrap i do for the transistors you need to know the pinouts they are not always the same
-
Hi guys im starting to gather components for my first JT i have downloaded the joule thief 101 PDF and it say
"The schematic shows a 1K resistor going to the base of the transistor I
recommend using a potentiometer (Pot) in place of the resistor"
What size potentiometer would i need ?
Thanx
neil
-
I have used a 10k but that is because that is all I had. It usually calls for a 1k so, as long as that is in the range...it will be fine.
Bill
-
@all
I fully intended to do research last night but, instead I played with a basic joule thief and the Carbon/Copper/Zinc battery. What great fun. I could not light a 5mm LED directly from the two cells. With a basic joule thief the two cells produced a very intense light. I could light with as little as 10.7ma and the pot used at full on would consume slightly over 50ma. I need to find the sweet spot where the cells are not stressed.
The DIY Copper Carbon Zinc document is here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=460
The Basic Joule Thief 101 document is here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=441
Have fun!
Brad S.
-
Brad:
Nice work. Be careful that you are not sending too much voltage into those leds as you can fry them easily with a JT when running only 2 of them. Trust me on this...ha ha. It will be good to see how long your cells perform with this load. You might try adding a supercap of 5 to 10 farads in parallel with your cells, that has always helped my longevity.
Bill
-
Hello all
Crucial knowledge that I have gleaned from the internet over the past few years regarding magnetic fields and inductors is:
1: Usable energy from magnetic fields in inductors is stored in the gaps between magnetic materials. ie magnetic materials do not store energy they just transfer energy.
So the best types of coil cores for the Joule Thief would have gaps incorporated in them. ie gaped laminate cores or powdered metal cores (the gap is between the metal particles) The coils should to be wound over the gaps for the best result or equally spaced on the powdered metal cores.
Non-gaped laminate and ferrite cores make excellent transformers but poor energy storage inductors.
:)
-
See the following
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg20464#msg20464 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg20464#msg20464)
for the secret behind the Joule Thief and FLEET.
The attached diagram is the Output over Input Power Comparison. Enjoy
-
See the following
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg20464#msg20464 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg20464#msg20464)
for the secret behind the Joule Thief and FLEET.
The attached diagram is the Output over Input Power Comparison. Enjoy
I think you have something here.
I have been thinking of something for a while but I dont have the ability to really test it.
Most of Teslas later work involved spark gaps.....these insured a high rate of change but would also require relatively high voltage.
From what I understand the Howard Johnson motor used around 2000V
I understand the Gray conversion tube used 3000V
A joule thief creates a pulse with very high rate of change.
What would happen if someone amplified the output of a joule thief?
What would happen if someone used a joule thief to charge a capacitor to lets say 1000V ......then pulsed that with a signal from a second joule thief.
Any guesses what the BEMF pulses from a 1000V joule thief would be?
It seems to me that if you fed an 1000V joule thief type pulse into the right sized transformer you would have a delay line generator.
Nothing really new here.......but in my opinion using joule thiefs for the high voltage supply and for the pulse supply would make the circuit smaller and cheaper.
gary
-
I think you have something here.
I have been thinking of something for a while but I dont have the ability to really test it.
Most of Teslas later work involved spark gaps.....these insured a high rate of change but would also require relatively high voltage.
From what I understand the Howard Johnson motor used around 2000V
I understand the Gray conversion tube used 3000V
A joule thief creates a pulse with very high rate of change.
What would happen if someone amplified the output of a joule thief?
What would happen if someone used a joule thief to charge a capacitor to lets say 1000V ......then pulsed that with a signal from a second joule thief.
Any guesses what the BEMF pulses from a 1000V joule thief would be?
It seems to me that if you fed an 1000V joule thief type pulse into the right sized transformer you would have a delay line generator.
Nothing really new here.......but in my opinion using joule thiefs for the high voltage supply and for the pulse supply would make the circuit smaller and cheaper.
gary
I have played with this idea a little.
I have a few suggestions for anyone that wants to play with the idea
I suggest using a bridge as a voltage clipper on the output of the pulse supply JT
The output of that bridge would go back to source......so your source battery should be at the voltage you want to have feeding the gate of your MOSFET or IGBT
I burnt up quite a few IGBTs trying to tailor the joule thief to the right output to feed the IGBT before I started using a bridge as a clipper.
I fed the output of the pulse JT into a bridge.....both posative and negative legs of the bridge go to the gate, the negative through a resistor.
This resistor will vary depending on other circuit components.
10M might be a good place to start.
The negative connection is to keep an IGBT turned fully off......but should allow faster switching with MOSFETs.
I have not yet ramped up to high voltages........but I have been playing.
I dont have a scope.....my way of testing to make sure I have pulses rather than a simple DC signal is to run it through a transformer.
an output on the transformer secondary means I have a pulse.
gary
-
I think you have something here.
I have been thinking of something for a while but I dont have the ability to really test it.
Most of Teslas later work involved spark gaps.....these insured a high rate of change but would also require relatively high voltage.
From what I understand the Howard Johnson motor used around 2000V
I understand the Gray conversion tube used 3000V
A joule thief creates a pulse with very high rate of change.
What would happen if someone amplified the output of a joule thief?
What would happen if someone used a joule thief to charge a capacitor to lets say 1000V ......then pulsed that with a signal from a second joule thief.
Any guesses what the BEMF pulses from a 1000V joule thief would be?
It seems to me that if you fed an 1000V joule thief type pulse into the right sized transformer you would have a delay line generator.
Nothing really new here.......but in my opinion using joule thiefs for the high voltage supply and for the pulse supply would make the circuit smaller and cheaper.
gary
Dear Gary,
The Taiwan LED Manufacturer is improving their LED Hat product shown to use one single battery and prolong the life of that battery many times.
That should not come as a surprise to you or the many long time Joule Thief Researchers. The surprise is that they use Two Atten Oscilloscopes to hunt for the “right configurationâ€. That put them in very solid scientific footing.
There is a very strong possibility of significant Government funding in the near future. There is talk of giving every US Law Maker and/or every United Nation Representative in New York a “forever lasting†LED Hat.
Overunity Research will get a boost??? Keep up your excellent work. Money will seek the experts. I strongly suggest that you get at least one Oscilloscope with csv file capability or work with someone with such a device.
Divine wine is for all.
-
Dear Gary,
The Taiwan LED Manufacturer is improving their LED Hat product shown to use one single battery and prolong the life of that battery many times.
That should not come as a surprise to you or the many long time Joule Thief Researchers. The surprise is that they use Two Atten Oscilloscopes to hunt for the “right configurationâ€. That put them in very solid scientific footing.
There is a very strong possibility of significant Government funding in the near future. There is talk of giving every US Law Maker and/or every United Nation Representative in New York a “forever lasting†LED Hat.
Overunity Research will get a boost??? Keep up your excellent work. Money will seek the experts. I strongly suggest that you get at least one Oscilloscope with csv file capability or work with someone with such a device.
Divine wine is for all.
Itseung
I am glad to see that someone from the corporate world is using JT type technology
As far as giving hats at the lawmakers to impress them ......what do you think will impress them more a hat with LEDs that last very a long time or a big fat check from an energy related PAC.
Our elected officials vote according to their PACs all the time......so the checks just keep rolling in.
I will believe the govenment will take free energy serious only when we have a multi billion dollar free energy PAC to buy their loyalty
I do believe that there is free energy in our future........but it will be in spite of our governments not because of them
`````````````````````
I have been looking into getting an Ocilloscope from time to time.
The little cheap ones are getting better......but for the things I would want to do I would need one that was fast and could handle high voltage...
gary
-
I thought I might contribute a 'what not to do' maybe save someone in 101 from having a lot of problems.
I was testing my joule theives with an adjustable DC power supply, something like 0-30V and/or 0-3A...
My first one, I wound on about 8 turns of iron fence wire, ended up using about 24 inches of phone patch wire around that, and before I remembered that this thing was supposed to run off of very small voltage (dead AA batteries < 1.5V) I fed this with like 12V+ and ended up popping a couple transistors (they now read open in all directions :) ) . I did get this to work, but it requires like 0.06A 0.6V to minimally light an LED. I tried all sorts of modifications, smaller turns (1inch inner diameter), more wire at the smallest, so my first was 1x, second 2x and third 4x. The last worked sort of the best, but then when I went back to my first, it had a better spike earlier on. (yes this is all subjective, maybe i'll try and edit this later to include some pictures. I finally stumbled on a ferrite toroid. Wound aobut 2/3 the length of the wire I had been using on it, and wow did that make a difference. Could light an LED with 0.00A and 0.3V :) Limitations of equipment... but I could like 4 with like 0.02A and 0.6V...
I have a couple 6 meter coils that I put on a iron axel of some sort, and connected the coils in opposing direction just like a JT.... these actually worked pretty well, but required a bit of current to get a good flux exchange.
I did learn intersting things like the more current you put into an Iron toroid, the higher the frequency goes, until a certain point. With the ferrite, the less current I put in the higher the frequency, so at like ground 0 it's already way ahead of the frequency of the Iron... I think I could turn it down just below it turning off that the frequency would go back up as if on the other side of the low current side of lower frequency. Defintely bying some real ferrites :)
Oh the other thing I was trying was seeing what effect magnets had on the core, with Iron there was 0 perceptable effect, on the ferrite, alinging the magnet N/S along the circumferance of the torus was the best performane. (was on a spot the torus that had no windings). Putting the magnet in various direction in the center of the torus was basically just asking the cirtuit to stop working altogether. Figured if I had a magnet mounted on the side, good way to adjust the frequency would be to just turn the magnet from aligned along the ring to vertical to the ring (which is basically the same frequency as not having the magnet). Was playing with variuos configurations with multiple magnets but didn't get anything very useful.
So what to conclude: don't use stranded iron cores if you want a small, elegant joule theif. You need higher current to get the same magnetic flux induction, or many more windings.
Also in all my coils I couldn't use a resistor bigger than 33 ohms connecting the control coil to the base... actually I had to short it with a 2Ohm resistor to get it to work, finally removed the resistor altogether. The base never went to a high enough voltage to trigger with like any resistance there. (was using a MPSA06, well was using 2n2222's but blew up 2 of them trying to see if more voltage would make it work; [right if all else fails, use a bigger hammer?]) Was still afriad of putting more than 0.5A through it, but tested up to 0.89 a few times (even at the 1.5V limit on the other side)
A person early on in this thread said they had JT's wound on air, copper, everything else and that it was impossible to make one that didn't work; I really beg to differ, I had a horribly hard time making my stranded iron cores work. And a magnet sticks to it better than to the ferrite core.
Use ferrite!
-
Itseung
I am glad to see that someone from the corporate world is using JT type technology
I do believe that there is free energy in our future........but it will be in spite of our governments not because of them
`````````````````````
gary
I was discussing this with an India Engineer. The discussion focused on the arrogance of the average American who had been spoiled by their past successes. The attitude is - “how could an old retiree with limited resources from a backward Country solved the Energy Crisis�
He came to watch the demonstration with an American. He did much more reading and tried the Joule Thief building but his American friend laughed at him.
The likely result is that someone from “a backward country†will produce an overunity product and then US will play the catch-up. It will not take too long. Some predicted the end of the world would come on December 20, 2012. It may be the end of the old world that relied on fossil fuel.
The scientific evidence is here and can be repeated even in the most backward countries. Will integrity or arrogance win???
-
The likely result is that someone from “a backward country†will produce an overunity product and then US will play the catch-up. It will not take too long. Some predicted the end of the world would come on December 20, 2012. It may be the end of the old world that relied on fossil fuel.
The scientific evidence is here and can be repeated even in the most backward countries. Will integrity or arrogance win???
Will integrety or arrogance win?
easy question........arrogance has won every time so far.
Lets say your backward country inventer came up with a great little free energy machine.
At least one of the arrogant people with more money than brains would offer them a boat load of money for it......if the inventer takes the money his invention is never seen again.......if he does not take the money they resort to charactor assanation and threats.
There is nothing honorable or just about the people that are controling these situations.
If your inventor tries to make money from his free energy machine he will loose the battle........The cards are stacked against the free energy inventer ........and the dealer knows exactly what cards are on the table.
gary
-
A person early on in this thread said they had JT's wound on air, copper, everything else and that it was impossible to make one that didn't work; I really beg to differ, I had a horribly hard time making my stranded iron cores work. And a magnet sticks to it better than to the ferrite core.
Use ferrite!
I do not know who said that.......it is true in part.
Air core JTs can work.....but I had problems making big air core JTs.
I see no benifit to a copper core.
Bismuth did not work
Like you I had trouble with Iron core JTs.......whether it was powered a powered iron toroid plain iron or black iron oxide.....I am sure they can be made to work with enough power ........but why bother.
In support of anything working........if you use a base resistor and put a fairly good sized capacitor across the resistor to make a tank circuit even 10 or more ft of twisted pair will work as a JT......just connect the end to the beginning of the other wire and fire it up.
-
Just thought I would update my information on what I called candy cane coils
I called them candy cane coils because on my first ones the windings spiraled around the stack of toroids like the stripes on a candy cane.
Now I would call them modular coils.
If you have a project calling for a large ferrite toroid but you only have smaller toroids you can split the windings of both the primary and secondary over a number of smaller toroids.
The total number of primary turns VS the total number of secondary turns seems to work out almost as if it was one large toroid.
It can also work to put your primary on 1 toroid and leave a long wire to connect with the collector........this wire can then go through quite a few toroids......any windings on these toroids become secondarys...... I suggest going for fairly high voltage in the primary if you try this.
If you dont need alot of power from your secondarys just passing the wire going to the collector through the center of the toroids may be enough.....wrapping then around the toroids increases the power but usually lowers the voltage.
-
Here is a video tutorial from makemagazine for a Solar Joule thief bracelet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghB2irHIN8I&feature=related
-
Gadget:
Wow, the little JT circuit is really getting around everywhere now. That is a cool application.
Bill
-
Hi sierraloewe,
After you have made your first jt and it works, then it is time to delve into those questions.
Follow the makezine or evilmadscientist youtube as closely as you can.
The gauge I use for the primary bifilar is 24awg. I got this from a telephone extension cord.
The length you will need to make this first one will be about 14 inches of each wire.
This depends on the fatness and diameter of your toroid, so this is just a guess. (I use a small one and it takes 11 inches of each wire and is very generous.)
After you have made a plain joule thief make a second one exactly the same way. Put the led into the led spot but do not solder it.
Remove the led when you prove that the circuit works.
Now, wind a secondary.
The choice of gauge for the secondary is up to you.
The thinner wire will make higher voltage, but the problem with really thin wire (like 30awg from radio shack) is the insulation is easily scratched. If it gets scratched you will have little to no voltage from your output.
One more thing about the secondary.
The side of the primary that connects to the collector coil is the part that is being "transformed" so, if you have 10 turns on the collector side (you do now if you are following the makezine video) Then double that will be 20. So, make your first secondary with 20 turns.
This will give you a starting point for reference voltages.
Now, you have 2 very useful circuits.
1-the plain jt is the best way to get the last bit of joules out of the battery. It makes a terrific emergency light.
2- The battery needs to be a little higher for the secondary to work. There are exceptions to this, but most of the ones that use a secondary run down after the battery is at about 1.1v.
So, you use the jt with secondary then when it is no longer bright you switch that battery to the plain jt.
This does not apply to a rechargeable battery.
Do not use a rechargeable in a plain jt, because it is not good for batteries to be so thoroughly drained.
(I could never figure out why but it seems to be so.)
After you have made these 2 you can start experimenting.
I have found that it is very important to make the wires wound snugly onto the toroid.
It is possible to have a good one that is loosely wound but if you want high voltage... get it tight around and try to have as many winds as you can actually in contact with the ferrite.
(I believe there is a difference in opinion about loosely wound together, but this is not about wound together, this is about being tightly wound on the toroid itself.)
That toroid is a powerful source of "something" that makes high volts.
I hope this helps.
jeanna
I noticed you said not to use deep cycle batteries that have been completely discharged. I don't know if this is off topic but have you tried recharging them with the Bedini school girl charger? Just curious.
-
Hi all,
after months of lengthy conversation with a couple of my guitar-builders
I think I can explain the resonant operation of a joule thief circuit, in a manner which the technicians and builders can more easily understand.
(and replicate)
the biggest problem I have encountered when discussion self-resonant JT operation, is other builders cannot seem to get them to operate
in a resonance mode.
Several heated discussions, have led to the understanding of SRF with respect to the LRC portion of the circuit.
However, the transistor function seems to cause problems for many.
I have tried to explain the process of "tuning" the base resistor, while observing scope image of the primary transformer winding.
What I kept getting as a response, was asymmetric scope images of the transistor switching
(I assumed they were measuring across the LED (diode).....)
These scope images were sent to me and/or posted in multiple JT threads, displaying a sharp increase in voltage during the "switching on" time.
And an elongated (delayed) voltage decrease during the "switching off" time.
Part of this I have found to be a function of certain LEDs. They store energy across the diode (capacitance), which dissipates over time after the LED is switched off. meaning there is still current flowing through the diode after the transistor is off, and the production of "light". This can result in a misleading scope image. I state now - the (indicator) LED is not an essential part of the Joule Thief Circuit.
It is simply an indicator to let you know the JT is in operation.
Remove the LED, and the Joule Thief will continue to operate.
Now the scope image, across the coil, does not include the diode bias discharge.
Still I was receiving similar responses - they could not get their JT to run in a resonance mode.
At some point I gave up trying to explain this to people, because they just wanted to argue rather than try to understand what I was explaining.
Similar scopeshots of an asymmetric transistor switching were presented, and this was a sort of 'road block' to the communication process.
Anyways, my recent discussions with JT builders has given me a new perspective (and perhaps new terminology) that others may understand.
there is a voltage bias (different for each transistor) which sets the switching function into what is called in the transistor world
"linear mode" This term is derived from power graphs, in which the function is linear.
With the voltage biased within this range, an A/C waveform translates perfectly across the transistor.
People in the radio world already know this, because such is necessary to use a transistor for analog frequency response.
But I have found, that digital techs often know nothing about this mode of operation.
Each transistor can switch in a purely sinusoidal fashion when the base resistor is biased to within the voltage range of this "linear mode" of operation.
Within this linear mode, changes in the bias voltage results in a range of operating frequencies.
The SRF of the circuit should be designed to within these parameters.
Most standard JT designs are capable of this.
It is simply a matter of adjusting the base resistor to match the self-resonant frequency rest of the LRC circuit.
This is evident in the scope shot across the coil, As the waveform will become perfectly symmetrical.
When this occurs, the JT circuit will output the highest possible voltage and current for the input.
And as such, this is the most efficient way to use the JT circuit.
This is the difference between a Joule Thief powering a light for a few days,
vs JT's that have been running now for years.
all off what we would consider to be a "mostly dead battery".
meaning, one that has been drained below the operation conditions of most equipment.
So, when starting with two similarly drained batteries, why such a great discrepancy in run times?
In non-resonant operation, a JT circuit wastes a lot of energy, bucking against the natural frequency response of the coil.
This generates heat and EMF radiation. Because the field collapse and the charging function have a gap in time. and/or are an asymmetrical function, due to unsynchronized transistor on/off times.
When the transistor is in linear mode of operation, the sine-wave from the coil (through the base resistor), draws current from the battery, corresponding to the waveform. If you take a current scope shot of the signal in this mode of operation, you find the current also follows the same sinusoidal waveform.
slightly advanced ahead of the voltage. (~90-degrees)
I hope this helps, I haven't quite given up trying to deliver this message... it just gets frustrating with the language barrier, when it comes to technical terminology, differences between engineers and techs, etc...
People either have a hard time understanding what im trying to say, or they take a term in another context than the one in which I was trying to deliver it...
anyways, apparently the proper name for this mode of transistor operation is called "linear mode" in the technician world.
It is listed in the technical specs of the transistor - so you can get a feel for the biased voltage range of the base resistor.
The number of turns in the coil should correspond to this range of voltages, and by proxy, affects the SRF of the particular circuit.
-
I think the problem is that any investigation into a JT circuit should be done in two steps. The first step should be to understand how it operates in normal mode. The second step is then to explore any possible self-resonant modes. However, if it is running in some kind of self-resonant mode, then it is not really a JT any more, it's an oscillator.
Then there is another problem. If you take a JT circuit and play with component values and turn it into an oscillator, then your claims of it running better and longer than a regular JT circuit would have to be proven on the bench. A transistor operating in the linear region means that the transistor is acting like a resistor and continuously dissipating power. Likewise the LED is continuously dissipating power. One would think that the JT has an advantage here because it is a switching circuit where for most of the duty cycle the LED and transistor are not dissipating power. Presumably oscillator operation demands that the battery still be capable of outputting some minimum voltage under load, whereas the whole idea behind the JT is that it can operate at very low minimum battery voltages, presumably lower than that of the comparable oscillator. So the proof has to be in the pudding.
Also to be more accurate, most of the time the transistor is switched ON in a JT circuit and it is energizing the main coil and dissipating power. However during this time the power consumption of the input side of the transistor is quite low. Then when the transistor switches OFF the main coil dumps its stored energy though the LED to light it up. So there is definitely near-continuous power dissipation associated with a JT circuit.
I always thought an interesting comparison would be between a CMOS 555 timer circuit with very carefully selected components lighting an LED and a JT circuit. The CMOS 555 timer circuit can't operate at the very low voltages of a JT circuit but it probably would have a lower power overhead to keep it operating compared to a JT circuit. You wonder which circuit would give you better overall performance in the long run.
-
I think the problem is that any investigation into a JT circuit should be done in two steps. The first step should be to understand how it operates in normal mode. The second step is then to explore any possible self-resonant modes. However, if it is running in some kind of self-resonant mode, then it is not really a JT any more, it's an oscillator.
Then there is another problem. If you take a JT circuit and play with component values and turn it into an oscillator, then your claims of it running better and longer than a regular JT circuit would have to be proven on the bench. A transistor operating in the linear region means that the transistor is acting like a resistor and continuously dissipating power. Likewise the LED is continuously dissipating power. One would think that the JT has an advantage here because it is a switching circuit where for most of the duty cycle the LED and transistor are not dissipating power. Presumably oscillator operation demands that the battery still be capable of outputting some minimum voltage under load, whereas the whole idea behind the JT is that it can operate at very low minimum battery voltages, presumably lower than that of the comparable oscillator. So the proof has to be in the pudding.
Also to be more accurate, most of the time the transistor is switched ON in a JT circuit and it is energizing the main coil and dissipating power. However during this time the power consumption of the input side of the transistor is quite low. Then when the transistor switches OFF the main coil dumps its stored energy though the LED to light it up. So there is definitely near-continuous power dissipation associated with a JT circuit.
I always thought an interesting comparison would be between a CMOS 555 timer circuit with very carefully selected components lighting an LED and a JT circuit. The CMOS 555 timer circuit can't operate at the very low voltages of a JT circuit but it probably would have a lower power overhead to keep it operating compared to a JT circuit. You wonder which circuit would give you better overall performance in the long run.
I think a decent JT circuit would win this competition with the 555. ONLY because it takes some energy to run the 555...and that is the only reason.
There is no magic to the JT BUT, we who experimented with them in the early days were told that conventional electronic theory explained them. This, of course, is true. My complaint was, then, why were they not being used in our electronics stuff? Shortly thereafter, we saw those led garden lights, as well as many other items that actually were using a JT type circuit to its advantages. Now I am happy. Now we have chips that do this with minimum input and they are being used in everyday devices. This answers my question from back then.
Still, no magic, no free lunch, no output more than input...just a good way to use most of the energy in a battery and get more light from leds than you otherwise could.
Damn MH, you and I used to argue about this all of the time and now I have to admit that you were right. There is no "magic".
Son of a bitch, ha ha.
Bill
I still have not seen anyone else light 400 leds from a 'dead" AA battery like I have done. No magic there either, just the right circuit for the desired outcome.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5x8T2UkuI
8)
-
Also to be more accurate, most of the time the transistor is switched ON in a JT circuit and it is energizing the main coil and dissipating power.
You are forgetting the reluctance factor of the inductor in self-resonance.
-
You are forgetting the reluctance factor of the inductor in self-resonance.
I am not sure of what you mean by that. The more information the better when discussing electronics.
-
I think a decent JT circuit would win this competition with the 555. ONLY because it takes some energy to run the 555...and that is the only reason.
I am assuming that it would take tens of microwatts to run the 555 including the carefully selected timing components (the "overhead" not counting flashing the LED) and the equivalent overhead for the JT would be on the order of milliwatts. So if you are talking about very long run times it may be an interesting competition. Of course you would have to put the actual LED flashing on a level playing field.
There was a chip from the mid 1970s, the LM3909, that was also a very efficient LED flasher. You can look it up. In fact, it looks to me like it may be more efficient because it doesn't use any inductive components. It might make for a three-way horse race.
-
What are they made of, gold and diamond dust? The cheapest I can find LM3909 is around 4 dollars each, from china, and even in quantity. Some people want much more than that. My favorite Chinese vendor UTSource wants $31.25 for a lot of 5 (but has another listing for 1 for $4.00). Go figure.
A couple of sellers in the UK want over $17 for _one_ (but with free shipping.)
So I'm not going to be testing one any time soon, unless someone else donates one or two to me.
-
Rob Paisley has "reverse engineered" the LM3909 so that it can be simulated with discrete components.
http://home.cogeco.ca/~rpaisley4/LM3909.html
Looks like an interesting project, but I still don't think it will compete with a JT. The Data Sheet for the LM3909 gives an "LED Boost" circuit that will drive an LED from 1.5 volt battery at 2 kHz... but it says it draws 4 mA. Presumably that is an average, or equivalent-continuous, current drain. In which case, unless the LED is unusually brilliant.... well, it's not really that great.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5x8T2UkuI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5x8T2UkuI)
8)
Nice video TK, wow that is really small. Very cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmTc0PwiyY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmTc0PwiyY)
Here is a vid from Ludic Science making a JT without a transistor. He said he is replicating Lidmotor's circuit...I had forgotten about that one This is pretty simple and cool. I suppose it is really just a very simple and basic relay/solenoid type device but man, I would have never thought of this in a million years.
Bill
Here is Lidmotor's original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjqBRXU3XnU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjqBRXU3XnU)
-
Even smaller:
-
I am not sure of what you mean by that. The more information the better when discussing electronics.
ummm
ok
Ampere Turns per Weber
Reluctance (R) = MagnetoMotive Force (Ampere-turns) divided by Flux in Webers.
Hopkinson's law
Length of the wire divided by the cross-sectional area times the magnetic permeability of the material....
It translates directly to Henries, of magnitude, and in self-resonance, reluctance becomes = 0.
The capacitive counterpart also disappears and the capacitor itself takes on a purely inductive behavior.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=http://140.114.17.97/circuit/ch14.htm&prev=search (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=http://140.114.17.97/circuit/ch14.htm&prev=search)
In the future if you want to play ignorant with me,.. please go back and delete all your posts where you discuss the details of that which you claim to not know......
-
No, I am simply asking you what kind of point you are trying to make, I was not asking you for definitions. I made a point that the JT circuit was basically continuously drawing power from the supply battery under normal operation and your response was, "You are forgetting the reluctance factor of the inductor in self-resonance."
What kind of a connection are you making and what kind of point are you trying to make? I know what self-resonance of a coil is but I don't know what you mean by "reluctance factor" here. I know what the reluctance of a magnetic flux path is. A coil with a core material in self-resonance will act as an AC short-circuit and you are left with the DC resistance of the wire. Presumably the core material will also burn off a certain amount of power due to hysteresis.
If I assume a standard JT circuit but no explanation for how it is operating as an oscillator and how self-resonance of the coil ties into all of this and what a "reluctance factor" is and having no timing diagrams, I am simply not sure what you are meaning and what kind of point you are trying to get across.
Call it a little pet peeve of mine if you want, but the forums have thousands of "discussions" about electronics by people with limited knowledge of electronics with no schematics to reference and no timing diagrams. In almost every case they are pretentious nonsense discussions that don't really mean anything and are in essence unworkable wild speculation in the from of a fake back-and-forth dialogue between two posters that is disconnected from the reality of the circuit.
-
Even smaller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekPh9p4YECE
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekPh9p4YECE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekPh9p4YECE)
Brad:
Nice. I have about 40 of those led garden light circuit boards lying around here, those chips they use make a decent JT.
Is that button cell 3 volts or 1.5? Will it run those down to low voltage as well?
Bill
-
No, I am simply asking you what kind of point you are trying to make, I was not asking you for definitions. I made a point that the JT circuit was basically continuously drawing power from the supply battery under normal operation and your response was, "You are forgetting the reluctance factor of the inductor in self-resonance."
What kind of a connection are you making and what kind of point are you trying to make? I know what self-resonance of a coil is but I don't know what you mean by "reluctance factor" here. I know what the reluctance of a magnetic flux path is. A coil with a core material in self-resonance will act as an AC short-circuit and you are left with the DC resistance of the wire. Presumably the core material will also burn off a certain amount of power due to hysteresis.
yes. That IS the point I am trying to make. magnetic reluctance becomes non-effective in the circuit. There is no effective "resistance" placed on the wire by the induction of the core material.
Yet, the core material still becomes energized, and the resultant field collapse represents itself through the coils inductance. Hysteresis is minimized in resonant operation of the core. The flux graph is sinusoidal as well, 90-degrees to the electric.
If I assume a standard JT circuit but no explanation for how it is operating as an oscillator and how self-resonance of the coil ties into all of this and what a "reluctance factor" is and having no timing diagrams, I am simply not sure what you are meaning and what kind of point you are trying to get across.
Call it a little pet peeve of mine if you want, but the forums have thousands of "discussions" about electronics by people with limited knowledge of electronics with no schematics to reference and no timing diagrams. In almost every case they are pretentious nonsense discussions that don't really mean anything and are in essence unworkable wild speculation in the from of a fake back-and-forth dialogue between two posters that is disconnected from the reality of the circuit.
to that I agree.
The "reality" of the circuit, was presented by Edwin Armstrong in 1912. This is designed to be a resonant tank circuit. It was used exclusively in the Steven Mark TPU, as the prime exciter.
The same technology which powered radios in the 1940's before we had commercial batteries.
these radios (although not very loud) required no external power source. Not only that, they were well known at the time, for building up radio interference waves that would disrupt signals for miles around the device. Which ultimately led to its' replacement by a less invasive technology.
"Constructive Interference", "Positive Feedback"
If you somehow missed this point during the 136,000 pages of Joule Thief discussion, then I apologize for jumping on your case. I assumed you already knew what we were talking about here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern day "joule thieves" place switching transistors in digital mode with inefficient diodes, successfully destroying the resonant effect.
There is still "some effect", because of the natural SRF of the circuit being the dominant factor between the inductor and the tank. but it is disrupted during each cycle, thus a heavier drain on the source than a resonant LRC would or should represent in ideal operation.
This is why a modern day analysis of a JT circuit, observes a wide range of inefficiencies in the circuit.
It is a simple concept, which Americans are indoctrinated to NOT observe.
they teach us these things are bad in circuits, and every way to get RID of this effect.
simply reverse your training to do the opposite.
invite these extra energy levels to build up all they want to :)
like strumming a string over the resonant cavity of the guitar.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are two images of transistors switching. the one on the left is a transistor operating outside of linear mode. There no be resonance when the transistor scope shot looks like this.
The image on the right shows a transistor operating in the range of its' linear mode of operation. due to the particular circuit it is in, it is biased slightly below the actual linear value, but still within the range.
Notice, that the signal shown on the scope is the input signal, NOT the transistor function.
-
if you look closely to the image on the right, you notice the 6th harmonic representing itself as a positive feedback spike. this is not part of the original input signal, but part of the output of the tank.
-
Smoky2:
It sounds to me like you have a moderate case of "resonance fetish" for lack of a better term. The idea that resonance is somehow special and suggesting that students of electronics are "indoctrinated to NOT observe (it)" is all part and parcel of the fetish.
For starters, I sometimes agonize about the concept of an inductor in self-resonance. In the real world of electronics, that just means that the inductor is crapping out and failing to function as an inductor at the self-resonant frequency. It's something that an electronics designer wants to avoid, not "take advantage of." I also agonize about my comment about the inductor acting like a series LC circuit at self-resonance and having minimum AC impedance. My first intuitive sense is that the model for an inductor is like a parallel LC circuit as shown in the attached diagram. That means it has maximum impedance at self-resonance.
This is all backed up in this link: http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/self-resonant_frequency_of_inductors.htm (http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/self-resonant_frequency_of_inductors.htm)
So I am unsure about this discussion and the answer is ultimately to be found in an actual circuit under test on the bench. I will just repeat that it is essentially impossible to have a hypothetical discussion like we are having with no circuit, no explanation for how it operates, no schematic, and no timing diagrams.
Now, going back to the basic Joule Thief model, you seem to be implying that if it was operating in some kind of self-resonant mode of the main inductor that forms the transformer core of the device, then it would outperform a comparable Joule Thief operating in its normal mode at a given operating frequency as a switching device. I have no data at all about that, but my instincts are telling me that that is highly unlikely.
Note that a Joule Thief when operating normally has nothing to do with resonance, which I assume you would agree. It is just a switching device operating at a given frequency based on component values.
Going back to a Joule Thief operating in some kind of "self-resonant mode" there are lots of issues to ponder about that. For starters, the transistor can only draw current through the main coil in one direction, but resonance means that current is supposed to flow in two directions, so that is somewhat of a paradox. If the transistor is operating in its linear region, then that means within the signal there is a DC current drain from the battery through the main coil through the transistor to ground. So that can't be good for the efficiency of the JT overall because the coil and the transistor are both acting like dumb resistors and producing heat. Also, in true resonance, there is no magnetic field collapse that outputs energy into a useful load like the LED. Instead, the magnetic field collapse goes back into the electric field inside the coil.
The bottom line is this: I am sure you can mange to hack a JT circuit so that some kind of high frequency oscillation takes place and the LED lights up. I am not convinced at all that that is related to the self-resonant frequency of the main coil of the JT transformer at all. I would suspect that any operation at the true self-resonant frequency of the main coil would not really work, the circuit would crap out. Rather, I suspect that the oscillation is based on some kind of positive feedback between the transistor acting as an amplification device and the JT transformer with some kind of capacitive coupling through a transistor junction being a critical element in the feedback loop. No matter the case, an investigation into exactly why and how it is oscillating would require some pretty decent electronics smarts and very decent bench skills of which very few on this forum would be in a position to do. I doubt that I would be able to do it myself unaided but I would be able to follow it and understand it. It is highly likely that any kind of oscillation mode will light up the JT more efficiently than the JT operating as a simple switching device that energizes an inductor and then discharges it through a LED.
MileHigh
-
Smoky2:
Some more comments.
You make reference to resonant radio circuits as in a crystal radio, and I don't see how that applies here.
Modern day "joule thieves" place switching transistors in digital mode with inefficient diodes, successfully destroying the resonant effect.
Yes, but what is implicit in what I say about the JT in oscillation in my previous posting is that there is no "resonant effect" in the way you are suggesting. There is no special advantageous "effect" that people are "destroying." I don't know what you mean by "inefficient diodes."
There is still "some effect", because of the natural SRF of the circuit being the dominant factor between the inductor and the tank. but it is disrupted during each cycle, thus a heavier drain on the source than a resonant LRC would or should represent in ideal operation.
Well like I said, the "self-resonant frequency" of the JT circuit in normal operation has zero to do with resonance and what it really is simply an operating frequency based on component values. It's like for a 555 timer where you select component values. There is no resonance taking place in a 555 timer when it operates as an astable multivibrator. So there is no partial "effect."
It is a simple concept, which Americans are indoctrinated to NOT observe.
they teach us these things are bad in circuits, and every way to get RID of this effect.
simply reverse your training to do the opposite.
Sorry but I think it is worth hammering home the point that there is no indoctrination, nothing "bad," no "effect" and no "negative training." There is no true "alternative way to look at a Joule Thief circuit that 'they' 'don't want you to know.'" Rather, if you want to learn and master switching circuits then great. if you want to learn and master basic oscillator circuits using various feedback loops then great. When you have a mastery of both types of circuits, then can you set up scenarios where switching circuits with built-in amplification will edge towards self-oscillation and understand the whys and the hows? You bet you can do this if you climb up the learning and experience curve.
So anyway, I wrote this all up to demystify your prose and bring the discussion back to something more rooted in the mundane reality of life. There is absolutely nothing special about Joule Thief circuits and there is absolutely no "hidden knowledge to uncover" about Joule Thief circuits. If a Joule Thief circuit can be coaxed into oscillating, then the real thing to do is understand why if you are so inclined. However, if you are just looking at the net result - how much perceived LED brightness do I get for a given amount of power input, I seriously doubt that any non-standard Joule Thief oscillation mode will outperform a Joule Thief in normal operation mode.
MileHigh
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekPh9p4YECE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekPh9p4YECE)
Very nice! I wish I could grow peas that big in my garden!
I wonder how small your circuit would be if you put it on a circuit board, with input and output connectors so you could use 2 or 3 LEDs in series and run them off of assorted dead button cells without soldering anything.
Somewhere I drew up the circuits using two different types of chips from garden lights but I can't find them at the moment, I have so many different JT circuits in various places on this computer. It's getting hard to remember where I put stuff.
-
Brad:
Nice. I have about 40 of those led garden light circuit boards lying around here, those chips they use make a decent JT.
Is that button cell 3 volts or 1.5? Will it run those down to low voltage as well?
Bill
Hi Bill
Yes,the garden light IC's are extremely small. The battery is a 1.5v battery--that is why you need the small inductor. It will run down to a battery voltage of about .6v.
Brad
-
Very nice! I wish I could grow peas that big in my garden!
I wonder how small your circuit would be if you put it on a circuit board, with input and output connectors so you could use 2 or 3 LEDs in series and run them off of assorted dead button cells without soldering anything.
Somewhere I drew up the circuits using two different types of chips from garden lights but I can't find them at the moment, I have so many different JT circuits in various places on this computer. It's getting hard to remember where I put stuff.
Well the LED is just a 5mm LED,and the pea was from a frozen packet of pea's--nothing large at all-well no here any way.
I doubt very much that the small garden light chip would drive 3 LED's as bright as you have yours going there though.
Your circuits seem to be as well organized on your computer as mine are--all over the place,burried in many different files/folders :)
Brad
-
Smoky2:
For starters, I sometimes agonize about the concept of an inductor in self-resonance. In the real world of electronics, that just means that the inductor is crapping out and failing to function as an inductor at the self-resonant frequency. It's something that an electronics designer wants to avoid, not "take advantage of." I also agonize about my comment about the inductor acting like a series LC circuit at self-resonance and having minimum AC impedance. My first intuitive sense is that the model for an inductor is like a parallel LC circuit as shown in the attached diagram. That means it has maximum impedance at self-resonance.
The irony of this situation, is that you defend your position by quoting said indoctrinated sources....
"electronics designer wants to avoid",.. hmm why is that? do you think? Is it because the results become unpredictable by normal circuit analysis? and "data" as we consider it to be becomes useless or unstable? Thinking of ways to take advantage of this, is exactly what we SHOULD be doing in energy research.
Impedance is a purely electrical function, and at SRF the inductor has a purely capacitive response.
"impedance" through the magnetic portion of the circuit, as you would call it, peaks at a maximum at one half of one half of the waveform (1/4 wave). exactly the opposite occurs when the field collapses, and these two balance each other out perfectly. Hence the term resonance.
Reluctance, on the other hand, which is a purely magnetic function, and at 90-degrees to the electric, this has a value of 0 at SRF, allows the field of the coil to induce a flux in the field of the core material, as a natural response to the resonations within the core itself.
Not as a current-driven forced event.
This is the most important point to get, if nothing else I have stated sinks in.
So I am unsure about this discussion and the answer is ultimately to be found in an actual circuit under test on the bench. I will just repeat that it is essentially impossible to have a hypothetical discussion like we are having with no circuit, no explanation for how it operates, no schematic, and no timing diagrams.
Now, going back to the basic Joule Thief model, you seem to be implying that if it was operating in some kind of self-resonant mode of the main inductor that forms the transformer core of the device, then it would outperform a comparable Joule Thief operating in its normal mode at a given operating frequency as a switching device. I have no data at all about that, but my instincts are telling me that that is highly unlikely.
I hereby give your instincts a challenge. Test this for yourself.
Not just by some arbitrary value like "longer run times",. but by measuring the current draw through the battery or source of the circuit, and compare this to the scope image of the coil across the inductor,
then compare this to the output of a secondary coil around the core.
A transistor in linear mode acts like its comparable diode-tube counterpart.
in fact the transistor could be replaced by a triode or something similar.
or dare I mention using something like a self-oscillating quartz resonator used in certain german watches back in the 80s.....
Note that a Joule Thief when operating normally has nothing to do with resonance, which I assume you would agree. It is just a switching device operating at a given frequency based on component values.
"operating normally" is a vague term when it comes to a device that has been re-engineered in over 100 renditions since Bruce cracked the code on the Steven Marks device....
If you consider a "normally operating joule thief" to be a copy of the one on the Instructables Video
Then yes, I agree it is just a switching device that is most likely oscillating at a frequency incoherent to any SRF of the circuit.
This is because the step-by-step instructions do not include a background of knowledge and education required to understand the true operation of the device. What is given, is a tutorial to build a minimalist version of the oscillator, that is non-self-resonant.
Going back to a Joule Thief operating in some kind of "self-resonant mode" there are lots of issues to ponder about that. For starters, the transistor can only draw current through the main coil in one direction, but resonance means that current is supposed to flow in two directions, so that is somewhat of a paradox. If the transistor is operating in its linear region, then that means within the signal there is a DC current drain from the battery through the main coil through the transistor to ground. So that can't be good for the efficiency of the JT overall because the coil and the transistor are both acting like dumb resistors and producing heat. Also, in true resonance, there is no magnetic field collapse that outputs energy into a useful load like the LED. Instead, the magnetic field collapse goes back into the electric field inside the coil.
This is why I said the LED is just an indicator, meant for dummies to know their "JT" is working....
you can throw the LED away, or bypass its drain on the oscillations, by using a capacitor of appropriate value.
The bottom line is this: I am sure you can mange to hack a JT circuit so that some kind of high frequency oscillation takes place and the LED lights up. I am not convinced at all that that is related to the self-resonant frequency of the main coil of the JT transformer at all. I would suspect that any operation at the true self-resonant frequency of the main coil would not really work, the circuit would crap out. Rather, I suspect that the oscillation is based on some kind of positive feedback between the transistor acting as an amplification device and the JT transformer with some kind of capacitive coupling through a transistor junction being a critical element in the feedback loop. No matter the case, an investigation into exactly why and how it is oscillating would require some pretty decent electronics smarts and very decent bench skills of which very few on this forum would be in a position to do. I doubt that I would be able to do it myself unaided but I would be able to follow it and understand it. It is highly likely that any kind of oscillation mode will light up the JT more efficiently than the JT operating as a simple switching device that energizes an inductor and then discharges it through a LED.
MileHigh
about the circuit crapping out - yes if you take the SRF of most cores and try to run your circuit at that frequency. Better to select a lower resonant node of the cores SRF, which also is an resonant node of the SRF freq. of the LRC of the coil. (and caps if used) - which can be blindly tuned in most cases, by using a variable resistor across the base and carefully observing your oscilloscope.
As for others being able to do this,. yes, read through the JT threads and you see that many are capable of, and do do this.... unfortunately, most of them missed the point, and although they did "tune" into what appeared to be resonant nodes, they usually went right passed them to the nearest peak brightness of the LED, which results in a decay function of the oscillations - more current draw from the source.
This is evident in a few of their scope shots.
sometimes I just feel like im beating my head into the wall... The ones that get it do all sorts of things with this knowledge.. for instance my older brother builds guitar pedals with a JT inside, and never has to worry about replacing the batteries. Most of his house is decked out with LED JT's that have run for years. If he could get one to run his TV hed probably fire the power company.
He's a music major, so he knows all about constructive interference, resonant harmonics, etc...
But even he didn't get it at first. it took me almost 2 years to get him to understand the importance of resonance in this circuit. Once he saw it happen on his scope, it was like a whole world opened up. Now he loves the joule thieves. I go to his house and he has dozens of them, in flashlights, in Altoid Cans, hes taken this further than I ever could. To the point of choosing his own transistors, depending on the waveform he wants, he swears by the old germanium ones. says they work the best.
-
Like in a subwoofer system, a sealed box vs a vented/bass reflex box. The pic below shows the sealed box 3cu ft in yellow and the vented 3cu ft box in green tuned to 30hz.
Just by adding a vent tube of a certain size and certain length to the same box we get a 9db gain at 25hz and nearly 7db at 30 hz. 9db increase is equal to a 3 fold input power increase. Example to increase 9db from 500w input would take 4kw. So just by enabling the use of resonance the output is increased. And in this case there is an increase of some sort across the board of sub listening range.
If so, then why not in an electronic circuit? ;)
Mags
-
Smoky2:
In this response I am going to be somewhat minimalist and not quote you, but I will still respond to what you are saying. The real arbiter of a lot of the points being made is the bench, and I am not in a position to go onto a bench.
I have been watching some debates on YouTube recently about atheism vs. religion and also some debates about evolution vs. creationism. I see a real tangible parallel with this debate where I take the atheist/scientist side and you take the religious/mystical side. I submit to you that you have some ideas that are "out there" about electronics stemming from ignorance and/or false beliefs. Nor do I claim to be an expert on electronics but I can speak reasonably well on the subject. It's worth it for any person with an active mind to look up the YouTube debates I mentioned.
All that being said, some rebuttals:
- I strongly object to the use of the term "indoctrinated" when it comes to getting a formal education about electronics.
- Electronics designers put a component in a circuit to perform a specific function. If the component fails to perform the desired function at the required frequency, then you change the component. Normally there is no chance of finding "advantage" in a situation like this.
- An inductor does not have a "purely capacitive response" at the SRF. That is simply not the definition of what happens at the SRF.
- You talk about a 1/4 wavelength without saying how the fundamental is defined. Nor do I think that transmission line and antenna type concepts apply here but I would leave that to experts like Verpies and others to comment on.
- You relate "resonance" to a field collapse and 1/4 wavelengths. Can you define resonance at the most basic level without even discussing frequency or impedance? it's important to know what it really means.
- Reluctance does not have a value of 0 at SRF and the whole concept is invalid and makes no sense.
- It makes no sense to measure the current craw of a JT and then compare it with the voltage across a coil. On face value that makes no sense and the units are not comparable and you would have to add to what you are saying for it to make sense.
- There is no real point in comparing a transistor to a tube in the sense that yes indeed they can perform similar functions but so what? I fail to see any tangible connection between a transistor operating in linear mode and a quartz timing crystal.
- When I say "operating normally" I am referring to a vanilla JT circuit.
- I would say that the LED is the standard load for a standard JT configuration. If you replace the LED with a capacitor and presumably some kind of useful load is across the capacitor then you have a primitive buck, boost, or buck/boost converter.
- Using a variable base resistor in a JT circuit will change it's operating parameters and everybody does it. In a way it's a shame because the real exercise is supposed to be to determine the optimum value for the base resistor. In a standard JT circuit the base resistor by design is not supposed to be varied.
- I agree that a JT can be tuned but it's not in the way that you are thinking. The real exercise is to experiment with the JT circuit and see how you can change the frequency and energy of the pulse discharge that lights the LED. There are no "resonant modes" to find. Rather, the exercise should be to see what you can do in terms of pulse frequency and energy and initial current and relate that back to perceived brightness and associated power draw. That would be the real exercise in understanding how the JT works as a switching pulse circuit.
- You are simply quoting anecdotal evidence about your brother's experience so far. Everybody knows that a JT circuit will suck a battery dry and the same thing will eventually happen with your brother's projects - he hasn't "struck magic."
- Naturally I can't really comment on your brother's circuits, I can just reiterate that a standard JT circuit has nothing to do with resonance at all.
If I could summarize this succinctly I would say that things have to be done one step at a time. If the JT experimenter could master the original JT first, and truly understood all the issues, then they could look at modifying it and start hacking into it and start getting it to resonate in various ways. However, then it simply wouldn't be a Joule Thief anymore.
Anyway, you can see there is a divide between what I am saying and what you are saying. I disagree with your quasi-mystical descriptions of what a Joule Thief is all about and is capable of doing. There is no point in looking for something esoteric without having a basic and complete understanding of how it works first. The classic example for that is having a JT light a long string of LEDs in series. People will play with that without understanding why that happens. If you truly know how a basic JT works first, then there is no surprise or anything special about a JT lighting a long string of LEDs.
MileHigh
-
@MH
I have been watching some debates on YouTube recently about atheism vs. religion and also some debates about evolution vs. creationism. I see a real tangible parallel with this debate where I take the atheist/scientist side and you take the religious/mystical side. I submit to you that you have some ideas that are "out there" about electronics stemming from ignorance and/or false beliefs. Nor do I claim to be an expert on electronics but I can speak reasonably well on the subject. It's worth it for any person with an active mind to look up the YouTube debates I mentioned.
The innovator's proclaimed we are the future and the critics replied-"you cannot withstand the storm". The innovators responded... "We are the Storm".
Ignorance and false beliefs are subjective and vary in time. They said many technologies were impossible 200 years ago and yet here we are, aren't we?. Thus I can only imagine what is called mystical if not impossible today may become an obvious reality in the future.
I watched those debates on youtube and it was pretty comical. My god that poor old christian soul didn't have a leg to stand on. It reminds me of the good christian soldier who prayed to god each morning then carpet bombed innocent civilians in the afternoon because someone told him to. Uhm... just because someone else told them to and apparently this isn't an issue. Personally, if anyone told me to carpet bomb, maim or torture civilians I would tell them to go fuck themselves but that's just me the Atheist.
In any case I can respect the fact that people are entitled to their own beliefs, I have no issue with that. However they should not expect me to keep a straight face or think they have any credibility when they tell me they believe a bearded man in a white dress created the universe in six days. That wasn't part of the bargain and many seem to confuse the right to believe with the right to be respected for a belief and think it cannot be questioned.
Strange world we live in... never a dull moment.
AC
-
@ Mags
nice presentation
@MH
I can't debate you point over point as you take things out of context...
of course you wouldn't compare only current to only voltage... you compare both to both, over time.
In Physics, the term Resonance is defined as: the reinforcement or prolongation of radiation by reflection from a surface or by the synchronous vibration of a neighboring object. (reverberation)
This definition is very vague and arbitrary and does not describe the details that occur during such an event.
While not every definition of resonance includes the term frequency, or interval of emanation, or any other word used to describe a comparable factor among the components that are said to resonate...
Frequency can be used to compare resonant effects.
The demonstration given above by Mags contains some of those such details.
The most important being that resonant waveforms combine with a particular type of interference.
"Constructive Interference" - this means that along the medium, the two combining waves have a displacement in the same vector. This translates to an increase in Amplitude of the combined waveform, when compared to the original waves. Not all constructive interference is a result of resonance. resonance pertains to a particular relationship between the things "resonating". This can be described as a frequency, or set of frequencies.
You can use other qualities of the resonant waveform to describe it if you wish. I prefer frequencies because it's like an abbreviation, instead of talking about how many times per minute 13 pulses (and their inverse) traveled down the wire....
or some other arbitrary concept used to describe pulses through a circuit.
Similar resonance that occurs with sound, also occurs with all other forms of radiation.
A)Two coherent phase lasers combine with amplitudes that are greater than a simple addition of the two beams.
B)In atomic radiation, close to critical mass, - aside from emissions of high-energy particles causing physical reactions in nearby atoms, there is a radioactive frequency-based effect, that irradiates nearby (nonreactive) atoms, and causes them to resonate at or near the SRF of the reactive atoms. It makes them radioactive. Not by a neutron striking random atoms and increasing their energy levels, but every atom within an irradiated substance increases energy by absorption of the radiating energy into the nuclei. and will radiate this frequency for quite some time. Constructive interference of two radioactive atoms, increases the effective radius of the radiating energy field (with respect to that of a single atom). The energy value for this increase is ^2 (exponential).
C) Heat radiation (in certain discrete conditions) radiates at particular frequencies, or intervals of heat emission.
When two heat waves combine in constructive interference, the amplitude (value of heat) observed at the point of interference, is greater than the addition of the two heat waves.
D) Electricity - when you combine two electrical waveforms in constructive interference, the amplitude of the combined waveform increases as a quantitative factor of the frequency. The "actual" combined waveform is affected by the resistance of the circuit, the speed of propagation, and other factors which make the affect vary slightly from that of sound and light. When these factors are properly taken into account, and invariable constants applied, the resulting complex equation is equivalent to a standard interference analysis as A-c above.
E)Physical Vibration - physical vibrations operate much like a soundwave through a solid mass. Constructive interference of physical vibrations increases in amplitude exactly the same as described above. In addition to the physical waves, there is a component of physical dimension that causes interference feedback. (resonant cavity)
These concepts apply to every branch of physics.
electronics is not excluded. there are REASONS engineers implement counter-resonant tactics to stop this effect from occurring.
MOST of these reasons pertain to circuit stability, and being able to perform the particular function for which the circuit was designed. (you ever watch a radio tower transformer explode from resonant waveforms building up in the antennae?)
This is basically what you were stating, but leads me to ask the question::
For what particular function is your Joule Thief designed?
or did you just copy the instructable?
Resonance is not a mythical belief system, it is a natural occurrence. It is the operating function of the cells that keep you alive, and were it not precisely controlled in your microprocessor, the computer you are using right now would not function. It would simply build up the 2.1Ghz (or whatever) waveform until it shorted out across the silicon.
-
@smoky2
D) Electricity - when you combine two electrical waveforms in constructive interference, the amplitude of the combined waveform increases as a quantitative factor of the frequency. The "actual" combined waveform is affected by the resistance of the circuit, the speed of propagation, and other factors which make the affect vary slightly from that of sound and light. When these factors are properly taken into account, and invariable constants applied, the resulting complex equation is equivalent to a standard interference analysis as A-c above.
Just this morning I read an article on room temperature superconductors which implied that the atomic structure which formed along lines or lattice in the material played a major role. I was theorized that the structures formed a wave guide of sorts resonant with the free electrons themselves promoting a self-organizing flow along said lines or super-conduction.
Strange that something which doesn't seem all that complicated could baffle so many for so long. It may be that the term resistance could be described by the scattering effect causing dissipation within the lattice but is not inherent in all materials nor a fundamental law of nature. It would seem resistance only applies to those who cannot wrap their mind around the problem or find creative solutions to work around it as is often the case.
It's always easy after the fact, getting to the after part is the problem.
AC
-
If you wish to explore this further, the only place I CAN send you is to the bench.
https://wiki.analog.com/university/courses/electronics/comms-lab-isr (https://wiki.analog.com/university/courses/electronics/comms-lab-isr)
This is the very basics of resonance, and pertains mostly to the effects on the coil.
The core used in this experiment assumes the permeability of free space. (air).
Adding a magnetically inductive core, like a ceramic ferrite, can be examined in a similar manner.
Here is someone elses benchwork on this subject.
http://g3rbj.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Self-Resonance-in-Toroidal-Inductors.pdf (http://g3rbj.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Self-Resonance-in-Toroidal-Inductors.pdf)
-
6-pad JT + depleted LR44 button cell >> 24 white LEDs (2s12p):
-
Smoky2:
Resonance is an energy storage mechanism. The critical point being that it is a storage mechanism for energy, it is never a source of energy.
The fundamental description of resonance is that it is a mechanism that stores energy by continuously transforming it back and forth between two complimentary and separate energy storage entities. In an LC resonator the energy is stored either as voltage across a capacitor or as current flowing through and inductor. The frequency is determined by the size of the capacitance and the size of the inductance. That is the basic bare-bones explanation I was looking for.
So for example when a table resonates, the identical process is taking place where energy is stored in two complimentary forms and transfers back and forth between those two forms.
No matter what kind of resonance you are talking about, the same two fundamental properties can be identified and observed. If you cannot identify and observe them then it is not resonance.
A lot of what you are mentioning is about external signals and how they affect a resonant system where the resonant system has a certain response. There you are looking at a resonant system acting like a filter to an external stimulus. Resonance is not really about constructive and destructive interference between two waveforms, that's a whole different story.
So, is a Joule Thief that is operating normally something that demonstrates resonance? The answer is no.
Resonance is not a mythical belief system, it is a natural occurrence. It is the operating function of the cells that keep you alive, and were it not precisely controlled in your microprocessor, the computer you are using right now would not function. It would simply build up the 2.1Ghz (or whatever) waveform until it shorted out across the silicon.
I don't see anything to do with resonance in living cells. You can see how easy it is to abuse the term. You comment about a computer is bizarre. A computer is typically clocked by a crystal oscillator, but that is about as far as it goes.
MileHigh
-
If you wish to explore this further, the only place I CAN send you is to the bench.
https://wiki.analog.com/university/courses/electronics/comms-lab-isr (https://wiki.analog.com/university/courses/electronics/comms-lab-isr)
This is the very basics of resonance, and pertains mostly to the effects on the coil.
The core used in this experiment assumes the permeability of free space. (air).
Adding a magnetically inductive core, like a ceramic ferrite, can be examined in a similar manner.
Here is someone elses benchwork on this subject.
http://g3rbj.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Self-Resonance-in-Toroidal-Inductors.pdf (http://g3rbj.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Self-Resonance-in-Toroidal-Inductors.pdf)
In the first link they also model a coil as a parallel LC resonator. That means at the self-resonant frequency the coil blocks the resonant AC frequency and will not let it pass through the coil. The coil is acting as a notch filter and will shut down and block any AC activity at the resonant frequency.
That means that when you observe a hacked Joule Thief "in a resonant mode" it almost certainly has nothing to do with the SRF of the coil. Rather, it is like I said to you before, the resonant oscillation requires the transistor to power the resonance in some kind of positive feedback loop and the resonant frequency is determined by some of the components in the circuit, but not by the SRF of the coil itself.
Even if you add a ferrite core, the coil is still modeled as a parallel LC resonator and will act like a narrow notch filter. It is all fine and dandy to find the self-resonant frequency of a coil, and depending on the coil and the frequency, it might sometimes also be modeled as a series LC resonator and then act like a narrow band pass filter.
The bottom line is it really does not matter. In the real world of electronics nobody is too interested in coil self-resonance because there is nothing magical or special that you can do with it. If they need a parallel or a series resonator, they will do it with discrete capacitors and inductors. That way you have full control over what you are doing.
To repeat, there is nothing special about a self-resonating coil. There are dozens of threads about self-resonating coils and they are mainly fanboy threads that imagine all sorts of amazing things but they are not true. A self-resonating coil is sort of like a coil undergoing a spastic seizure and failing to do what it is supposed to do which is be an inductor.
MileHigh
-
Smoky2:
A computer is typically clocked by a crystal oscillator, but that is about as far as it goes.
MileHigh
so theres absolutely no reason for a computer engineer to concern themselves with concepts like:
angle of incidence
wavelength, with respect to the thickness of the semiconductor
and im sure it's just a coincidence that both Green's function and the Hemholtz equations coorespond precisely to Maxwell's equations and the Huygens principal....
we can throw away all these textbooks now, and tell the guys down in the Intel Lab to go home..
-
In the first link they also model a coil as a parallel LC resonator. That means at the self-resonant frequency the coil blocks the resonant AC frequency and will not let it pass through the coil. The coil is acting as a notch filter and will shut down and block any AC activity at the resonant frequency.
That means that when you observe a hacked Joule Thief "in a resonant mode" it almost certainly has nothing to do with the SRF of the coil. Rather, it is like I said to you before, the resonant oscillation requires the transistor to power the resonance in some kind of positive feedback loop and the resonant frequency is determined by some of the components in the circuit, but not by the SRF of the coil itself.
again you are missing the point. "hacking" a non-resonant JT to cause it to resonate, - yes, this is far from a symmetrical balance between the SRF of the coil and the SRF of the core (ideal situation). What is being done here, is changing the capacitance of the coil, with respect to the parasitic capacitance of the core. This, in effect, brings the two waveforms into a resonant node. Meaning, both waveforms have a displacement in the same vector.
This is observable in the scope image (even partially in abrupt non-linear switching), as well as in the brightness of an indicator (LED), or a measurement of the intensity of the field around the inductor.
Even the most adamant debater against the concept of resonance and constructive interference in electronics circuits, can easily demonstrate the frequency-based efficiency response of biasing the base resistor of a JT.
thus what I have stated above corresponds to experimental results across the board.
Regardless of your perspective of "what is occurring", it still occurs.
the SRF of the coil, by itself means nothing, we can't actually use it, because at SRF the coil no longer does what we want it to do. lower than it does what we want, higher than it does the opposite, but at the SRF it does not.
the SRF of Core material behaves like the exact inverse of the coil in these regards.
Inverse is the important key word here. One is magnetic, the other is electric, and they cross at 90-degrees.
when the two are set to resonate, in an LRC tank circuit, they behave the closets to the ideal tank that we humans can build. mathematically, experimentally, and in practice. When coordinated with an external parallel capacitance, and resistance of appropriate value, this tank can be demonstrated to continue resonant oscillations until all of the energy is dissipated as heat. A direct function of circuit resistance.
This has been known in electronics theory since the time of the radio.
We can argue about the whys and why nots until we are old and grey,
but the whats still occur when you build them.
You keep reverting back to "standard use of components in electronic circuitry", when the very concept we are talking about is what Electronics as a whole teaches us NOT to do... Almost every electronics circuit in use today relies on the coherency of data. without the data the device is "useless". We cannot use resonant waveforms in electronics. Amplitudes build up in ways not always predictable by theory, at least not in a manner in which all values can be accounted for within a feasible device. And something as simple as sending a text message would result in garblygook on the other end. We wouldn't even get that far, because the software code itself wouldn't function properly. We can't save files, we can't READ files, error correction goes completely out the window.
on an even deeper level, the voltages and current values at the terminals of our IC chips would not be the expected values, and its very likely that we will burn up components all over our circuit.
There are reasons they teach us not to use the components in this manner.
Not to mention the fieldday the FCC would have from such a radiating computer system.
it seems we just keep going in circles, I tell you how to do it, and you tell me why you don't think it works they way I describe it. The results are the same, regardless of perspective. so,. (bangs head on wall)....
Even if you add a ferrite core, the coil is still modeled as a parallel LC resonator and will act like a narrow notch filter. It is all fine and dandy to find the self-resonant frequency of a coil, and depending on the coil and the frequency, it might sometimes also be modeled as a series LC resonator and then act like a narrow band pass filter.
you're almost there, like standing on the edge of a cliff, but you don't quite see the magnitude of the drop to the bottom.
instead of thinking in terms of when it cuts and clips....
Think of the exact moment when the upper and lower limits of the filter balance each other out, and perfectly cancel.
In the ideal situation, wherin the SRF of the coil is the same frequency as the SRF of the core:
The ferrite core acts are an energy storage for the electric field of the coil, and the coil acts as an electric field storage of the magnetic flux from the core. (Thermodynamically conservative, in accordance to Maxwell's Equations)
At this frequency, the core material can be viewed as a resistor in the circuit as a function of its permeability.
This can be replaced by a resistor of the same value for circuit analysis and Fourier transform.
Magnetic Reluctance (resistance to change in magnetic flux over time) has no effective value in the circuit at SRF.
This is the ideal state in which the ferrite core switches flux at its natural resonant time intervals.
It is a direct function of the properties of the core material with respect to its' physical dimensions.
It is defined mathematically, and in practice the manufacturers of the ferrite cores determine the SRF in testing as the point where magnetic reluctance is effectively (nil).
This is measured by the change in flux with respect to a drop in a secondary applied field.
The point at which the core material behaves like a series resistor to the applied field, is its SRF.
It is a self-defined situation, inductance, reluctance, resistance, impedance, electric flux, magnetic flux.
They are all proportional, from whatever perspective. change one, you effectively change the other.
What I am describing is not anything "magical". It is the most efficient way to use electricity and magnetic flux.
It might not be the most useful in most applications, but for something like the Joule Thief, TPU, and the LED lightbulbs that are replacing the incandescent, these concepts can prove to be very useful.
Not by "generating" energy, but by wasting LESS of it.
The bottom line is it really does not matter. In the real world of electronics nobody is too interested in coil self-resonance because there is nothing magical or special that you can do with it. If they need a parallel or a series resonator, they will do it with discrete capacitors and inductors. That way you have full control over what you are doing.
MileHigh
and you wonder why I use a term like "indoctrination"
-
so theres absolutely no reason for a computer engineer to concern themselves with concepts like:
angle of incidence
wavelength, with respect to the thickness of the semiconductor
and im sure it's just a coincidence that both Green's function and the Hemholtz equations coorespond precisely to Maxwell's equations and the Huygens principal....
we can throw away all these textbooks now, and tell the guys down in the Intel Lab to go home..
It all depends on the scope of the discussion and what you mean by "computer engineer." I thought that we were talking about Joule Thieves and resonance. The average computer engineer that designs circuit boards is not concerned with the textbook stuff that you are referring to. In this day an age the PCB layout and characteristic impedance of the PCB traces are critical and that is a very important issue if that is something you were alluding to.
-
Smoky
Thanks for your explanations around resonance. It is generally addressed in very limited terms. Your posts are very helpful.
Bob
BTW - guitar builder here - you have my attention. ;)
-
Smoky2:
There is some truth in what you are saying and you are also spinning some tall tales that simply don't make sense.
this is far from a symmetrical balance between the SRF of the coil and the SRF of the core (ideal situation). What is being done here, is changing the capacitance of the coil, with respect to the parasitic capacitance of the core. This, in effect, brings the two waveforms into a resonant node. Meaning, both waveforms have a displacement in the same vector.
Symmetrical balance? SRF of the core material? In a standalone core, what would be resonating? It's a stretch to try to make sense out of that.
Even the most adamant debater against the concept of resonance and constructive interference in electronics circuits, can easily demonstrate the frequency-based efficiency response of biasing the base resistor of a JT.
thus what I have stated above corresponds to experimental results across the board.
Regardless of your perspective of "what is occurring", it still occurs.
Here is the bottom line: You hack a JT circuit and it starts oscillating. You measure power in, power to the LED, the apparent brightness, and you look at the waveforms to figure out the mechanism for the oscillation.
There is nothing remarkable going on when you do that. It's important to state this. Nobody is saying that you can't do this and nobody "discourages" you from doing this. You are trying to suggest that something "different" is taking place that "they don't want you to know about" when nothing could be further from the truth. I will just repeat that when it comes to power draw vs. apparent brightness the chances of outperforming an optimized JT operating normally are very very low.
The hacked JT working as an oscillator will indeed have a "frequency based efficiency response" that can be measured and documented. Big deal, that is something that would be expected to happen.
You keep reverting back to "standard use of components in electronic circuitry", when the very concept we are talking about is what Electronics as a whole teaches us NOT to do...
Nope, I am going to challenge you on that again. Electronics as a whole does not teach us to NOT deal with oscillation and resonance. I am sure you could find full textbooks on oscillator circuits. Resonance in circuits is a highly studied affair, for both its advantages and for its disadvantages. You are making a false pitch about electronics and then pitching yourself as the guy that is "teaching you what they don't want to teach you." The reason I am challenging you is because "resonance" and "what they don't want you to know" are two themes that you see in countless free energy pitches by con men. The "mystique" of resonance has to be demystified.
What I am describing is not anything "magical". It is the most efficient way to use electricity and magnetic flux.
It might not be the most useful in most applications, but for something like the Joule Thief, TPU, and the LED lightbulbs that are replacing the incandescent, these concepts can prove to be very useful.
It's easy just to say that but the proof is in the real measurements made on a bench. With a JT pulsing a LED with just the right frequency so you don't see the LED flickering, and just the right size of transformer so that the right amount of energy is stored per pulse, and the initial current flow lights the LED just the way you want, I think that would be hard to beat.
Not by "generating" energy, but by wasting LESS of it.
No kidding, design engineers have been struggling with this issue seemingly forever. How long have laptops been around? Since the late 80s? Same thing for cell phones. Engineers have been struggling to increase battery life and make sure that their extremely compact designs with essentially no air flow to remove heat don't spontaneously burn up. You make it sound like you have "new insight" when in reality the issue of wasting less heat has been a front-and-center issue for design engineers for decades.
and you wonder why I use a term like "indoctrination"
No indoctrination at all. I think if anything you are making misleading statements about Joule Thieves, resonance, and how engineers deal with resonance, oscillation, and power consumption. The electronics industry is huge, and the academic world behind it is huge. It's just a question of recognizing that reality for what it really is.
MileHigh
-
Smoky2:
SRF of the core material? In a standalone core, what would be resonating?
MileHigh
Yes, the core material has an SRF.
This information is available from the manufacturer of the core.
(didn't I already say that? I feel like i'm going in circles...)
perhaps, when you're not so high, you should go back through and read it again....
-
Yes, the core material has an SRF.
This information is available from the manufacturer of the core.
(didn't I already say that? I feel like i'm going in circles...)
perhaps, when you're not so high, you should go back through and read it again....
I am not high, but rather trying to make for a rational analysis of some of the things that you are saying so that you and the readers can get a better perspective.
I notice that you yourself can't tell me how a core self-resonates. You say there was a link and perhaps there is something in the 32 page pdf that you linked to but I am not going to wade through it, I only skimmed through it. I searched on self-resonance for core material and found next to nothing. The best thing I came up with was a manufacturer's white paper on ferrite beads showing how they will crap out above a certain frequency and stop working properly. That might be due to their self-resonant frequency.
http://incompliancemag.com/article/all-ferrite-beads-are-not-created-equal-understanding-the-importance-of-ferrite-bead-material-behavior/ (http://incompliancemag.com/article/all-ferrite-beads-are-not-created-equal-understanding-the-importance-of-ferrite-bead-material-behavior/)
Here is where I think you are tripping yourself up. Any self resonance in a core material might be at a frequency of say 25 MHz. That frequency is out of the realm of an operating JT and there is essentially no energy to speak of in those very high frequency ranges to affect the core. In other words, the core you put in a JT transformer may have a SRF of 25 MHz. Since there is no frequency content in the signals in the JT in the 25 MHz band then it all means nothing.
It's just like I said that the SRF of an inductor that forms the main coil in a JT normally turns it into a choke, and that frequency might be around 1 MHz. With respect to a self-resonating ferrite core, for sure that is going to be highly damped because you are flipping magnetic domains at a very high frequency. So a core does not "ring" at its SRF.
If you hack your JT and it starts to oscillate at say 50 kHz, then the SRF of the main coil of the JT might be 1 MHz and the SRF of the ferrite core might be 25 MHz. These two things will not affect the hacked JT in an oscillation mode running at 50 kHz.
It's just like I said on another thread that you can't get get any power from the Earth's magnetic field. Someone else posted and agreed with me but then pointed out if you want to be technical you could in theory pick up a micro-picowatt of power. It's insignificant and you can simply state that you can't get any power from the Earth's magnetic field.
So if you get a hacked JT to oscillate at 50 kHz, that's all fine and dandy. However, you can completely ignore the 1 MHz SRF of the coil and the 25 MHz SRF of the core. Those two tings are totally insignificant and will not affect the operation of the hacked JT in any way whatsoever.
It's important to keep a proper perspective when it comes to electronics.
MileHigh
-
I have a book by John D Lenk Simplified design of switching power supplies
It has some data charts of some inductors from 10uh to 3.3mh and the SRF of 45mhz to 360khz respectively
Listing under must meet criteria....
Stray capacitance - The inductors self resonant freq must be 5 to 10 times the switching frequency
The book explains SRF briefly...
"All inductors have some distributed capacitance that combines with the inductance to form a resonant circuit. The frequency of this self resonance should be between 5 and 10 times the switching frequency(but not an exact multiple of the switching frequency!). As the inductance value is set by circuit requirements, the SRF is determined by distributed capacitance(a higher capacitance produces a lower SRF).
When SRF is low, the normal linear ramp of the inductor current is preceded by a sudden jump in current when the switching transistor turns on. This results in so called switching losses that lower the regulators overall efficiency. As a result, distributed capacitance should be kept at a minimum so that the SRF will be high and will not seriously affect the inductor current. Distributed capacitance can be lowered when the toroid is wound, either by overlapping the ends of the winding somewhat or by leaving a gap between winding ends(rather than ending the winding at 1 full layer)."
Mags
-
my only other choice is to keep saying the same thing, in completely different ways.
(looking at it from a different perspective, etc.)
until we merge at a point where both of our perspectives allow for successful communication.
So, here is the scenario, once again. using other parts of the equations, to describe the exact same scenario.
If you graph the frequency response of the inductor (coil w/ ferrite core)
Looking at 3 factors:
1) resistance
2) Impedance
3) Inductive Reactance (This includes both the electric induction and the magnetic reactance counterpart)
There is a point, just before inductance drops off, where the two lines on the graph cross.
(resistance and inductive reactance)
On either side of this crossover point, the characteristics of the inductor completely change.
at frequencies when reactance is greater than resistance - the coil w/ core acts as an inductor.
at frequencies when reactance is less than resistance - the coil w/ core acts as a capacitor. It can be replaced by a capacitor of identical capacitance, and the circuit won't know the difference.
Exactly at the cross-over frequency, Resistance and Inductive Reactance are equivalent. As observable by their magnitude and location on the graph.
At this point, I must state bluntly, that the Impedance of the coil, and the magnetic reluctance-based equivalent of the core material are not the same numerical value. this could potentially be the topic for an entire other discussion, but please understand that there is an impedance mismatch between the electrically inductive coil and the magnetic response at either half of the waveform. This introduces a reflection of a portion of the signal, back to the source.
I could prove this to you, but the device we would be testing would have to be altered in such a way that it is no longer a "joule thief". The transistor and diode do not allow this to pass in the reverse direction. It is blocked through these components. But none of that really matters, because as we already know, the inductor has its' own internal capacitance.
So the reflected portion of the signal still translates, as if this capacitance were an actual capacitor placed in parallel to the transistor+battery portion of the circuit.
This sounds confusing to think about, but that's just how electronic circuits behave. any portion of any circuit can be replace with its' theoretical equivalent circuit, and the circuit (usually) doesn't change at all.
For this reason, we are able to perform transforms, use black-box analysis, and equivalent circuit theory.
The oscillating signal then encounters (or interferes with) this reflected waveform.
The effect can result in a + or - in amplitudes along the voltage or current scale, or both depending upon how the waves interfere. Phase-transitioning can increase or diminish this effect, as observed by the location of the crossover point on the above mentioned graph. When the phase is matched in such a way as to cause constructive interference, system amplitudes increase accordingly. When the phase of the interfering signals is matches in such a way as to cause destructive interference, system amplitudes decrease accordingly.
There are points in the phase transitioning, where the (biased) zero line voltage of the two signals cross in the same location. These signals do not interfere with each other, some examples of this are used in dual-phase or tri-phase applications, such as motors, generators, multi-coil solenoids, and JT's with multiple secondary coil(s) wound on the inductor.
(Multi-phase JT Transformers).
[This non-interfering state does not normally occur in the phase transition between the oscillating signal and the reflected feedback in a JT, This scenario is only presented for knowledge. There is almost always a definable interference between the inductor and its' reflection when used in the Armstrong Oscillator.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Ferrite material, has certain physical mechanical properties, pertaining to the atomic constituents, and their applicable inductance/reluctance, as well as the physical dimensions of the ferrite core. (In the toroid case it is represented as a Diameter, Thickness, and Height).
The SRF of the ferrite core is defined as the resultant frequency derived through a wavelength equation, using these variables.
The physical vibration caused by an oscillating magnetic flux, causes the particles to align opposing the inducing field. When the flux changes, these particles align the other direction.
And there is an associated transitioning function in between, in relation to time.
This defines the "curve" of the magnetic waveform.
When the magnetic waveform induced through the core material and the SRF, as defined, approach equivalence, constructive interference creates, essentially, a standing wave of that wavelength. In an ideal situation (1-3ghz in a standard >1" off the shelf core), the amplitude of this magnetic flux is exponentially greater than that of the two waves. At low frequencies, the effect of this is negligible, and the ideal SRF operation of the inductor results in the same as an addition of the two waves, as a factor of energy over time and the self-defined "second".
There are other frequency-related nodes of resonance, with respect to the SRF of the core material. These are the frequencies generally chosen (actually slightly below this value on purpose) when an electronics engineer choose his inductor for the particular circuit.
why?
because with the fast switching ferrite cores we currently produce, the SRF of the core is considerably higher than the frequencies involved in our circuits.
So we use another frequency or wavelength that meets the 0-line of the magnetic waveform at specified intervals. this is generally a simple division or multiplication of the wavelengths involved. For instance, with a core SRF of 1Ghz, a frequency of 100Mhz would become self-resonant. We would use this core with a wound inductor, at a frequency lower or higher than 100 Mhz. But close to it....
We don't use the exact value, because if we did, the impedance mismatch could cause adverse affects in the circuit. But if we did,. what would happen?
Well,. the difference in impedance would act as a capacitance, and a resonant tank would form.
This causes the inductor to physically vibrate on the circuit board, and sometimes even make a ringing noise. Really? the core will make a ringing noise? - yes. This is generally unwanted, and circuits are designed to prevent this. In addition to the noise pollution (and associated losses), other adverse effects can occur at (or very near) the SRF of the core material, or a coherent resonant octave. These can include stray voltage potentials, often exceeding circuit maximums, as well as current spikes that causes heating and can overpower components before or after the inductor. The physical vibrations can also cause the solder connections to break that hold the inductor to the circuit board. In addition to these effects, differences in circuit impedance, combined with the resistive effects of parasitic capacitance, can generate a great deal of heat in the circuit (and associated losses). Making the whole of 'resonance' unappealing to most engineers.
But if we understand why these adverse effects occur, we can design the rest of our circuit so as to avoid these problems. This would mean a complete redesigning of all of our standard circuits.
And for what? I'm not sure that is really necessary. We don't have to (or even want to) use resonant circuits for everything we do. Many applications, simply cannot use this electrical feature in their application. To even try and force this sort of thing into the average circuitboard would undoubtedly destroy something. We are perfectly fine using a value less than the SRF of our components, and calculating the associated losses for doing so. Loss of a picowatt is less expensive than loss of a resistor!!
It is assumed, if not blatantly stated in electronics theory, that our components are not Ideal.
Most of this is a function of resistance / impedance and their circuit-based equivalents.
Here we examine the situation where the "resistance" portion of the circuit is purely in the magnetic domain:
A stand-alone ferrite core, with an applied external magnetic field, oscillating at the cores SRF,
can be set to vibrate on its supports like a high-frequency solenoid. By this we can define the moment of inertia as a function of the ferrite mass with respect to changes in the applied field.
By this we can see that this resonance can occur independent from any electronic circuit.
as the oscillating flux can be electrically or magnetically derived.
The amplitude of these oscillations is a function of the combined magnetic waveforms.
1)The applied flux, and the 2)field changes within the core material.
When you plot their magnitude and vector on a graph, the two resultant waveforms have a phase between them. This pertains to the (constant) frequency of the applied field, and the time derivative of the induced field in the core. (charging time)
At frequencies below the SRF of the ferrite material, the core reaches the maximum value of saturation (with respect to the applied field), faster than the flux is being changed by the applied field. Meaning, the field is not changing as fast as the material "could". When used at these lower than SRF frequencies, the core can reach full saturation, provided enough current.
At frequencies above the SRF (the actual crossover of response time is slightly above the SRF actual value) of the ferrite material, the flux is changing faster than the core can respond.
This means, that at those higher than SRF frequencies, the core does not saturate in time, before the flux changes back in the other direction.
exactly at the SRF of the core material, the standing wave can present itself. Oscillations of the wave are then a pure force derivative between the applied field and the mass and flux of the ferrite. The phase transition between these two waves, affects the total amplitude of the field generated by the flux in the core (or from another viewpoint, the magnitude of the standing wave). This is a direct result of constructive or destructive interference, as seen on the graph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does the SRF of the ferrite relate to the SRF of the coil?
The Coil's SRF is a function of the parasitic capacitance involved, and as such can be changed by a parallel capacitance, or changes in resistances (or changing the effective impedance) in the circuit. We can "tune" the coil's SRF. How and why this occurs is detailed in one of the links I posted above, I wouldn't do it justice by trying to reiterate that here.
When we tune (or phase shift) the SRF of the coil, such that the resonant nodes of both SRFs interfere constructively - the combination of maximum amplitudes of both electric and magnetic flux waveforms, presents itself as the most efficient manner in which to use the coil-wound inductor. In electronics theory, we call this the "Ideal" circuit.
We do not use components this way, because the rest of the circuit is not, or cannot be, does not be, resonant with the SRF of the other components in the circuit.
A modern day example of this is the use of ferrite beads in radio circuits. These are implemented to increase antanea resistance, to prevent current spikes from the receiver signal.
Now, changes in amplitude along a resonant radio frequency signal received by an antenna
are not very large. these are tiny current spikes in this example, but when combined with an amplifier, these can translate into devastating power fluctuations. So, ferrite beads are used to cause Destructive Interference, destroying resonances within the circuit, allowing for a clean signal to be processed by the amplification circuit. "indoctrination" is not necessarily a bad thing. If you are designing circuits that are supposed to perform a specified function, it is easy to see why you DON'T WANT resonances to occur in your circuit. Radio interference can cause problems. You don't hear your song clearly, or a broadcast message is not properly received, or the signal comes through loud and clear then blows out your speaker, or burns up the transistors in the amp.
To sum this all up, most of our Components cannot be operated predictably at their SRF.
This is because (normally) the rest of the circuit is not designed to operate at that frequency.
To design a resonant circuit, Total Circuit Resonance must be observed at all times.
Anything other than, simply results in Destructive Interference in one or more parts of the circuit.
In the words of an old cowboy, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
-
I have a book by John D Lenk Simplified design of switching power supplies
It has some data charts of some inductors from 10uh to 3.3mh and the SRF of 45mhz to 360khz respectively
Listing under must meet criteria....
Stray capacitance - The inductors self resonant freq must be 5 to 10 times the switching frequency
The book explains SRF briefly...
"All inductors have some distributed capacitance that combines with the inductance to form a resonant circuit. The frequency of this self resonance should be between 5 and 10 times the switching frequency(but not an exact multiple of the switching frequency!). As the inductance value is set by circuit requirements, the SRF is determined by distributed capacitance(a higher capacitance produces a lower SRF).
When SRF is low, the normal linear ramp of the inductor current is preceded by a sudden jump in current when the switching transistor turns on. This results in so called switching losses that lower the regulators overall efficiency. As a result, distributed capacitance should be kept at a minimum so that the SRF will be high and will not seriously affect the inductor current. Distributed capacitance can be lowered when the toroid is wound, either by overlapping the ends of the winding somewhat or by leaving a gap between winding ends(rather than ending the winding at 1 full layer)."
Mags
@ Mags
this is an excellent example.
Along side these spikes in current, is an associated drop in voltage.
We are trained to ignore these relationships when we examine certain phenomena.
But they hold true in every case, regardless of what we do with the electricity. run it through an inductor a capacitor a resistor a transformer a transistor and back to your meters and these factors always remain proportional.
Then we are given workable solutions that dodge resonant frequencies. Why?
because there is a crossover point at the SRF.
In one state (lagging) the spike is along the current domain.
In the other (leading) the spike occurs in voltage.
Now consider a "mostly dead" battery, and the available current from its' depleted output.
And the inverse situation, where current does not spike, but voltage does.
current incurs an associated drop from the source.
This is a function of the SRF of the coil vs the SRF of the ferrite.
If the two were perfectly balanced, there would not be a spike in current, nor a spike in voltage.
But rather, both amplitudes would peak at their maximum value, one slightly out of phase with the other. This cannot generally occur, because of non resonant parameters in the rest of the circuit.
-
Hey Smoky
So what was described in the power supply book only touched on the coils SRF, not the cores SRF.
So if we want to bring these 2 together, can we lower the core SRF or use other materials that have a lower core SRF? Or is it that we have to make the coil with an SRF of the core, or say an SRF that is a lower multiple of the core freq.
Thanks for all the knowledge on this stuff. You seem to know it all pretty deep.
Mags
-
Hey Smoky
So what was described in the power supply book only touched on the coils SRF, not the cores SRF.
So if we want to bring these 2 together, can we lower the core SRF or use other materials that have a lower core SRF? Or is it that we have to make the coil with an SRF of the core, or say an SRF that is a lower multiple of the core freq.
Thanks for all the knowledge on this stuff. You seem to know it all pretty deep.
Mags
Lowering the SRF of the core material is not possible. Ferrites that have a lower SRF, like raw iron or magnetite, also have a very high hysteresis. The materials we use in modern inductors is a ceramic embedded with very fine particles, allowing for a more pure and clean alignment of the magnetic domains. Naturally, the smaller the particles used, the closer we get to a pure atomic induction response, thus the SRF of the material approaches the self resonance of the atoms. We aren't quite there yet, but our technology is getting pretty close, and with nanotech we expect to be able to create ferrites with even higher SRF frequencies.
If you can imagine the future of a microwave oven using only a toroid and a simple oscillating circuit.
The problem with building a coil that has an SRF as high as the ferrite core
comes in two forms: one being the very low capacitance value required, we would almost need a superconductor (or at the very least, some gold coils!!)
The other being the switching rate of the transistor. Transistors of this nature can be very expensive and hard to find. Generally a "JT" uses a transistor with a relatively low range of freqs. when compared to the SRF of the core material.
So, to answer your question (which it sounds like you already have on your own)-
The latter of the 3 options, is what we choose in practice. We already have the tools to make this possible, with minimal alterations to the circuit.
-
in the simplest form, this can be achieved with a variac or high-precision variable resistor,
some short-range trim pots will do the trick. This goes in place of the base resistor in the JT circuit.
With the normal JT set-up, the SRF of the coil will drift over time. I believe this is due to the drop in voltage from the source battery, but I have not invested a serious bit of time into examining this situation.
My brother reports the drift taking place over a 3-4 month time period with some of his simpler JT "nightlights". The light dims and they need to be "re-tuned", they then return to normal operation, until some time when the SRF drifts again to an effective amount.
He has shown this to me on the scopes, so there is no doubt that the drift occurs.
I only speculate that it is from the battery voltage, because we know this to drop over time.
-
Smoky2:
The information in Magluvin's book is pertinent and says it all. You stay away from the SRF of the coils in a switching power supply because at the SRF the coils crap out and don't function as coils anymore. You even stay away from having a harmonic of your excitation frequency line up with the SRF of the coils. The excitation is a pulse train with sharp edges so naturally the signal is very high in harmonics.
A coil at it's SRF is either dead and blocks AC if you model it as a parallel resonant tank or it's dead and offers no resistance to AC if you model it as a series LC tank. In either case the inductance is nowhere to be found. Above the SRF it just looks like a capacitor.
Why should a coil at its SRF enhance the performance of a Joule Thief when it is effectively dead and not functioning properly? You are just playing the resonance fetish game.
Your discussion of reflections and stuff like that only occur at super high frequencies. You would worry about that when you design a motherboard for a PC with a 4 GHz clock speed and perhaps a 1 GHz memory bus clock, but not for a Joule Thief.
My gut instincts are telling me that your brother is playing with hacked Joule Thieves that are running as oscillators, but they are not running at the SRF of the main coil that forms the JT transformer. I will repeat to you again in plain English, the main power coil craps out at the SRF and the inductance disappears. So my feeling is that you are leading yourselves down a garden path. If you really wanted to be sure you could inject a signal into the coil and look for the SRF.
In broad general terms, the "buzz" about a coil operating at its SRF on the free energy forums is a bunch of BS. You are effectively turning the coil into a piece of wire or an open circuit. There is nothing exciting about that. There is no "secret sauce" related to hacking a JT and turning it into an oscillator and running it at the SRF of the main coil. There is a very decent chance that the oscillation would in fact die at the SRF because the main coil of the JT becomes inert at the SRF frequency.
MileHigh
-
Smoky2:
A coil at it's SRF is either dead and blocks AC if you model it as a parallel resonant tank or it's dead and offers no resistance to AC if you model it as a series LC tank. In either case the inductance is nowhere to be found. Above the SRF it just looks like a capacitor.
Why should a coil at its SRF enhance the performance of a Joule Thief when it is effectively dead and not functioning properly?
If you really wanted to be sure you could inject a signal into the coil and look for the SRF.
In broad general terms, the "buzz" about a coil operating at its SRF on the free energy forums is a bunch of BS. You are effectively turning the coil into a piece of wire or an open circuit. There is nothing exciting about that. There is no "secret sauce" related to hacking a JT and turning it into an oscillator and running it at the SRF of the main coil. There is a very decent chance that the oscillation would in fact die at the SRF because the main coil of the JT becomes inert at the SRF frequency.
MileHigh
The first two points go hand in hand. We have had scopes all over this thing, across the transistor, across the diode, across the coil, across the base resistor, even observed the ends of the battery at times.
When all other factors of the system remain the same, coil, core, voltage, transistor, led.
and all you adjust is the resistance across the base - you are changing the injected feedback signal, and how it applies to the next iteration of the cycle. This signal is not present at points other than a resonant node. It is inversely canceled out by its counterpart in the circuit. no reflection, no collapse of the parasitic capacitance at the peak.
To the latter issue, I agree, most of what people talk about in these regards is total b.s.
what I am doing here is presenting the facts along with the electrical theory, and experiments to get rid of all the mysticism and "magic" ideas floating around.
When this is all out in the open, where people can understand and experiment with this, then concepts like "secret sauce" need no longer apply.
You can't look at a Resonant circuit, in terms of how a component at SRF would perform in a non-resonant circuit.
You have to look at the whole picture.
The coil will always retain a positive value for inductance, because of the 3rd parasitic relationship of the circuit at SRF.
The resistance of the circuit has a parasitic inductance, and the ferrite will still magnetically charge.
That is the whole point of this exercise
- the "indoctrination" is that instinctive feeling you get when you head down this road, and makes you want to stay away from the SRF. It is perfectly normal after years of accredited education. We all go through it......
-
Smoky2:
The information in Magluvin's book is pertinent and says it all. You stay away from the SRF of the coils in a switching power supply because at the SRF the coils crap out and don't function as coils anymore. You even stay away from having a harmonic of your excitation frequency line up with the SRF of the coils. The excitation is a pulse train with sharp edges so naturally the signal is very high in harmonics.
A coil at it's SRF is either dead and blocks AC if you model it as a parallel resonant tank or it's dead and offers no resistance to AC if you model it as a series LC tank. In either case the inductance is nowhere to be found. Above the SRF it just looks like a capacitor.
MileHigh
I posted that as an example of it is said that we shouldnt partake in srf functions when designing a power supply. I dont believe it is saying that the inductor is dead.
What Im seeing it says is that the rise in current if the inductor when the transistor turns on(in a typical regulator design) is too quick for the driver design. What that tells me is that the on time is too long in this case. So what Im looking at is how to design the circuit to accommodate that higher freq of operation.
As with the cores SRF, what Im thinking is that if we design the coils SRF to match a lower multiple of the cores SRF, there may be some advantages as Smoky says. Will have to be tested.
Havnt built a JT yet. But from what Smoky says about the variable resistor on the base, it must be adjusting the on time and getting the SRF mode to ring.
I find it to be interesting stuff. ;D
Back when the Russian guys were playing with tv flyback transformers, I believe they were talking about the cores SRF function in what they were doing. What did they call it, NMR? But, there were claims of dangerous radiations from the cores running at core SRF freq. I would like to avoid that if possible.
Mags
-
Well at least differing opinions were aired and that's always a good thing. Perhaps there are some people building Joule Thieves that will do their own investigations and also get inspiration from the comments in this thread.
Let's assume that your design goal is a fairly bright LED with no flickering (to the human eye) with minimum power draw from the battery. There can be other design goals, the one I am suggesting would seem to be the most logical one for me.
It brings up the issue of apparent brightness. I was told once that it is a zero sum game. A very bright flashing LED with a short duty cycle will have the same apparent brightness as a medium bright LED with a longer duty cycle such that the power draw from the battery is approximately the same in both cases. Is that really true? I don't know.
Nonetheless, it suggests there is a "Goldilox" core size and an associated Goldilox Joule Thief transformer configuration to give you a "sweet train of pulses" to keep the LED lit with minimum battery draw.
I doubt anybody would go that far but if we end up fighting WW IV with rocks then who knows?
MileHigh
-
So. Since this is a JT thread, might as well start there and test these things. A JT is the simplest circuit to play with.
Any suggestions as to what works best making one of these? Has anyone wound their transformers bifi? I figure more capacitance, lower freq SRF.
I have lots and lots of parts. 100mhz scope(200 if I do the hack for the hantek 5000 series.) Near dead batteries of all sorts.
Mags
-
Went to beginning of the thread and getting stuff together.
Mags
-
It's nice to see the JT threads are still active and I remember the good old days when it was first introduced here. Not long after a man named Dr.Stiffler appeared for a while with a variant and I found one of his oscillators I bought under my bench collecting dust only a few weeks ago. It was basically a glorified low power high frequency JT in my estimation from the testing I did. The work I posted closely related to Stifflers designs was then borrowed and morphed into the infamous Slayer circuit. Strange how I had numerous slayer circuits built and tested at least a year before he supposedly "invented" them, lol, such is life. Even more curious is that the odd article still pops up by some EE or electronics expert claiming they don't really understand it and that it is a marvel of engineering.
A few tips, early on I found the base or gate resistance dissipates as much energy as the load in some cases. LED's on the base lit almost as bright as the supposed load so a series cap should be used. I transitioned to open gate mosfet switching with a bare wire on the gate not attached to anything or the gate wire wrapped around the insulation of a HV secondary. This design morphed into self-oscillating(self-switching) SS HV induction coils not unlike a Rhumkorff or Tesla coil. It's odd that so many consider parasitic capacitance, a ridiculous term, as a problem when in many cases it is the best solution if not the only one.
How do you switch an external electronic circuit when the primary circuit your trying to synchronize to is blowing off 12" arcs in every direction, inducing ridiculous voltages in all nearby open conductors?... the answer is you can't to my knowledge. I had random nuts and bolts and wires scattered on the bench arcing over up to 1" apart like a christmas tree three feet away from my quite unique oscillator. I wouldn't put any oscilloscope within 20 feet of that infernal machine and it made my Tesla coil look like a fart in a windstorm. Good times back then, exciting times and there was a lot of crazy shit going on, a lot of creativity and as always a lot of wild ass speculation.
In any case...play safe.
AC
-
Mags
we know things come apart at resonance ,we know plain heat will do like wise ,as well as the hammer shown here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC6I8iPiHT8
and we know energy is released...
The Bug above hunts with Photons which he Knocks out of orbit ,he messes with the wheel work of nature so he can get a meal.
as Smoky has said, it would seem the education process has purposely kept different fields of science separated
by "specialty" or Box.
when it would seem that there is much to be learned By mixing it up ,and getting into a bit of Chaos outside the Box.
NMR,NAR ,LENR or something else ??
Rossi ,Alexander Parkhomov ,Constantine Balakirian, Steven Marks...Stanley Meyer ...
its all the rage these days !
and it is our destiny.
-
Went to beginning of the thread and getting stuff together.
Mags
Set up a bifilar coil with a steel laminated core,where the core is two separate halves -1 half will see the flow of charge into the magnetic center,and the other half will see the flow of charge out from the magnetic center. Set up a simple self oscillating circuit,and run the LED off the two core halves,where you two core halves act like capacitor plates,and are charged every pulse. this way you can bring your frequency up to a resonant state,where the amplitude is at maximum,and power draw at a minimum.
Brad
-
Theres a concept called negative capacitance. this is where the negative portion of the magnetic waveform is considered in the impedance equation. Basically considered as Reactance, in the electronics portion of the circuit.
Impedance = resistance + reactance(sqrt[-1])
Now,. we can't actually built a negative capacitor, (or can we?)
but mathematically, we can just throw the (-) out since we square it later in subsequent equations.
and replace the whole resonant mess with a capacitor of positive value.
This is the standard electronics model. Text books do not generally take this any further.
When we examine Inductance as being a proportional factor of Impedance and angular frequency
we essentially look at only the positive value of reactance.
we literally take the absolute value of this number, and apply it to already known electronics equations.
But negative capacitance can be calculated AND measured!!! We know it exists,. but we assume it does not matter.
Or are (told) it does not matter.... Then we are shown other examples of when it actually matters.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
L = X / w ; where L is inductance, X is reactance, and w is 2(pi)f
or we can take the "effective Q" = |X|/R ; <<<---- see, we can use this instead. and we don't have any pesky 0's in the division......
We are trained this way from day 1.
This is what is, this is what is not, this is how we use it.
these are the things that are not what we told you at first,
and this is how to get rid of these "problems".
-
Here is a clip that shows the Joule Thief schematic and gives a very good verbal description of how a Joule Thief works from start to finish. It describes the Joule Thief as a switching device with positive feedback, which is exactly what I have been saying. The word "resonance" is never stated. The description is not too technical but it is verbose and complete and anyone that has a basic knowledge of electronics should be able to follow it and understand it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg)
Now, that's in contrast to the previous two postings in this thread. Sorry, but they are a bunch of mumbo-jumbo talk and both don't make any sense. I know that it's not politically correct abound here to say this but it is what it is.
If you want to try to convince myself and others that you are making a valid case and supposedly making sense, then use the clip above as a standard that you can try to meet. Fake pseudo electronics talk with nonsensical terms and the old "they don't want you to know" boogeyman talk just won't cut it.
-
Here is a clip that shows the Joule Thief schematic and gives a very good verbal description of how a Joule Thief works from start to finish. It describes the Joule Thief as a switching device with positive feedback, which is exactly what I have been saying. The word "resonance" is never stated. The description is not too technical but it is verbose and complete and anyone that has a basic knowledge of electronics should be able to follow it and understand it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg)
Now, that's in contrast to the previous two postings in this thread. Sorry, but they are a bunch of mumbo-jumbo talk and both don't make any sense. I know that it's not politically correct abound here to say this but it is what it is.
If you want to try to convince myself and others that you are making a valid case and supposedly making sense, then use the clip above as a standard that you can try to meet. Fake pseudo electronics talk with nonsensical terms and the old "they don't want you to know" boogeyman talk just won't cut it.
This is the minimalist version of the circuit, that uses no consideration to system losses.
Yes it works, so does the filament lightbulb.
stating that it works and that we don't need to know any more than that to turn the lights on, is all fine in dandy.
But compare an old style filament bulb to a newer LED bulb of the same luminescence.
and compare their energy consumption
Now, do the same with the Joule thief.
-
Set up a bifilar coil with a steel laminated core,where the core is two separate halves -1 half will see the flow of charge into the magnetic center,and the other half will see the flow of charge out from the magnetic center. Set up a simple self oscillating circuit,and run the LED off the two core halves,where you two core halves act like capacitor plates,and are charged every pulse. this way you can bring your frequency up to a resonant state,where the amplitude is at maximum,and power draw at a minimum.
Brad
Can you make a diagram of the cores and where the windings are on the cores. Sort of a magnetically induced capacitor?
Mags
Thanks
-
Can you make a diagram of the cores and where the windings are on the cores. Sort of a magnetically induced capacitor?
Mags
Thanks
Exactly
-
Can you make a diagram of the cores and where the windings are on the cores. Sort of a magnetically induced capacitor?
Mags
Thanks
Here is an earlier video showing the charge build up on the laminated core. This clearly shows the capacitor effect between the winding's,and the core it self. It also show's that some of the consumed current is due to this core charge being forcefully discharged during each pulse. By allowing this charge to be reduced by way of driving the LED,we can see less current is drawn by the circuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJB_cnx9Rx8
Brad
-
Thanks Brad. Thats pretty cool. So if it was a long core without the separation there isnt any current through the core? Seems odd. But Ill take your word for it. ;)
I wonder if you interleaved the laminations(insulated) some near the center to increase surface area if there might be helpful to generate more charge.
In this circuit below from a pdf on this thread, to me there seems to be a problem. Not that the circuit doesnt work. But the led is across the transistor in the same direction. I understand that the batt doesnt have enough voltage to conduct the led. But when the transistor turns off, the inductors collapse current flows through the led AND the battery, thus further discharging the battery more besides the transisitor switching. So wouldnt it be better to put the led across the transformer winding where the batt isnt being drained during the led discharge also?
Mags
-
Mags, you can also check out the original JT topic where there are hundreds of schematics and design variants that we tested. Many, many folks posted a lot of neat devices over there. It is really fun to play with the variables and try different circuits. It really all depends on what you want to do. Do you want a lot of light? Or, do you want some light that lasts a very, very long time? Or, do you want to try to get as much of both conditions as possible?
This is what we played with back then and, we all learned a lot about electronics from working with these circuits. Check TK's video collection as he has some great circuits he made on his youtube channel. I have a lot of JT circuit videos but, TK actually explains what is happening and why in his vids. Mine are more like..."Holy crap, this lights up! Wow!!"
Bill
-
Smoky2:
This is the minimalist version of the circuit, that uses no consideration to system losses.
I am not sure what you mean by the "system losses" because we are back to the issue of the informational scope of the clip that I posted. The clip aims to simply explain how a Joule Thief works and no more than that.
"Minimalist version of the circuit" is another issue. When is a circuit a Joule Thief or not? I think that there is a simple answer to that one. If the circuit can power a LED with a battery whose output voltage is lower than the normal drive voltage for the LED, and the LED is driven using the technique of a discharging inductor acting as a current source, then you have a Joule Thief. If the circuit does not meet these two conditions then it is not a Joule Thief.
Obviously I can't comment on the various oscillator circuits that you have made reference to, but I suspect that many of them may not in fact be Joule Thief circuits as per the two criteria that I outline above.
stating that it works and that we don't need to know any more than that to turn the lights on, is all fine in dandy.
That's a straw man argument, I never said that.
But compare an old style filament bulb to a newer LED bulb of the same luminescence.
and compare their energy consumption
Now, do the same with the Joule thief.
My response to this may surprise you and a lot of people, but not if they were paying attention to the beginning of this discussion.
Nobody is going to argue about an incandescent light bulb compared to an LED light bulb.
You are implying that a Joule Thief gives you even better efficiency than an LED light bulb. For purposes of a fair discussion let's put aside the "Thief" part of the Joule Thief that can extract energy from nearly dead batteries. In other words, let's just look at lumens per watt of supplied power.
A lot of the efficiency is due to the fact that the LED in a Joule Thief is flashing and taking advantage of the persistence of human vision. To accomplish this the Joule Thief has the overhead associated with the lossy energizing of the main coil and the associated overhead for the timing circuit.
So what if we just compare a flashing LED using a very efficient timing and switching circuit and a Joule Thief?
The answer is that a flashing LED light will beat a Joule Thief light hands down. Now the Joule Thief doesn't seem so glamorous, does it?
I am going to take a guess here: I am willing to bet you that LED lights don't flash to save power. There are several reasons for this. The first reason is that you are saving so much power anyway compared to incandescent bulbs that it is not an issue. The second reason is that you simplify the design and save costs and have a more reliable light. The third reason is just pure speculation: If you are under lights for a long time each day, you are better off if they don't flash because even though you can't perceive the flashing, you might be able to perceive it subconsciously and some people might be prone to getting headaches just like some people don't like flashing fluorescent lights.
MileHigh
-
Thanks Brad. Thats pretty cool. So if it was a long core without the separation there isnt any current through the core? Seems odd. But Ill take your word for it. ;)
I wonder if you interleaved the laminations(insulated) some near the center to increase surface area if there might be helpful to generate more charge.
In this circuit below from a pdf on this thread, to me there seems to be a problem. Not that the circuit doesnt work. But the led is across the transistor in the same direction. I understand that the batt doesnt have enough voltage to conduct the led. But when the transistor turns off, the inductors collapse current flows through the led AND the battery, thus further discharging the battery more besides the transisitor switching. So wouldnt it be better to put the led across the transformer winding where the batt isnt being drained during the led discharge also?
Mags
Well personally,i would put the LED across the emitter and core-providing the core is conductive. This way you reduce the power consumption of the device,due to the removal of the charge build up in the core.
-
Smoky2:
I am not sure what you mean by the "system losses"
in general I am referencing resistive and inductive/reactive losses in the USE of the JT.
compared to the PROPER USE of the Armstrong Oscillator.
or in the comparative example, the resistive and inductive/reactive losses in the use of a filament
compared to the use of an LED.
I never anywhere stated that a JT circuit was better or more efficient than a household LED.
that is topic for another discussion, wherein I use the parts already inside the LED lightbulb to form a JT circuit,
throw away the extra misc. components found inside, and power the LED with a mostly dead battery,
and compare that to an unaltered LED powered by the Mains.
"Minimalist version of the circuit" is another issue. When is a circuit a Joule Thief or not? I think that there is a simple answer to that one. If the circuit can power a LED with a battery whose output voltage is lower than the normal drive voltage for the LED, and the LED is driven using the technique of a discharging inductor acting as a current source, then you have a Joule Thief. If the circuit does not meet these two conditions then it is not a Joule Thief.
hmm, there are a lot of different devices referred to as a "joule thief". But at some basic level, we have to agree that there are certain aspects, features, and components of the circuit, that define is as the 'fad' known as a JT.
I am not sure if I would use the same criteria you offer above. Mine would be more like:
1) transformer (or suitable equivalent switching device)
2) inductor
3) low voltage power source
4) optional load
the LED is optional, and serves only as an indicator that the circuit is in operation.
The fact, or should I say phenomena, that people are amazed by, and use the LED as a source of light, is quite frankly irrelevant to what is or is not a joule thief.
The entire argument of it using the "last bit of current in a battery" is complete hogwash,
you can run these off nearly any voltage potential, from any source.
from the earth itself, broadcast radio signals, to the voltage built up in the metal frame of your computer desk....
The things TK and Bill did, without a standard "battery" are worth going back and looking at.
What is a Joule Thief?
a Joule Thief is: An Armstrong Oscillator
Most of the instructables, and do-it-yourself JT webpages use a very simplified (minimalist) version of the oscillator,
and do so with completely mismatched components.
No thought was given to most of their designs other than
the switching range of the transformer vs the inductor, and the cut-on voltage of the transistor and diode.
Furthermore, taking an equivalent circuit replacement works for digital electronics. We do it all the time.
But taking an analog circuit, and forcing it to be digital, you lose certain qualities of the signal.
go talk to an old guitar player about digital equipment vs their older counterparts, and hear what he has to say.
there is no JT "standard" for the transistor, the resistor, the ferrite, or the coil.
Some here have put forth a considerable effort to standardize the components, but this was an aftermarket thought.
Not the definition of the device.
What I am trying to do is teach others how it was designed to be used in the most efficient manner.
Obviously I can't comment on the various oscillator circuits that you have made reference to, but I suspect that many of them may not in fact be Joule Thief circuits as per the two criteria that I outline above.
again, I'm not sure I can agree with your observational criteria.
A lot of the efficiency is due to the fact that the LED in a Joule Thief is flashing and taking advantage of the persistence of human vision. To accomplish this the Joule Thief has the overhead associated with the lossy energizing of the main coil and the associated overhead for the timing circuit.
MileHigh
Most of what I have been talking about is not necessarily comparing the Joule Thief to another circuit.
But comparing the Joule Thief to itself, under different operating conditions.
What those operating conditions are, and how to use them to build the best possible JT circuit.
Efficiency of the JT vs other devices can only be done analyzing the duty cycle of the power across the transistor.
This is generally done outside the linear mode of the transistor, and at frequencies far from a resonant node.
Comparison in this manner shows that the Joule Thief is a rather inefficient circuit. We can and have done better.
a JT in resonance, sometimes cannot even be measured.
Equipment can get destroyed, and capacitors explode, stray voltage spikes in unexpected parts of the circuit.
This is because people don't pay attention to the impedance of their oscilloscope,
or that a diode can create a return current path, which is preferred by the current when resistance through the coil peaks.
DMMs are usually the first to go, people think since they run it through a diode that its no longer "AC"......
There is a whole range of mathematics and rules that must be adhered to when it comes to resonant circuits.
these have been around for 200 years, people mainly ignore that which we do not use.
I don't get too deep into these concepts here, because most of them apply to much larger resonant circuits, than a simple JT. - but they CAN and sometimes DO apply, when you are taking measurements of the JT circuit in resonance.
Also note, that a resonating inductor produces large amounts of interference to the surroundings.
If not properly shielded, this can disturb instruments and equipment nearby.
Our circuits are not designed to operate in this manner, it is a whole other branch of technology that never went anywhere. We went with the predictable, more consistent route.
It is now our time to experiment with this.
As it pertains to "flashing" LEDs::
persistence of human vision varies from person to person. One human can see very fast flashes, where another human cannot perceive them. There is an "average", based on a number of test samples, but generally any testing done to the JT is done using an assessment of the actual circuit, not some arbitrary visual aspect.
Also, there are frequencies your brain cannot process. points where the LED will appear to dim to you, but in fact it is producing a greater amount of "light" than a lower frequency you were able to see.
We know by the diode data sheet, how much "light" is produced with a given voltage/current put through the diode, and we also know the decay function or Cut-off time, that this "light" is dissipated over after the pulse cuts off.
What we "see" from the LED does not matter.
I think what you will find, is that in most set-ups, the LED itself never fully turns "off".
Therefore, the persistence of human vision doesn't even come into play.
The LED itself doesn't even matter. more accurate testing can be done using other components as a load.
-
I am trying to bring everyone up to speed on this, because once we all get it, we can go to the next level.
If people are still getting hung up on the very basics, we must communicate the information more effectively.
Simply put, once the JT is operating at a resonant frequency, we can remove the LED/load completely,
and couple to it, using the inductor as a transformer. By winding a secondary onto the ferrite.
With an appropriate capacitance, this secondary coil can be set resonate with the frequency of the rest of the circuit, and used to power a load.
-
Smoky2
Thanks for the helpful explanations. I think the direction with a secondary is where Jeanna was going some years back. She had some YT videos using multiple secondaries - very interesting stuff. IST had a slightly different approach, and often used a kind of caduceus winding for his multiple secondaries.
Looking forward to a more purposeful kind of build that would enable us to produce the resonant effect and draw from it.
Bob
-
Someone said here earlier that we cant take, as in load, from a parallel rc? Below is a pic and the code for the circuit in the pic for Falstads Circuit sim.
When you hold the switch on and charge the parallel rc then release the switch, the rc goes through a near full cycle then dumps back into the source through the diode across the switch. So the rc goes into full swing in the forward direction of the inductor, as we know, charges up the cap, then reverses direction and the inductor at near full bore dumps into the source.
I chose to use the 10uf cap so there is time to see the circuit work as in visual current flow. The cap can be small where the action happens 'almost' instantaneously, and reducing the amount of current when the switch goes on and dumps into the cap also, as seen as a big current spike when the cap is 10uf or just larger than a tiny cap. Not too tiny of a cap. There needs to be a short time period for the switch to become fully opened before the collapse current develops enough voltage to jump the gradually opening gap.
So this circuit can be used in a simple pulse motor to direct the coils field collapse currents back to the source, and also saves the reed switch from arcing when released because the inductors forward current has a place to go other than the switch gap when opening.
$ 1 5.0E-6 10.20027730826997 50 5.0 43
s 640 224 704 224 0 1 true
l 640 224 640 496 0 1.0 -1.6114345942577624E-6
v 704 496 704 224 0 0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
r 640 496 704 496 0 1.0
w 640 176 640 224 0
w 704 176 704 224 0
d 640 176 704 176 1 0.805904783
w 640 496 576 496 0
w 640 224 576 224 0
c 576 224 576 496 0 1.0E-5 8.604227041654291E-4
o 1 64 0 35 0.009765625 9.765625E-5 0 -1
Mags
-
I am trying to bring everyone up to speed on this, because once we all get it, we can go to the next level.
If people are still getting hung up on the very basics, we must communicate the information more effectively.
Simply put, once the JT is operating at a resonant frequency, we can remove the LED/load completely,
and couple to it, using the inductor as a transformer. By winding a secondary onto the ferrite.
With an appropriate capacitance, this secondary coil can be set resonate with the frequency of the rest of the circuit, and used to power a load.
Hey Smoky
Does making the secondary resonant with the primary have to be load specific on the secondary? Like does the value of the load affect the resonant freq of the secondary? Does the secondary have to be tuned to a specific load?
Thanks
Mags
-
Smoky2:
the LED is optional, and serves only as an indicator that the circuit is in operation.
The fact, or should I say phenomena, that people are amazed by, and use the LED as a source of light, is quite frankly irrelevant to what is or is not a joule thief.
Okay, fair enough. So let's strip it down to the bare bones then. All that you are left with is energizing an inductor and then discharging that inductor into some kind of load. The inductor acts like a current source when it discharges and the majority of people on this forum don't understand that. And if you want you can take advantage of that fact and create a small cottage industry. You can give it the fake label of "radiant energy" and sell DVDs all about it but never actually explaining what is going on to your target audience.
There is nothing "exciting" about a discharging inductor to an informed electronics hobbyist, you may as well be watching paint dry.
The entire argument of it using the "last bit of current in a battery" is complete hogwash,
you can run these off nearly any voltage potential, from any source.
from the earth itself, broadcast radio signals, to the voltage built up in the metal frame of your computer desk....
It's a huge stretch to claim you can run one off of "the earth itself, broadcast radio signals, to the voltage built up in the metal frame of your computer desk.." You need to keep this discussion rooted in some measure of reasonableness and reality. You are never in a million years going to run a Joule Thief on the voltage built up in the metal frame of a computer desk.
What is a Joule Thief?
a Joule Thief is: An Armstrong Oscillator
No, an Armstrong Oscillator is based on an LC resonant tank and a Joule Thief is not in any way, shape, or form based on an LC resonant tank.
If you disagree then I already suggested that anyone is welcome to present evidence that is comparable to the clip that I linked to that describes the operation of a Joule Thief with a full and complete description of the entire switching cycle.
But taking an analog circuit, and forcing it to be digital, you lose certain qualities of the signal.
I am not a fan of vague and ephemeral language when it comes to electronic circuits. The quote above is meaningless.
MileHigh
-
Smoky2:
Most of what I have been talking about is not necessarily comparing the Joule Thief to another circuit.
But comparing the Joule Thief to itself, under different operating conditions.
What those operating conditions are, and how to use them to build the best possible JT circuit.
That I can wholeheartedly agree with and you also made earlier references with respect to trying different component values. That would be a great learning exercise for many but I fear that it is above the knowledge and skill set of the average electronics experimenter on the free energy forums.
Again, stripping it down to its bare bones: You can make a Joule Thief circuit (or say a 555 based circuit) that adjusts the parameters related to a discharging inductor: the size of the inductor, the initial current and energy in the pulse, the pulse repetition rate, and how that custom designed train of inductive pulse discharges will go into your chosen load. That's all there is when you strip it down to the bare essentials. You notice I am restricting my discussion to a "normal" Joule Thief.
a JT in resonance, sometimes cannot even be measured.
Equipment can get destroyed, and capacitors explode, stray voltage spikes in unexpected parts of the circuit.
This is because people don't pay attention to the impedance of their oscilloscope,
or that a diode can create a return current path, which is preferred by the current when resistance through the coil peaks.
DMMs are usually the first to go, people think since they run it through a diode that its no longer "AC"......
It all sounds fine and dandy and clearly you have a following here. But I have yet to see what I would call a Joule Thief in "resonance" and if you can't demonstrate that or link to tangible proof that what you are alleging is real, for right now I have to consider it to be pie-in-the-sky. Again, I am not saying that you cannot have oscillator circuits that light LEDs or drive loads, but I would have to be convinced that there are "Joule Thieves in resonance."
Our circuits are not designed to operate in this manner, it is a whole other branch of technology that never went anywhere. We went with the predictable, more consistent route.
It is now our time to experiment with this.
It all sounds very cool and very cutting edge to some people around here, but not to me. I will just repeat that electronics is very well understood and what you are alleging about some kind of "outside the box" study of electronics is simply not the case at all.
I think what you will find, is that in most set-ups, the LED itself never fully turns "off".
With a standard Joule Thief circuit the LED does switch off so the persistence of human vision does come into play. I do appreciate how you stated that the persistence of human vision is a complex process and not necessarily a one-size-fits-all proposition.
MileHigh
-
Smoky2:
I am trying to bring everyone up to speed on this, because once we all get it, we can go to the next level.
If people are still getting hung up on the very basics, we must communicate the information more effectively.
Simply put, once the JT is operating at a resonant frequency, we can remove the LED/load completely,
and couple to it, using the inductor as a transformer. By winding a secondary onto the ferrite.
With an appropriate capacitance, this secondary coil can be set resonate with the frequency of the rest of the circuit, and used to power a load.
I am all for that because I am all talked out about this. The proof is in the pudding.
Not to be too cynical but often you see experiments around here that are all about a "new way" to power a load. The catch is this: Can your circuit outperform two wires? Of course I am oversimplifying but I think you get my point.
MileHigh
-
Smoky2
Thanks for the helpful explanations. I think the direction with a secondary is where Jeanna was going some years back. She had some YT videos using multiple secondaries - very interesting stuff. IST had a slightly different approach, and often used a kind of caduceus winding for his multiple secondaries.
Looking forward to a more purposeful kind of build that would enable us to produce the resonant effect and draw from it.
Bob
All of Jenna's clips about this were just an exercise in experimenting with a transformer with multiple secondary windings. How does a transformer distribute power when there are multiple secondary windings wiith different numbers of turns and perhaps each secondary is driving a different value of resistive load (or different LEDs)?
This is a basic nuts and bolts transformer question that any serious electronics hobbyist should try to answer for themselves. When Jenna did this there was never a manifestation of extra power.
-
Smoky said...
"I think what you will find, is that in most set-ups, the LED itself never fully turns "off"."
With a standard Joule Thief circuit the LED does switch off so the persistence of human vision does come into play. I do appreciate how you stated that the persistence of human vision is a complex process and not necessarily a one-size-fits-all proposition.
MileHigh
With the led across the driver coil, not the trigger coil, the inductor collapse winding down could possibly still be passing current(and light output) through the led by the time the transistor is triggered again. Also white leds have phosphorous that has a persistence of emission also. ;D
Mags
-
With the led across the driver coil, not the trigger coil, the inductor collapse winding down could possibly still be passing current(and light output) through the led by the time the transistor is triggered again. Also white leds have phosphorous that has a persistence of emission also. ;D
Mags
The LED will be off during the on time of the primary coil,as the voltage is inverted across the coil during the on time,and that voltage cannot exceed the voltage of the supply battery. You could of course use a diode and cap with an LED across the cap,and it will be on 100% of the time.
Brad
-
as always i will give away my top secret coil winding system..check it out..the winding is in bifilar configuration..
-
I seriously doubt that a normal Joule Thief can be made to keep the LED on all the time but it can be tried on the bench or in simulation.
The key thing about the Joule Thief transistor is that it snaps ON or it snaps OFF due to positive feedback.
What makes the Joule Thief transistor snap ON is the end of the discharge cycle of the LED. The potential at the coil-LED terminal drops when the LED discharge is ending. That drop in potential on the output (right) side of the transformer makes the input (left) side of the of the transformer raise the potential of the base resistor to snap the transistor ON again.
So, it would appear that a Joule Thief can not keep the LED lit all the time because to start a new energizing cycle where you snap the transistor ON, the LED must complete it's discharge cycle and go off such that the energy in the coil is completely depleted first.
You can see how this "winging it" electronics talk can be so fruitless. No schematics and no timing diagrams and no explanation of the normal operation of the circuit under discussion is the typical backdrop for having a meaningless conversation about electronics while pretending it actually means something. I have seen discussions of up to 50 postings back and forth that all meant nothing.
On a thread about two or three years ago Poynt got involved in a Joule Thief discussion and some beautiful comprehensive Joule Thief timing diagrams were posted. I don't recall if they were simulations or scope shots but I think they were supplied by Poynt. I tried a Google search for Joule Thief timing diagrams but could not find any.
-
I dont want to bring it up further than this, but I wish to reiterate my slight objection to using the circuit I had shown earlier with the led across the transistor.
I went through a search of jt circuits to get a quick view of what seemed most common and some that are variants.
The most popular circuit is the one with the led across the transistor.
The circuit below, which I have labeled as 'wrong'(even though it still works I suppose) seems to take away efficiency by draining the battery when switching on and also draining in series with the discharge into the led. Now below that pic is one that I have labeled 'right' in which I moved the led across the coil instead where it doesnt have the battery draining when the led lights.
What Im thinking is that the popular circuit 'wrong'(probably the first ever that started it all?) is probably the worst circuit of them to use when we talk efficiency. I would bet that it drains the battery faster than the 'right' circuit. Just being that this is JT 101, that should be discussed a little, maybe.
The 3rd circuit shows a battery being charged as an output and is where I would expect it to be in the circuit. If the battery and the diode were across the transistor and in the 'wrong' circuit, the source battery would be drained as much as the load battery is being charged! ??? Thats not good at all, let alone the source battery has to pump the inductor. Drain and more drain. ::) I want to go the most efficient route here. ;) Never built one but I know how it works. I noticed this issue(to me it is an issue :P ;D ) very quickly just looking at the current paths.
I read once before that a jt is really no more efficient than running the led direct and the only advantage was that it ran on virtually dead batteries. Well if they were testing for efficiency with the 'wrong' circuit, then maybe so. ;)
Had anyone discussed this before possibly?
Mags
-
Looking at the 3rd pic in my post above, it seems the batteries are not correct polarity for the circuit. Picked it from a big list on search. But the output deal is what I wanted to show an example of.
Mags
-
If I remember correctly (this was a good 7-8 years ago or something...)
The JT circuit sprung from several replication attempts of BruceTPU's self-oscillating circuit.
Which flashed an LED (slowly) for a confirmed 30+days off a capacitor and a resonant tank, which had everyone excited.
Noone was able to replicate what bruce was doing, most of them stated arguments that sound a lot like MH's discussion here.
However, when a battery was added, the circuit performed nicely. Eventually it was found that the batteries don't need to be fully charged. All this was done without the basic operating principals understood.
does the circuit "work" as it is built by a majority of the unknowledged replicators?
I suppose that depends on what you are trying to "do" with it....
If your goal was to light an LED,. then yes I supposed a JT works, no matter how you build it.
There are voltage step-up circuits that will do the same thing much better.
I guess I have the experience of watching the whole thing evolve, from an outside perspective.
I saw the obvious fact that no one was listening to Bruce.
Maybe because they were trained by the industry, perhaps because they could not comprehend the principals.
But at the end of the day, this thing spread around like candy, kids were building them everywhere.
hey LOOK!! this thing can light an LED with a dead battery!!! <<-- this is not even what makes the JT special.....
it is basically a side effect from one particular configuration, that caught on as a fad.
the name "joule thief" was coined some time after the device had been in circulation. The (2 possibly 3) people involved in propagating its' name took the information from the threads and put it in a logical, replicatable form that everyone could easily build. With no knowledge of electronics, signal processing, electrical engineering, physics, magnetics, or any other field that applies to the operation of this circuit. Anyone can copy the design and light an LED with it.
If that is as far as you want to take this technology.. umm,. the door is that way.
To claim that this is not an Armstrong Oscillator, is rather an absurd statement.
Even in its' most simplified form, it still remains such.
The fact that people ignorantly destroy the resonance of the tank, is quite frankly irrelevant.
There was a lot of questions posted recently, I will try to address them here. sorry if I missed one.
@ Mags - on the secondary load,
to put is simply, yes the load affects circuit resonance. Diodes can be used, if resistance can be kept within nominal values. Also, another inductor of greater impedance can prevent destructive feedback.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9RgjAgSQOg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9RgjAgSQOg)
It is almost a lose-lose situation to try to force the load to be resonant with the coil.
because the primary circuit has a resistance and impedance that differs from that of the ferrite with coil
There is a "mirroring" technique, but it can't really apply to the JT, at least not in the way we use it.
rather the transformer in its' entirety is made to be resonant, and the load is separated by a rectifier circuit,
or appropriate impedance, to prevent destructive feedback from destroying the resonant waveform.
In the above circuit, the number of turns on the secondary coil of the JT, was increased from that of the primary coil, until a resonant node was found.
The second inductor is much larger, with a much greater number of turns on the coil.
The impedance keeps the voltage from fully being achieved in the larger inductor.
Timing of the primary oscillator truncates the amplitude of the waveform, and it presents itself as a lower voltage , higher current signal.
--Note here that the secondary larger ring, is NOT self-resonant with the JT portion of the circuit.
it oscillates with the resonant freq of the JT, but the ferrite and coil in the second inductor are much different.
The second inductor cannot be made to be self resonant with the coil that is around it.
[When the same large ring is used directly in a JT, the voltages spike to around 90V DC, and almost no current.
some LEDs can pass it through (arc?) , others get damaged.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
@ MileHigh
What is the effect of discharging a magnetic inductor (current source) through a coil, when the inductor was magnetically charged, with the lowest possible reluctance?
Does the inductor (current source) then discharge with the most energy possible, because losses are minimized?
Why would you intentionally try NOT to do that?
As for operating JT circuits with voltage sources other than a battery -
You seriously need to do some research. I can name no less than a dozen people on this forum that have posted videos of a JT running from an earth battery. I myself have done this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrrFsiMXrvA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrrFsiMXrvA)
There are also many other videos out there using all kinds of voltage sources.
the desk was a woodentop, metal frame desk, upon which sat a lamp, a computer and monitor.
The desk measureably sat at about 43V DC, we assumed because of the electronics sitting on it.
and Yes it powered a JT, because we tried it.
With a standard Joule Thief circuit the LED does switch off so the persistence of human vision does come into play. I do appreciate how you stated that the persistence of human vision is a complex process and not necessarily a one-size-fits-all proposition.
MileHigh
This is a yes, and a no... more recent JTs use faster reacting LED's. And will in fact flicker rapidly.
Many of the originals used a certain type of Red LED, found in college electronics kits.
These LED's, when powered on, then switched off, take some time to turn off. The light dims gradually.
In most scenarios, using these LEDs in a JT circuit, cut-off time of the LED is longer than half the frequency.
Thus, by the time the LED fully dims, it has already received another pulse and lit back up again.
There is no perceivable "off" condition, by the human eye, or by luminescent monitoring equipment.
What IS perceived, is a dimming of the light. But not a complete off-state.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
What makes the Joule Thief transistor snap ON is the end of the discharge cycle of the LED. The potential at the coil-LED terminal drops when the LED discharge is ending. That drop in potential on the output (right) side of the transformer makes the input (left) side of the of the transformer raise the potential of the base resistor to snap the transistor ON again.
So, it would appear that a Joule Thief can not keep the LED lit all the time because to start a new energizing cycle where you snap the transistor ON, the LED must complete it's discharge cycle and go off such that the energy in the coil is completely depleted first.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Makes no sense to me...
a JT can oscillate without the LED present in the circuit.
the LED is only there so you can "see" when the circuit is oscillating.
There are other ways to see this, without using an LED wasting away your energy....
Amplitudes of both voltage AND current increase when the LED is removed.
the "on" - "off" state of the transistor is a function of the inductor/battery circuit, NOT the LED.
you can change the location of the LED, or remove it completely.
The signal at the base from the inductor is what turns the transistor on.
It boosts the voltage from the "dead" battery to above the cut-on voltage of the transistor.
That's what makes the transistor turn on (and the LED light up).
Inductance.
It is a factor of the number of turns on the primary winding.
This is why it is usually such a low number (8-15 turns)
More turns = higher voltage. at some point, you exceed the operating voltage of the transistor.
-
Yep, all true, pretty much without additional comment necessary.
I've demonstrated my HVJT lighting up 6 NE-2s in series, spiking to over 800 volts, using a AAA battery for input, or even using my wireless power receiver-transmitter system instead of an onboard battery.
Mostly I want to point out that the two circuits using NPN transistors that Mags posted up above are just about equivalent in terms of light intensity and electrical efficiency, as far as I can tell. They work fine using supercaps, but the input voltage must be kept low or the transistor will saturate and stop oscillating, of course. With no LED load they spike to over 26 volts with less than 1 volt input.
Here's a scopeshot of the Mags "right" circuit (LED across transformer winding rather than across E-C of the transistor). I made a 6-pad version and used a MPSA18 transistor and a 150 ohm base resistor to keep it consistent with my "standard" 6-pad JT, and I used 2 Max Lumileds in series as the load. Both circuits give an illumination of about 11.5 lux at my standard 43 cm distance in my lightbox.
I don't know what to say about the PNP circuit up above, I've never tried it myself. I have made some PNP JTs... in fact the standard circuit will generally work with a PNP transistor if you reverse E and C connection and battery polarity. (IIRC... I don't have one set up at the moment.)
-
OK... to do a more valid comparison of the two circuits (Mags's "right" with LED across the coil, and the Standard "wrong" with LED across E-C of transistor) I wound another toroid of 36+36 turns (arbitrarily chosen) and breadboarded the two circuits with the same components each time, to eliminate variations due to component differences. I used a 1000 ohm gate resistor, an MPSA18 transistor, two Max LumiLEDs in series as load, and the toroid, all same components in both cases. I used my lightbox with Extech LT300 lightmeter to check the brightness of the LED load at 18 inches from LEDs to sensor. It's simple to rewire the breadboard from one configuration to the other, just have to change one wire. I used the same depleted AG13 alkaline button cell, which measures 1.27 volts open-circuit (after running the tests).
So, the scopeshots below show the two circuits.
#128 is the "Mags right" circuit, and it produced a reading of 8.5 Lux on the lightmeter.
#129 is the "Standard wrong" circuit, and it produced a reading of 9.8 Lux on the lightmeter.
Later on I'll do an electrical efficiency test by measuring the average input power to the circuits and compare that to the brightness, so I'll get values in Lux per Watt for the two circuits.
-
Smoky2:
To claim that this is not an Armstrong Oscillator, is rather an absurd statement.
Even in its' most simplified form, it still remains such.
The fact that people ignorantly destroy the resonance of the tank, is quite frankly irrelevant.
It is clearly not an Armstrong oscillator and there is no resonant tank. There is nothing absurd about my statement at all. You simply have to look at a Joule Thief schematic and compare it to the schematics of an Armstrong oscillator. See attached.
So if you want to make that claim and have it taken seriously then you have to go beyond just posting text. Right now you are the one making the absurd statement.
What is the effect of discharging a magnetic inductor (current source) through a coil, when the inductor was magnetically charged, with the lowest possible reluctance?
Does the inductor (current source) then discharge with the most energy possible, because losses are minimized?
Why would you intentionally try NOT to do that?
If I understand your question properly, and that's sometimes difficult because you are sparing with your words, when one inductor discharges into another inductor (presumably with no current flowing through it) then you get a near-instantaneous spike of voltage from the first inductor inducing the second inductor to get current flowing though it. In a very short amount of time both inductors have the same current flowing through them. The original current flowing in the first inductor takes a step down such that the energy is conserved.
I don't know why you say, "Why would you intentionally try NOT to do that?" because there is seeming no discernible context to whatever point you are trying to get across.
You seriously need to do some research. I can name no less than a dozen people on this forum that have posted videos of a JT running from an earth battery.
The problem is that you did not say "earth battery" you said "earth." Of course a Joule Thief can run from an earth battery which in reality is just current due to the slow corrosion of a metal like magnesium.
the desk was a woodentop, metal frame desk, upon which sat a lamp, a computer and monitor.
The desk measureably sat at about 43V DC, we assumed because of the electronics sitting on it.
and Yes it powered a JT, because we tried it.
One more time, it's the same issue. All that you said was "metal frame desk" and you said nothing beyond that. If you made serious measurements on the "output" of the desk you would quote more than just "43V DC" which is almost meaningless.
These LED's, when powered on, then switched off, take some time to turn off. The light dims gradually.
I'd be more than happy to look at an LED data sheet showing that if you can link to one.
MileHigh
-
@ TK - I love the clothespin battery holder :)
@ MH - in your comparative analysis of the two circuits, did you notice the functional difference between the two diagrams?
essentially, they operate the same, minus one important factor.
the R-C component of the tank circuit vs the L of the coil are set to resonate with each other.
This, not taken into consideration in the JT equivalent circuit, reduces performance.
The same could be said about the Armstrong circuit, if one chose to change the value of R or C.
-
Smoky2:
a JT can oscillate without the LED present in the circuit.
the LED is only there so you can "see" when the circuit is oscillating.
There are other ways to see this, without using an LED wasting away your energy....
Amplitudes of both voltage AND current increase when the LED is removed.
In a regular Joule Thief if you remove the LED it will presumably still operate like you state. The inductor would have no choice but to discharge through the transistor. The average power is low so presumably it would not fry the transistor junctions.
The voltage output from the coil will spike to a quite high voltage, it all depends on the speed that the transistor switches off. However, I have "caught" you here with respect to the discharge current. The current will NOT increase. Are you sure that you fully understand the complete dynamics of an inductor?
the "on" - "off" state of the transistor is a function of the inductor/battery circuit, NOT the LED.
you can change the location of the LED, or remove it completely.
I strongly suggest that you go back and watch the clip about the operation of a Joule Thief that I linked to the other day to review the positive-feedback "snapping" mechanism that switches the transistor ON and OFF and governs the operating frequency of the device. It is also related to the rate of change of current flow through the main coil which is indeed related to the characteristics of the inductor and battery combination.
The signal at the base from the inductor is what turns the transistor on.
It boosts the voltage from the "dead" battery to above the cut-on voltage of the transistor.
That's what makes the transistor turn on (and the LED light up).
Inductance.
It is a factor of the number of turns on the primary winding.
This is why it is usually such a low number (8-15 turns)
More turns = higher voltage. at some point, you exceed the operating voltage of the transistor.
I agree that you can experiment with the number of turns in the coil that connects to the base resistor. If you do that then you may want to change the value of the base resistor. In the context of what you are stating, a transistor does not have an "operating voltage" it has an operating current.
MileHigh
-
@ MH - in your comparative analysis of the two circuits, did you notice the functional difference between the two diagrams?
essentially, they operate the same, minus one important factor.
the R-C component of the tank circuit vs the L of the coil are set to resonate with each other.
This, not taken into consideration in the JT equivalent circuit, reduces performance.
The same could be said about the Armstrong circuit, if one chose to change the value of R or C.
I really don't know what you are saying here when you refer to the resistance in the Armstrong oscillator tank circuit. For sure it is there but it is not relevant to the powered oscillation of the LC tank.
In a Joule Thief, the operating frequency is dependent on L/R type time constants, one L/R time constant for the energizing of the coil, and another L/R-type time constant for the discharge of the inductor energy through the LED.
Now, seriously, how can you equate the resonant frequency of an Armstrong oscillator based on an LC resonant tank and the operating frequency of a Joule Thief based on a first L/R time constant for the energizing of the main coil and a second L/R-type time constant for the discharging of the coil through the LED?
Armstrong oscillator: operating frequency determined by LC resonant tank.
Joule Thief: operating frequency determined by (1/(L/R time constant#1 + L/R time constant#2))
Can you see how completely different these two methods are for determining the operating frequency are and how a Joule Thief's operating frequency has absolutely nothing to do with resonance?
MileHigh
-
I really don't know what you are saying here when you refer to the resistance in the Armstrong oscillator tank circuit. For sure it is there but it is not relevant to the powered oscillation of the LC tank.
In a Joule Thief, the operating frequency is dependent on L/R type time constants, one L/R time constant for the energizing of the coil, and another L/R-type time constant for the discharge of the inductor energy through the LED.
Now, seriously, how can you equate the resonant frequency of an Armstrong oscillator based on an LC resonant tank and the operating frequency of a Joule Thief based on a first L/R time constant for the energizing of the main coil and a second L/R-type time constant for the discharging of the coil through the LED?
Armstrong oscillator: operating frequency determined by LC resonant tank.
Joule Thief: operating frequency determined by (1/(L/R time constant#1 + L/R time constant#2))
Can you see how completely different these two methods are for determining the operating frequency are and how a Joule Thief's operating frequency has absolutely nothing to do with resonance?
MileHigh
you are basically peeling an apple, taking the seeds out and proclaiming, see, this is not an apple at all....
the Resistance/Impedance of the Armstrong circuit is equally important as the Capacitance and Inductance.
In fact, all 3 must be maintained in perfect balance for the circuit to be resonant at that frequency.
This quality makes the Armstrong Oscillator an RLC circuit, Not simply an LC tank.
Though, under certain analysis, the two can behave similarly.
[I would go even further by stating that an LC tank is technically defined also as an RLC.
because of our wires containing some resistance value, but its effect on resonance frequencies can be negligible]
the Joule Thief, is also an RLC circuit, and its' type is classified as an Armstrong Oscillator.
this is a technical definition written in the stone of electronics theory.
Many RLC circuits exist, and most of them are named according to their Inventor, or a particular aspect of their operation.
When we classify the Joule Thief, this is the category it falls under.
all circuits that fall into this category are considered to be Armstrong Oscillators.
-
I have done, what I think is (currently) my best attempt to bring this knowledge into the public realm, as it pertains to the JT circuit.
To understand more, from perhaps a more technical aspect than I myself can present.
I would direct you to the works of Edwin Armstrong - who is considered by some to be the GodFather of radio.
http://users.erols.com/oldradio/ (http://users.erols.com/oldradio/)
-
Smoky2:
In a regular Joule Thief if you remove the LED it will presumably still operate like you state. The inductor would have no choice but to discharge through the transistor. The average power is low so presumably it would not fry the transistor junctions.
You make some big assumptions here, but outside of resonant frequencies, yes your electronics should be safe, given the parameters of the system to be within tolerance.
The voltage output from the coil will spike to a quite high voltage, it all depends on the speed that the transistor switches off.
This "speed" you speak of,. this wouldn't be related to "frequency" would it?
More specifically, the frequency-dependent curve of the transistor switching function?
However, I have "caught" you here with respect to the discharge current. The current will NOT increase. Are you sure that you fully understand the complete dynamics of an inductor?
Allow me to clarify, by "increase" upon removal of the LED, it can instead be stated that:
by including an LED, there is a drop in current through the parallel paths, and an associated voltage drop across the diode.
This is important to consider, when analyzing the feedback signal.
It represents a higher impedance, as well as a lower voltage.
Impedance differs from a purely resistance perspective,
because changes in amplitude over time as well as phase come into play.
Note that it does not matter if this impedance is included in series or parallel.
Though its' physical location around the loop does affect certain parameters,
as shown in TK's demonstration above. <- while this makes for great conversation,
I feel that is above the technical level of a basic "101" crash course.
I strongly suggest that you go back and watch the clip about the operation of a Joule Thief that I linked to the other day to review the positive-feedback "snapping" mechanism that switches the transistor ON and OFF and governs the operating frequency of the device. It is also related to the rate of change of current flow through the main coil which is indeed related to the characteristics of the inductor and battery combination.
I do not particularly agree with the assumptions made by that analysis.
While these factors are related, as I have described in previous posts,
phase angle between the signals must be properly considered to discuss what is being shown.
I agree that you can experiment with the number of turns in the coil that connects to the base resistor. If you do that then you may want to change the value of the base resistor. In the context of what you are stating, a transistor does not have an "operating voltage" it has an operating current.
MileHigh
Hmm,.. I've run into this before. where I come from we use terms like Cut-in/Cut-out, or Cut-On/Cut-Off.
What this refers to is:
the voltage threshold that represents the transition stage between:
the Cut-Off and Active regions of the transistor. Below this voltage, the semiconductor does not allow current to pass.
Above this voltage current can travel.
This function is controlled in part by the base voltage (bias).
The transistor in the Joule thief transitions between Cut-off and forward active operation modes.
(up to the point of saturation) at which point the diode becomes the primary conductor until voltage potential drops below
the cut-off of the LED. at which point it begins to dissipate its' capacitance as light. (discharge)
Saturation only generally occurs in a JT when the LED(s) have a high internal capacitance (long discharge time).
This allows for a unique scenario when the voltage drop across the diode makes the emitter voltage appear lower than the base.
Otherwise, the transistor remains in one of these two states.
The actual timing diagram of the switching function, can display a wide range of characteristics.
Outside of linear mode, and/or resonant operation - this function appears as a sharp spike at cut-on, and a gradual decrease at cut-off. (removing the LED changes the shape of these spikes).
When operated in linear mode, at resonance, it is a pure sine-wave function, with varying amplitudes.
-
you are basically peeling an apple, taking the seeds out and proclaiming, see, this is not an apple at all....
the Resistance/Impedance of the Armstrong circuit is equally important as the Capacitance and Inductance.
In fact, all 3 must be maintained in perfect balance for the circuit to be resonant at that frequency.
This quality makes the Armstrong Oscillator an RLC circuit, Not simply an LC tank.
Though, under certain analysis, the two can behave similarly.
[I would go even further by stating that an LC tank is technically defined also as an RLC.
because of our wires containing some resistance value, but its effect on resonance frequencies can be negligible]
the Joule Thief, is also an RLC circuit, and its' type is classified as an Armstrong Oscillator.
this is a technical definition written in the stone of electronics theory.
Many RLC circuits exist, and most of them are named according to their Inventor, or a particular aspect of their operation.
When we classify the Joule Thief, this is the category it falls under.
all circuits that fall into this category are considered to be Armstrong Oscillators.
No in fact the resistance is not that critical in the RLC resonator because it is an active circuit where an external power source keeps the resonator resonating regardless of the inherent resistance in the resonating components. There is no special balance with regards to the resistance in what is essentially an LC resonator.
Th Joule Thief is not an RLC circuit as I have clearly shown. It is an active circuit that charges and then discharges a coil. It's the charging cycle and the discharging cycle that determine the operating frequency, and there is no RLC resonator in sight. Instead there are two L/R-type time constants that factor in to determine the operating frequency of the Joule Thief in its standard normal operating mode.
You can try to ignore what I am saying, but facts are facts. Anybody that is interested in electronics would want to study and learn about both pulse circuits and resonating circuits and the associated need to be able to recognize and make a distinction between pulse circuits and resonating circuits.
Note that I am not talking about a hacked Joule Thief circuit here, just an ordinary plain vanilla Joule Thief that is a basic pulse circuit that switches a transistor on and off. It's a distant cousin of a 555 timer circuit configured as a free running astable multibrator. Likewise, a 555 running as an astable multivibrator has nothing to do with resonance. Its operating frequency is determined by RC time constants whereas for the Joule Thief its operating frequency is determined by L/R time constants.
Like I said, you have a "fan club" and anyone interested in Joule Thieves should build a standard Joule Thief first and understand how it operates and probe it with their scope and observe the positive feedback mechanisms in operation. Then if they want to hack into it and try to make it resonate then more power to them. The critical point being that if they are claiming resonance then they need to identify the L and C components that are exchanging energy back and forth and show that in action.
MileHigh
-
No in fact the resistance is not that critical in the RLC resonator because it is an active circuit where an external power source keeps the resonator resonating regardless of the inherent resistance in the resonating components. There is no special balance with regards to the resistance in what is essentially an LC resonator.
Th Joule Thief is not an RLC circuit as I have clearly shown. It is an active circuit that charges and then discharges a coil. It's the charging cycle and the discharging cycle that determine the operating frequency, and there is no RLC resonator in sight. Instead there are two L/R-type time constants that factor in to determine the operating frequency of the Joule Thief in its standard normal operating mode.
You can try to ignore what I am saying, but facts are facts. Anybody that is interested in electronics would want to study and learn about both pulse circuits and resonating circuits and the associated need to be able to recognize and make a distinction between pulse circuits and resonating circuits.
Note that I am not talking about a hacked Joule Thief circuit here, just an ordinary plain vanilla Joule Thief that is a basic pulse circuit that switches a transistor on and off. It's a distant cousin of a 555 timer circuit configured as a free running astable multibrator. Likewise, a 555 running as an astable multivibrator has nothing to do with resonance. Its operating frequency is determined by RC time constants whereas for the Joule Thief its operating frequency is determined by L/R time constants.
Like I said, you have a "fan club" and anyone interested in Joule Thieves should build a standard Joule Thief first and understand how it operates and probe it with their scope and observe the positive feedback mechanisms in operation. Then if they want to hack into it and try to make it resonate then more power to them. The critical point being that if they are claiming resonance then they need to identify the L and C components that are exchanging energy back and forth and show that in action.
MileHigh
Th Joule Thief is not an RLC circuit as I have clearly shown.
How did you ever come up with that MH ?.
The JT is most certainly an RLC circuit.
Brad
-
Thanks for taking the time to do those tests TK.
Mags
-
How did you ever come up with that MH ?.
The JT is most certainly an RLC circuit.
Brad
Really? Take a look at the attached diagram. This is an intentionally simplified explanation showing the two principal processes that determine the operating frequency of the Joule Thief that ignores the battery voltage and the positive feedback transistor switching process.
There used to be a good explanation on the operating frequency of a Joule Thief that went into quite a bit of detail on Wikipedia but apparently it was disputed because it has since been removed. Here is a link that discusses the inductance being a prime factor with some information from the older version of the now-modified Wikipedia page:
http://www.elperfecto.com/2011/01/22/toroidal-inductors-number-of-turns-affects-joule-thief/ (http://www.elperfecto.com/2011/01/22/toroidal-inductors-number-of-turns-affects-joule-thief/)
Feel free to make your case for a Joule Thief being an RLC circuit.
MileHigh
-
Just made a quick sim of the right and wrong circuits running simultaneously. The circuits do work. The left is what I had labeled as 'wrong' and the circuit on the right is, well, 'right' ;D
The scope shots are source(1.5v batt) pk power traces to the left, top is 'wrong' and bottom is 'right'. And the traces on the right are the leds, top 'wrong' bottom is 'right'. The power traces are peaks, not average power. So we will leave it up to TK to determine which circuit has the advantage of pulling less from the source. He has shown a higher lux from the leds with the 'wrong' circuit so far. Im not sure if that is a noticeable difference in brightness to the eye.
The 'right' circuit has a higher running freq.
If you slow down the sim control slider, the 'wrong' circuit it seems the transistor never really turns off and always draining the source, along with the led draining the source when it is on. And the 'right' circuit the transistor does turn off and the led does not drain the source when on.
Here is the code for the sim. For some odd reason the codes dont always provide the scopes as what shows when the code is exported. I retried the code and it did this time.
$ 1 5.0E-6 0.625470095193633 50 5.0 43
t 416 400 496 400 0 1 -1.403784455736806 0.7049612942489206 100.0
w 496 416 496 448 0
w 496 448 336 448 0
169 416 240 496 240 0 1.0E-4 1.0 -0.001746210276144522 1.2763726782599143 1.2763726782599143
w 496 240 496 208 0
w 496 208 416 208 0
s 336 208 416 208 0 0 false
v 336 448 336 208 0 0 40.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.5
r 384 304 384 400 0 100.0
w 496 384 496 304 0
w 496 304 560 304 0
w 496 448 560 448 0
162 560 304 560 448 1 2.1024259 1.0 0.0 0.0
w 416 208 384 240 0
w 384 240 416 304 0
w 416 240 384 304 0
w 384 400 416 400 0
w 784 400 816 400 0
w 816 240 784 304 0
w 784 240 816 304 0
w 816 208 784 240 0
w 896 384 896 304 0
r 784 304 784 400 0 100.0
v 736 448 736 208 0 0 40.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.5
s 736 208 816 208 0 0 false
w 896 208 816 208 0
w 896 240 896 208 0
169 816 240 896 240 0 1.0E-4 1.0 5.1958437552457326E-14 0.31968522644013664 0.3196852264401375
w 896 448 736 448 0
w 896 416 896 448 0
t 816 400 896 400 0 1 -4.049226601125407 -0.5211382639894485 100.0
w 896 304 944 304 0
w 896 240 944 240 0
162 944 304 944 240 1 2.1024259 1.0 0.0 0.0
o 7 1 1 291 4.676805239458889 9.765625E-55 0 -1
o 23 1 1 291 4.676805239458889 9.765625E-55 0 -1
o 12 1 1 35 5.0 9.765625E-5 1 -1
o 33 1 1 35 5.0 9.765625E-5 1 -1
Mags
-
It seems the code I posted has the resistor at 100ohm. Change to 500ohm to show what I posted in the pic.. 100ohm here tends to run the circuit in the greater than 1 watt range. Trying to stay some what in bounds. The transformer is 1:1 100uh. Didnt play with transistor or led settings.
Mags
-
No in fact the resistance is not that critical in the RLC resonator because it is an active circuit where an external power source keeps the resonator resonating regardless of the inherent resistance in the resonating components. There is no special balance with regards to the resistance in what is essentially an LC resonator.
MileHigh
Bullshit.
When you alter the resistance in a RLC circuit, you CHANGE the resonant frequency.
This is a self-defined term.
Resistance is an important factor in the equations.
[go ahead and do a search on my name, and see how many times I declare bullshit on someone.......]
-
Bullshit.
When you alter the resistance in a RLC circuit, you CHANGE the resonant frequency.
This is a self-defined term.
Resistance is an important factor in the equations.
The most complete response I can give you to that is yes and no.
Yes in the sense that an electronics expert, the late MarkE, stated that the resistance can affect the self-resonant frequency and I was quite surprised. I don't remember the details but he clearly stated that the value of the resistance can marginally affect the self-resonant frequency and I am quite certain that this effect came into play for larger resistances.
No in the sense that we are talking about a LC circuit where the resistance is typically very low and will not have any real effect on the self-resonant frequency as defined by "omega = 1/sqrt(LC)." That is a very familiar formula that most people are aware of.
Here is the Google search link for, "resonance of an rlc circuit:"
https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=resonance+of+an+rlc+circuit (https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=resonance+of+an+rlc+circuit)
In the first six links you will see the resonance frequency defined for both serial and parallel RLC circuits as "omega = 1/sqrt(LC)" even when they clearly show resistances in the RLC circuits being discussed. In other words they are ignoring the value of the resistance because in the majority of cases it can be ignored.
So, we are coming back to reality: For nearly all practical intents and purposes, the resonant frequency of an RLC circuit is a function of the inductance and capacitance only. When the only resistances in the circuit are associated with the inductor and capacitor themselves and they are quite low, then it is only a function of the inductance and capacitance. That is a reasonable answer that covers all the bases.
Resistance is an important factor in the equations.
Really? Then the floor is yours. Please go ahead and explain exactly what you mean in detail. What are the equations?
MileHigh
-
Really? Take a look at the attached diagram. This is an intentionally simplified explanation showing the two principal processes that determine the operating frequency of the Joule Thief that ignores the battery voltage and the positive feedback transistor switching process.
There used to be a good explanation on the operating frequency of a Joule Thief that went into quite a bit of detail on Wikipedia but apparently it was disputed because it has since been removed. Here is a link that discusses the inductance being a prime factor with some information from the older version of the now-modified Wikipedia page:
http://www.elperfecto.com/2011/01/22/toroidal-inductors-number-of-turns-affects-joule-thief/ (http://www.elperfecto.com/2011/01/22/toroidal-inductors-number-of-turns-affects-joule-thief/)
Feel free to make your case for a Joule Thief being an RLC circuit.
MileHigh
As soon as you have two conducting wires wound around a core next to each other,then you also have a C value. This is more so pronounced due to the fact that the current through these two conducting wires flows in opposite directions at the same time with the JT circuit. There is also the fact that the transistor it self has Capacitance,and this C value alone also plays a factor in the operating frequency of the circuit. I have shown you before with my cool joule circuit that the Miller effect alone can send the circuit into oscillation without any inductive coupling at all between the two coil's. So to say that the JT has no C value is wrong-very wrong.
Brad
-
The most complete response I can give you to that is yes and no.
No in the sense that we are talking about a LC circuit where the resistance is typically very low and will not have any real effect on the self-resonant frequency as defined by "omega = 1/sqrt(LC)." That is a very familiar formula that most people are aware of.
Here is the Google search link for, "resonance of an rlc circuit:"
https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=resonance+of+an+rlc+circuit (https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=resonance+of+an+rlc+circuit)
In the first six links you will see the resonance frequency defined for both serial and parallel RLC circuits as "omega = 1/sqrt(LC)" even when they clearly show resistances in the RLC circuits being discussed. In other words they are ignoring the value of the resistance because in the majority of cases it can be ignored.
So, we are coming back to reality: For nearly all practical intents and purposes, the resonant frequency of an RLC circuit is a function of the inductance and capacitance only. When the only resistances in the circuit are associated with the inductor and capacitor themselves and they are quite low, then it is only a function of the inductance and capacitance. That is a reasonable answer that covers all the bases.
Really? Then the floor is yours. Please go ahead and explain exactly what you mean in detail. What are the equations?
MileHigh
Yes in the sense that an electronics expert, the late MarkE, stated that the resistance can affect the self-resonant frequency and I was quite surprised. I don't remember the details but he clearly stated that the value of the resistance can marginally affect the self-resonant frequency and I am quite certain that this effect came into play for larger resistances.
MarkE was indeed a great man,but even he had room to learn. Im sure you remember the thread MH (i cant),where i presented my cool joule circuit,and told MarkE that it operated due to the miller capacitance effect. At first he refused to believe that to be true, but then later on came back and confirmed that it was indeed the miller effect that was causing the circuit to oscillate.
There are those that dwell on these forum's that dont have much to say,but there knowledge far exceeds that of those here that often make a stand on what they believe to be true. Vortex1 is one of those extremely well versed in EE,and it's due to experience/bench time. He is also the one that worked out how my cool joule circuit was operating--i had no idea as to how or why it was working at the time,but now-because of Vortex1,i know exactly how it works.
The cool joule circuit operation was found quite by accident. I had one coil on top of the other,and as we would expect,the circuit ran quit fine. But when i went to reach for the soldering iron,i knocked the top coil of the bottom one-but the circuit still kept on oscillating :o. So i moved the top coil (base/emitter-trigger coil) further away from the drive coil,and still it kept oscillating. After a distance of over 1 meter between the two coils,we can eliminate the fact that any inductive coupling between the two coils was taking place,and so i presented this mystery circuit as the cool joule circuit,as i thought it was pretty cool that it operated without any inductive coupling between the two coils.
Anyway,i think you would be wise to listen to what Smokey has to say,as the JT definitely is an RLC circuit.
Brad
-
As soon as you have two conducting wires wound around a core next to each other,then you also have a C value. This is more so pronounced due to the fact that the current through these two conducting wires flows in opposite directions at the same time with the JT circuit. There is also the fact that the transistor it self has Capacitance,and this C value alone also plays a factor in the operating frequency of the circuit. I have shown you before with my cool joule circuit that the Miller effect alone can send the circuit into oscillation without any inductive coupling at all between the two coil's. So to say that the JT has no C value is wrong-very wrong.
Brad
You are not making a case for a Joule Thief being an RLC circuit. What that is supposed to mean is that the operating frequency is based on an LC resonant tank frequency and you can show how a Joule Thief is an actual RLC circuit.
What you are saying is that there is stray capacitance in the circuit. Likewise there is stray inductance in the circuit. In fact, for any circuit there is stray capacitance and stray inductance. Sometimes it is significant, but most of the time it is insignificant at the normal operating frequency of the circuit. Part of learning about electronics is to recognize when something is significant or not.
So I will ask you again, is a Joule Thief an RLC circuit or not? If you say it is and the operating frequency is determined by an LC resonator, then please show the circuit, show where the resonator is, and describe now it operates. Your discussion about stray capacitance above does not back up your claim.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
There are those that dwell on these forum's that dont have much to say,but there knowledge far exceeds that of those here that often make a stand on what they believe to be true. Vortex1 is one of those extremely well versed in EE,and it's due to experience/bench time.
It's not a question of me "believing it to be true," I know what I am saying is true. Rather, you are "believing it to be an RLC circuit." Now if you were wise, you would actually look at what I stated about the Joule Thief and how it operates. I did that over several postings and you are seemingly ignoring that and made no attempt to rebut it. I linked to a clip that describes exactly how a Joule Thief operates with a full five minute description. You are seemingly ignoring that also and making no attempt to rebut that.
If you are going to simply ignore what I said then it's willful ignorance on your part and you don't advance. Look at what I said, look at what Smoky2 said, look at what you yourself said, and go online and do some of your own research. Don't just almost blindly say, "Oh, a Joule Thief is an RLC circuit because there is some stray capacitance between the windings" because that is dead wrong. It's nothing more than an incorrect "drive by" evaluation of a Joule Thief circuit.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
It's not a question of me "believing it to be true," I know what I am saying is true. Rather, you are "believing it to be an RLC circuit." Now if you were wise, you would actually look at what I stated about the Joule Thief and how it operates. I did that over several postings and you are seemingly ignoring that and made no attempt to rebut it. I linked to a clip that describes exactly how a Joule Thief operates with a full five minute description. You are seemingly ignoring that also and making no attempt to rebut that.
If you are going to simply ignore what I said then it's willful ignorance on your part and you don't advance. Look at what I said, look at what Smoky2 said, look at what you yourself said, and go online and do some of your own research. Don't just almost blindly say, "Oh, a Joule Thief is an RLC circuit because there is some stray capacitance between the windings" because that is dead wrong. It's nothing more than an incorrect "drive by" evaluation of a Joule Thief circuit.
MileHigh
The JT works quit fine without inductive coupling between the two winding's,and the reason it dose that is due to the C value of the transistor. When operating at low voltages as the JT dose,and the frequencies involved,the transistors own capacitance plays a vital roll. We know this capacitance exist,so i am at a loss as to how you can say it dose not ???. As it dose exist,and is part of the circuit,then the circuit !is! an RLC circuit.
Brad.
-
The JT works quit fine without inductive coupling between the two winding's,and the reason it dose that is due to the C value of the transistor. When operating at low voltages as the JT dose,and the frequencies involved,the transistors own capacitance plays a vital roll. We know this capacitance exist,so i am at a loss as to how you can say it dose not ??? . As it dose exist,and is part of the circuit,then the circuit !is! an RLC circuit.
Brad.
Nope, you aren't going to actually show how a Joule Thief is an RLC circuit and show how it operates as an RLC circuit because you can't. You can't sketch out the circuit or sketch out timing diagrams to back up what you are claiming. What you are doing is making up a word salad.
Also, the Joule Thief will not work as a Joule Thief, if it woks at all, without the inductive coupling between the two windings. Saying it works because of "the C value of the transistor" is just more word salad.
The fundamental timing and operation of a Joule Thief is based on L/R time constants and there is no resonance at play at all - the Joule Thief timing and operation is governed by the interaction between inductance and resistance and not capacitance.
MileHigh
-
we can just "ignore" this 100k Ohm resistor
pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Since the floor is mine, I think I will mop it shiny with some Mr. Clean...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ MH - I'm glad you learned how to use Google to help you learn things.
But you cannot take at face value the first equation you come across.
For the sake of humbling your argument that resistance does not matter,
We will suspend all forethought of Ohms Law.
And only consider the direct equations that apply specifically to an RLC circuit.
Your mistake here, is that you are considering the equation:
Wo = 1/ [(sqrt)LC] This is taken in Radians (not freq.)
What this represents, in terms of an RLC circuit, is the Natural Frequency.
This is the resonant frequency the circuit will assume without constantly driving the circuit.
When resistance is very low (not the case of the JT) it can be taken as an LC tank circuit.
If you have not noticed by now, a JT will NOT continue to resonate after the power is cut.
The resonant frequency of the RLC circuit when it is powered (driven) resistance, as a factor of Damping
as: Damping Factor = Attenuation (in Nepers) / Wo (in radians).
This is most easily measured in the Joule Thief circuit as the Q factor.
the Q of the circuit = 1/R [(sqrt)L/C]
When Q is low, the circuit is "damped", and losses are heavy.
When Q is high, the circuit is "underdamped" and can oscillate,
but there are inductive losses on the magnetic side.
When all components of the circuit are operating at a resonance
that is also a resonant node of each components SRF
losses are minimized.
Using Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (Vr + Vl +Vc = V(t)): we can reduce the attenuation equation to a value ~ =
R/2L
(I know I said I would suspend Ohm's law, and Kirchhoff is basically the same idea, but this is necessary here)
Therefore, the 2 part equation, for the JT circuit is represented as
a=R/2L
and
Wo= 1/ [(sqrt)LC]
The proportionality between these two factors represents the Damping Factor.
And this can be taken as :
Damping Factor = (R/2)[(sqrt)C/L]
Therfore, to determine Resonant Frequency, we are left with a Complex Frequency response (s),
part is the Natural Frequency, and the other part is the attenuation.
when s=jW ; where j is the imaginary part of the derivative -- the circuit assumes a sinusoidal steady state.
(peak) Voltage and current levels of the resonant waveform are defined by the relationship:
V(s)=I(s)(R+ L(s) + 1/C(s))
Admittance (Y) = 1/Impedance (Z) (inversely proportional)
Admittance Y(s) = I(s)/V(s) or s/L[s^2+(R/L)s +1/LC]
Now, looking ONLY at current, we find there is a Peak value of the function I(jW)
where (Wo) is also the natural resonant frequency. Wo = 1/[(sqrt)LC]
It is important to note here, the peak value for Voltage; V(jW) derives a different frequency.
solving for Impedance with respect to frequency we find that:
Z = jWL + 1/jWC + R
By this analysis, we see that at the natural frequency; Wo=1/[(sqrt)LC]
Electrical Impedance peaks at a maximum.
However, Magnetic Reluctance (through the ferrite) at this frequency is NOT at a minimum.
Thus at Wo = 1/[(sqrt)LC], losses approach a peak. (not the maximum configuration, but quite high)
When the complex frequency is taken to be the resonant frequency of the circuit,
and this frequency is also a resonant node of the SRF of all components, such that s=jw
(making the assumption that the base voltage at this frequency is within the linear mode of the transistor)
we find peak (not max peak) amplitudes in both the current, and voltage within the frequency domain.
This represents a condition of maximum power transfer from the battery to the inductor, in a steady-state sinusoidal wave.
the resonant frequency of the feedback loop:
this is the current path through the resistor and coil presenting a reflection at the B-E junction of the transistor.
is defined as:
Wo = (sqrt)[1/LC - (R/L)^2] - note that the resistance value (R) is different from the resistance through the primary current path.
there is a 3rd current path in some configurations, that includes a factor of the batteries internal resistance,
I will not get into much more detail on that particular,
as it can be represented as a loss constant pertaining to the battery.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**puts up the wet floor sign**
-
we can just "ignore" this 100k Ohm resistor
pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Since the floor is mine, I think I will mop it shiny with some Mr. Clean...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ MH - I'm glad you learned how to use Google to help you learn things.
But you cannot take at face value the first equation you come across.
For the sake of humbling your argument that resistance does not matter,
We will suspend all forethought of Ohms Law.
And only consider the direct equations that apply specifically to an RLC circuit.
Your mistake here, is that you are considering the equation:
Wo = 1/ [(sqrt)LC] This is taken in Radians (not freq.)
What this represents, in terms of an RLC circuit, is the Natural Frequency.
This is the resonant frequency the circuit will assume without constantly driving the circuit.
When resistance is very low (not the case of the JT) it can be taken as an LC tank circuit.
If you have not noticed by now, a JT will NOT continue to resonate after the power is cut.
The resonant frequency of the RLC circuit when it is powered (driven) resistance, as a factor of Damping
as: Damping Factor = Attenuation (in Nepers) / Wo (in radians).
This is most easily measured in the Joule Thief circuit as the Q factor.
the Q of the circuit = 1/R [(sqrt)L/C]
When Q is low, the circuit is "damped", and losses are heavy.
When Q is high, the circuit is "underdamped" and can oscillate,
but there are inductive losses on the magnetic side.
When all components of the circuit are operating at a resonance
that is also a resonant node of each components SRF
losses are minimized.
Using Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (Vr + Vl +Vc = V(t)): we can reduce the attenuation equation to a value ~ =
R/2L
(I know I said I would suspend Ohm's law, and Kirchhoff is basically the same idea, but this is necessary here)
Therefore, the 2 part equation, for the JT circuit is represented as
a=R/2L
and
Wo= 1/ [(sqrt)LC]
The proportionality between these two factors represents the Damping Factor.
And this can be taken as :
Damping Factor = (R/2)[(sqrt)C/L]
Therfore, to determine Resonant Frequency, we are left with a Complex Frequency response (s),
part is the Natural Frequency, and the other part is the attenuation.
when s=jW ; where j is the imaginary part of the derivative -- the circuit assumes a sinusoidal steady state.
(peak) Voltage and current levels of the resonant waveform are defined by the relationship:
V(s)=I(s)(R+ L(s) + 1/C(s))
Admittance (Y) = 1/Impedance (Z) (inversely proportional)
Admittance Y(s) = I(s)/V(s) or s/L[s^2+(R/L)s +1/LC]
Now, looking ONLY at current, we find there is a Peak value of the function I(jW)
where (Wo) is also the natural resonant frequency. Wo = 1/[(sqrt)LC]
It is important to note here, the peak value for Voltage; V(jW) derives a different frequency.
solving for Impedance with respect to frequency we find that:
Z = jWL + 1/jWC + R
By this analysis, we see that at the natural frequency; Wo=1/[(sqrt)LC]
Electrical Impedance peaks at a maximum.
However, Magnetic Reluctance (through the ferrite) at this frequency is NOT at a minimum.
Thus at Wo = 1/[(sqrt)LC], losses approach a peak. (not the maximum configuration, but quite high)
When the complex frequency is taken to be the resonant frequency of the circuit,
and this frequency is also a resonant node of the SRF of all components, such that s=jw
(making the assumption that the base voltage at this frequency is within the linear mode of the transistor)
we find peak (not max peak) amplitudes in both the current, and voltage within the frequency domain.
This represents a condition of maximum power transfer from the battery to the inductor, in a steady-state sinusoidal wave.
the resonant frequency of the feedback loop:
this is the current path through the resistor and coil presenting a reflection at the B-E junction of the transistor.
is defined as:
Wo = (sqrt)[1/LC - (R/L)^2] - note that the resistance value (R) is different from the resistance through the primary current path.
there is a 3rd current path in some configurations, that includes a factor of the batteries internal resistance,
I will not get into much more detail on that particular,
as it can be represented as a loss constant pertaining to the battery.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**puts up the wet floor sign**
Wow, that is a lot more about this circuit than I even knew I did not know. Thanks.
MH:
I always thought the JT was a tank circuit as I have always tuned mine to either the brightest light, or the lowest mA draw...these were never at the same resistance. I thought, as Brad and others have said, that a coil has capacitance? I have several JT's here that I can cut the input power to and the leds will continue to glow for more than a few seconds...not as bright as when the power was on but, certainly bright enough to see clearly so, that tells me the energy had to be "stored" somewhere right? I had no other caps in the circuits which I am describing. I always "assumed" that the stored energy was in the inductor and, if a device can store energy than it has capacitance right?
Those that know me know I am no electronics wiz by any means. I have played and experimented with many variants of these circuits for about 7 years or so now, and I too am convinced that even the most basic JT has capacitance.
Am I wrong here?
Bill
-
Smoky2:
@ MH - I'm glad you learned how to use Google to help you learn things.
Your sarcasm is overwhelming. There are probably about 20 instances in this discussion where I have pointed out things where you were wrong. You conveniently ignored all of them. You can hone your own Google skills right there.
You gave us a big discussion where you invoked damping and the s-plane and got into complex impedances and it all came down to this:
<<< Wo = (sqrt)[1/LC - (R/L)^2] - note that the resistance value (R) is different from the resistance through the primary current path. >>>
That may or may not be right, I suppose that I could search on it. I am not going to try to check what you did because I would have to relearn a lot of stuff to do it. What you are saying may be credible, someone like Verpies would be the one to make that call.
However, what you have not done is this:
1. Shown how a Joule Thief resonates as some kind of RLC circuit
2. Shown the actual circuit and/or the equivalent circuit
3. Shown the timing for the circuit
4. Several times I have gone over how a Joule Thief is based around two L/R time constants and a switching circuit for the transistor with positive feedback and you have ignored that fact
It's all just talk with no substance to back it up. What I have said to you is that for a RLC circuit with low resistance then the resistance doesn't factor into the resonant frequency. That applies to series and parallel RLC circuits. I was treating that as a separate discussion from a Joule Thief because a Joule Thief is not either type of RLC circuit and it does not resonate.
So if you want to actually show how a Joule Thief is an RLC circuit and resonates then by all means please do. Because right now it's just a bunch of talk. For example, you claim that the transistor is operating in its linear region when in a standard Joule Thief the transistor switches ON and OFF. Like I said before, if you are talking about a hacked Joule Thief acting as an oscillator then it is not a Joule Thief anymore.
So you need to put some substance to what you are saying.
MileHigh
-
Wow, that is a lot more about this circuit than I even knew I did not know. Thanks.
MH:
I always thought the JT was a tank circuit as I have always tuned mine to either the brightest light, or the lowest mA draw...these were never at the same resistance. I thought, as Brad and others have said, that a coil has capacitance? I have several JT's here that I can cut the input power to and the leds will continue to glow for more than a few seconds...not as bright as when the power was on but, certainly bright enough to see clearly so, that tells me the energy had to be "stored" somewhere right? I had no other caps in the circuits which I am describing. I always "assumed" that the stored energy was in the inductor and, if a device can store energy than it has capacitance right?
Those that know me know I am no electronics wiz by any means. I have played and experimented with many variants of these circuits for about 7 years or so now, and I too am convinced that even the most basic JT has capacitance.
Am I wrong here?
Bill
Do you remember about six or seven years ago when people played with car ignition coils and hooked them up backwards so the hot lead from the ignition coil was connected to the earth ground and the ground lead of the ignition coil was connected to the electrical ground of the circuit under test? Typically the circuit was a gutted CFL driver circuit powered by a battery if I remember correctly. The net result was the entire setup was bouncing up and down at a fairly high potential with respect to the earth ground potential. You could touch it anywhere with a neon and the neon would light up. People would say that was "radiant energy." More importantly, people would make a connection from the circuit to the earth ground with a wire and observe the CFL get brighter. They would say, "Oh, power is coming up from the earth ground." For about two years afterward people would be saying, "power is coming up from the ground."
The "radiant energy" and the "power coming up from the ground" were complete nonsense. A similar "cult of nonsense" is clearly happening around a Joule Thief operating in its standard mode.
A Joule Thief operating as a Joule Thief normally operates is not a tank circuit. It doesn't matter that the coil has a capacitance, any coil first and foremost acts like a coil and in a regular Joule Thief the coil acts like a coil. You note that business is somewhat related to the "cult of a self-resonant coil" also.
There is a good chance that your Joule Thief LEDs glowed for a few seconds after you cut the power because of the stray capacitance in between the two battery leads. That acted like a small capacitor charged to the battery voltage. I can't say anything beyond that. All of the experimenters with the new generation of cheap DSOs are in a great position to look into things like that because they can capture the waveforms.
MileHigh
-
Here is the first clip that I linked to that explains how a Joule Thief works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg)
Here is another clip doing the same:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddzwgxe4Q9o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddzwgxe4Q9o)
Here is another clip that is very simplified and does not discuss the timing issues or the transformer action, but it does have a scope waveform which I captured:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQzA6EwoPlk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQzA6EwoPlk)
What all three clips have in common is that they explain how a Joule Thief is a pulse circuit. There is no mention of an RLC circuit or resonance.
Look at the captured scope waveform for the LED and for the transistor base input. That is the waveform of a pulse switching circuit, not a resonant circuit.
MileHigh
-
Nope, you aren't going to actually show how a Joule Thief is an RLC circuit and show how it operates as an RLC circuit because you can't. You can't sketch out the circuit or sketch out timing diagrams to back up what you are claiming. What you are doing is making up a word salad.
MileHigh
What is a JT to you MH? .Do you know why it is called a JT ?.
It was called a joule thief because it can drain a lot of the remaining energy(joules) from a battery that would otherwise be considered dead. There are many variations to the circuit that can achieve this,and not 1 circuit alone can be considered to be !the! joule thief circuit. You have posted the most common and simple circuit that you claim to be !the! JT circuit. You have posted the effect based around a circuit,in stead of a circuit based around an effect. This is like presenting a vehicle that suits tires,in stead of tires that suit the vehicle.
Also, the Joule Thief will not work as a Joule Thief, if it woks at all, without the inductive coupling between the two windings. Saying it works because of "the C value of the transistor" is just more word salad.
Below is a scope shot of a joule thief working the way you say it will not. The scope is directly across the emitter/collector junction,and the coil that triggers the transistor is inside an old PM DC motor housing,where the coil is placed between the two large magnets within that housing,and eliminates any inductive coupling between the two windings. The supply voltage to the circuit is 1.02 volts,and yet the LED lights quite nicely ;)
The fundamental timing and operation of a Joule Thief is based on L/R time constants and there is no resonance at play at all
Please see second scope shot showing the magnetic field of the driven coil by way of a sniffer coil.
- the Joule Thief timing and operation is governed by the interaction between inductance and resistance and not capacitance.
It would seem that my JT dose not wish to comply to your rules MH.
Brad
-
Brad:
There are many variations to the circuit that can achieve this,and not 1 circuit alone can be considered to be !the! joule thief circuit. You have posted the most common and simple circuit that you claim to be !the! JT circuit. You have posted the effect based around a circuit,in stead of a circuit based around an effect. This is like presenting a vehicle that suits tires,in stead of tires that suit the vehicle.
With that kind of logic I can throw spaghetti against the wall and claim it is a Joule Thief also. Sorry, but you are not going to make up the rules as you go along to suit your fancy and make everything you say "right." Everybody knows what a Joule Thief circuit is. If you have another circuit that you claim does what a Joule Thief does, then show it.
Below is a scope shot of a joule thief working the way you say it will not. The scope is directly across the emitter/collector junction,and the coil that triggers the transistor is inside an old PM DC motor housing,where the coil is placed between the two large magnets within that housing,and eliminates any inductive coupling between the two windings. The supply voltage to the circuit is 1.02 volts,and yet the LED lights quite nicely
No schematic, no explanation, no timing, no nothing. Just a bunch of squiggly lines on a scope display that you claim is a "Joule Thief" to suit your fancy.
"The coil is placed between the two large magnets within that housing,and eliminates any inductive coupling between the two windings." That's just more word salad. You seemingly just made up a "rule" that a coil placed between two magnets will eliminate any inductive coupling between the two windings of the coil. It's not true and you are right back at square one showing that you haven't grasped one of the most basic concepts in electronics. Just make it all up as you go along to suit your fancy and please yourself. Who cares about those pesky details.
Please see second scope shot showing the magnetic field of the driven coil by way of a sniffer coil.
All that I see is a squiggly line. It could be a dial tone from a phone for all I know.
If you can't present substantive data to make your point, then it's all just a mushy word salad that means nothing. Take a look at some of Itsu's clips and postings for his presentation style and reporting of his results and contrast that with what you are doing.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
With that kind of logic I can throw spaghetti against the wall and claim it is a Joule Thief also. Sorry, but you are not going to make up the rules as you go along to suit your fancy and make everything you say "right." Everybody knows what a Joule Thief circuit is. If you have another circuit that you claim does what a Joule Thief does, then show it.
No schematic, no explanation, no timing, no nothing. Just a bunch of squiggly lines on a scope display that you claim is a "Joule Thief" to suit your fancy.
All that I see is a squiggly line. It could be a dial tone from a phone for all I know.
If you can't present substantive data to make your point, then it's all just a mushy word salad that means nothing. Take a look at some of Itsu's clips and postings for his presentation style and reporting of his results and contrast that with what you are doing.
MileHigh
"The coil is placed between the two large magnets within that housing,and eliminates any inductive coupling between the two windings." That's just more word salad. You seemingly just made up a "rule" that a coil placed between two magnets will eliminate any inductive coupling between the two windings of the coil. It's not true and you are right back at square one showing that you haven't grasped one of the most basic concepts in electronics. Just make it all up as you go along to suit your fancy and please yourself. Who cares about those pesky details.
No MH. Here is the difference between bench time and book time--i work on the bench,and you work from the books.
Below is 3 circuit's,and all are LRC circuits. If there was no C involved,then the circuits would not work. The two coils are separate coils MH,and you can place either of the coils where ever you want-even having each coil in there own faraday cage,the circuit will still oscillate,although there is no inductive coupling between L1 and L2. The circuits work due to the miller capacitance effect.
So now we know that the JT circuit is indeed a RLC circuit. You obviously do not do your home work MH,as many people have replicated these circuit's,and also shown that there is no inductive coupling required between L1 and L2 for the circuit to work as a joule thief.
I ask you again MH-->do you know what a JT is ?.
Quote wikipedia
A joule thief is a minimalist Armstrong[1] self-oscillating voltage booster that is small, low-cost, and easy to build, typically used for driving light loads.
It can use nearly all of the energy in a single-cell electric battery, even far below the voltage where other circuits consider the battery fully discharged (or "dead"); hence the name, which suggests the notion that the circuit is stealing energy or "joules" from the source. The term is a pun on the expression "jewel thief": one who steals jewelry or gemstones.
The circuit is a variant of the blocking oscillator that forms an unregulated voltage boost converter. The output voltage is increased at the expense of higher current draw on the input, but the integrated (average) current of the output is lowered and brightness of a luminescence decreased.
So you see MH,the joule thief is not one single circuit,it is a name used to describe an effect,and as i said,there are many different types of circuits that can achieve this effect.
So i am not making my own rules MH,i am stating fact's-unlike your self,that insists that a JT is 1 particular circuit-->which it is not.
Brad
-
After looking around at how most JTs are made, I wound a core with 8 strand twisted for the driven winding and 4 strand for the trigger winding. Lasersaber uses Litz in his latest gidgets. Both are 29 turns each. The 8 strand winding will be used as is for the first tryouts, then will be spilt into 2 pairs of 4 strands and connected bifi to increase capacitance to see what resonant freq can be had there.
Should have it up n running in a bit.
Mags
-
After looking around at how most JTs are made, I wound a core with 8 strand twisted for the driven winding and 4 strand for the trigger winding. Lasersaber uses Litz in his latest gidgets. Both are 29 turns each. The 8 strand winding will be used as is for the first tryouts, then will be spilt into 2 pairs of 4 strands and connected bifi to increase capacitance to see what resonant freq can be had there.
Should have it up n running in a bit.
Mags
I will throw a cool joule circuit together as well. It will be interesting to see the difference in wave forms.
-
What is a JT to you MH? .Do you know why it is called a JT ?.
It was called a joule thief because it can drain a lot of the remaining energy(joules) from a battery that would otherwise be considered dead. There are many variations to the circuit that can achieve this,and not 1 circuit alone can be considered to be !the! joule thief circuit. You have posted the most common and simple circuit that you claim to be !the! JT circuit. You have posted the effect based around a circuit,in stead of a circuit based around an effect. This is like presenting a vehicle that suits tires,in stead of tires that suit the vehicle.
....snip
Brad
Having built many a JT over the years, I can say that with the right , high gain, low powered transistor, you don't even need a base connection to the transistor, or even two coils, nor even a single resistor. You can get away with a single collector coil, transistor, led, battery and a few wires to connect them all up.
Some transistors will self oscillate when the base is open circuit right at power switch on. Others just need a quick touch of the finger to the base to get them going after power switch on. Simple bi-polar, high hFe transistors work well in this open base mode of operation.
Most mosfets don't work so well in this configuration, often due to latching when the gate is left 'floating' without a pull down resistor.
So I definitely agree Tinman, JT's come in all manner of configurations, some more efficient than others, but all doing the same thing.
There is no singular form of JT, but there are many different oscillator configurations that produce the same desired outcome of running a led on voltage sources that are below the led voltage threshold. Or using vernacular I know your familiar with, " they'll run on the sniff of an oily rag".
I've found simple blocking oscillators using off the shelf components to be the easiest to build, and they exhibit a reasonable stability and robustness over a range of voltage sources.
Cheers
-
Ok. She is working. No issues. Started with a 1k resistor then put in a 1k 10turn variable with a 100ohm res as a minimum.
The first scope shot is of the led across the transistor and the second is the led across the coil winding. The pk-pk is greater with the led across the coil and the freq increased also, similar to the circuit sim had shown.
Mags
-
The battery is down but not dead dead. 1.2v
Mags
-
@MH
it is obvious by the waveforms you keep presenting, that you have not paid attention to a single thing I posted over the past few days.
None of these waveforms are either in resonance nor in the linear mode of operation of the transistor.
You can continue to show NON resonant JT circuits in operation, and proclaim my analysis of the circuit to be invalid.
yet, in doing so, you negate the prerequisites that are placed on said resonance.
thus, your actions are similar to that of a Diver, proclaiming that because of the Human Physiology, man can only hold his breath under water for roughly 4-5 minutes.
When the reality of the situation is that Pearl Divers in Indonesia use a technique known as "static apnea" to hold their breath for 15-20 minutes.
Yet, here you are, stating that Static Apnea is not a relevant factor, and that it cannot help you hold your breath longer.
This is exactly what you are doing with resonance, as it pertains to the Joule Thief.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your reasons for doing so (although irrelevant) seem to indicate one of two scenerios.
either 1) You acknowldege the facts i have presented in the last few pages, and still insist in refuting them insensibly.
or
2) (which it sounds like you have admited at least twice) You do not understand that which you are discussing.
and as such, your arguments are insensible, and do not apply to the actual reality of the circuit.
The videos which you linked are created and described by individuals that are not using the circuit in resonance,
nor are they accurately describing that which they observe. this is evident by use of the equations i have previously posted.
Had these individuals compared their speculative analysis to the electrical engineering mathematics of the circuit,
They themselves would have seen the err in their description of the circuits behavior.
It is good practice to limit your variables, when performing an experiment.
But one must be certain that altering these variable values, they are not changing other conditions of the system.
And if they ARE - this should be taken into consideration.
This was not done in the experiments you have posted.
I have met 3 of your four requirements of me, in my previous posts.
Since you claim that I have NOT, this to me means that you didn't really read what I posted or followed the links to the information provided.
the 4th requirement, you yourself have violated, stating that resistance is not an important factor.
Whereas, I have appropriately described every portion of this circuit (including the feedback loop which was not even my original intention).
To "show you" a JT in resonance, is pointless. You can tell by the waveforms that have been posted by other users, which ones are operating either in linear mode (by the sinosoidality of the waveform) and in resonance (by comparison of the peak amplitudes) or both.
If I were to show you any random variation of the Joule Thief, operating in linear mode, and at a frequency node coherent ot the SRF of the components involved, This scope shot would only apply to that particular JT circuit.
By adjusting the base resistor to bring the circuit out of resonance, and showing a scope image of the same circuit operating
"less efficiently", this woulod prove nothing to you. would it?
My guess is that you would still find some illogical argument to place on the images presented.
At this point in time, I am not certain of your intentions.
If you don't understand, then let it be.
If you DO understand, and not agree - then present that in a logical coherent manner.
If you don't understand, but still do not agree, then state that.
But do not pretend your knowledge set to be the end all say all.
You have already admitted to not fully grasping all of the concepts I have presented.
So why then, do you insist that your perspective is somehow more accurate than what I have shown here?
I will cease discussion on this point for some time, to allow the experimenters to absorb the information I have presented.
Their results will manifest themselves accordingly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To this date, i have only observed two resonant JT circuits in operation posted on this forum.
One was created by BruceTPU
the other was done by PirateBill, using an earth battery and a high-voltage CFL. ( i think it was the Fuji circuit?)
It was evident by the posted waveform, that the JT was both in linear mode, and at a resonant node.
This was reflected by his measurements. Though i do not believe he knew he was at a resonant node.
His analysis was based on current draw vs luminescence, and while it represents the same scenerio,
the perspective may lead one to miss the full scope of the occurance.
-
Been trying things. Worked my way to a 10k pot and as I went, kept adding 10k resistors. The pk-pk across the led went down to near 5v along the way but once I got around 40kohm the pk-pk went up and at near 70kohm to 6.3 pk-pk. Led output is down from posted results. So Ill keep on adding resistance to see if the pk-pk increases. Got up to 50kz so far.
Mags
-
Smoky2:
That was a lot of talk including some straw man talk.
I am sure that you have read and understood what I have repeatedly said: There is a Joule Thief running in standard mode and there may indeed be something akin to a Joule Thief circuit running as an oscillator in some kind of resonant mode.
All that I have asked you to do is make your case and describe how the device is resonating and show something tangible. I have said to you repeatedly that I seriously doubt that any oscillation would be at the self-resonant frequency of the main coil of the Joule Thief itself.
I have simply asked you repeatedly to make your case with something tangible and instead you play the "good shepherd" "preaching to the flock" about the "resonance that 'they' don't want you to learn about."
What I am saying to you is that attitude is simply silly. If you have some data on turning a Joule Thief-type circuit into an oscillator then just share it and lay your cards on the table.
Building a Joule Thief and the playing with it until you get to the point were it ceases to operate as a switching circuit and instead starts to operate as an oscillator is interesting but absolutely not remarkable in any way, shape, or form whatsoever. What would be interesting would be for you to illustrate that and explain the mechanism for that without any "hocus pocus resonance messiah talk." Do you get the point I am trying to make to you? You talk about something so completely unremarkable and try to pitch it as something remarkable.
If you want to show a circuit that oscillates built around a single transistor and a few other passive components - GREAT, share your data. Will such a circuit still be able to draw power from a battery running at a very low voltage and give you more light output bang for your power buck? The answer to that in undetermined and the ball would be in your court to show data and explain how that could be done.
MileHigh
-
Magluvin:
Great work and you are doing it right. Exercising the circuit and seeing what it can do helps others. So far your waveforms show a standard Joule Thief operating in standard switching mode.
I attached a standard Joule Thief schematic showing two test points that I suggest you connect to your scope channels. Both test points would be relative to the battery ground. One is across the LED and the other is at the input side of the base resistor. You notice that the two test points are for the bottom contacts of the Joule Thief transformer. So by viewing the two test points you see all of the "action" around the transformer. Notice that you can also easily derive the current going into the base input of the transistor. It's just the TP1 potential minus the transistor Base-Emitter forward drop (about 0.7 volts?) divided by the value of the base resistor. So that allows you to "see" the base current.
When the transistor is switched ON, you know there is a ramp up in the current through the main coil. Likewise when the transistor switches OFF, you know that there is a quicker ramp down in the current through the coil as the stored energy in the core does a "burn" through the LED and it is also helped along by the supply battery supplying some energy (for a standard Joule Thief). By looking at TP1 you can make inferences about the LED current also.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
So you see MH,the joule thief is not one single circuit,it is a name used to describe an effect,and as i said,there are many different types of circuits that can achieve this effect.
You are doing nothing more than playing a bait and switch game again. It's very frustrating.
I showed you a standard Joule Thief circuit and you said, "That's an RLC circuit." That's wrong - it's not an RLC circuit.
Now you are pulling off the switch and saying, "Oh no, there are many Joule Thief type circuits and I am talking about other circuits."
The answer to that is no - no bait and switch nonsense is acceptable.
Nor am I convinced that the other circuits will do what you are saying. If you want to make a case and demonstrate what you are saying then fine, but throwing words at the issue like you are throwing spaghetti against the wall is not going to work and the spaghetti is not sticking. Electronics simply doesn't work like that and you actually have to put some substance behind what you are saying.
MileHigh
-
We have heard MileHigh's objection. It will be what it is.
Does anyone else disagree with what I have presented in this thread?
And if so, please enlighten me.
I would love to hear other perspectives concerning the nature of this technology.
I have no problems admitting if I am wrong, as I have been forced to do so in the past.
I can't claim to know everything about everything,
in fact im not sure there is "anything" I truly know "everything" about. (yet?)
I am always open to learning new things.
That being said, after over 10 years of experimentation with this type of circuit*, I feel that I am competent enough to engage in analytical discussion of its' nature.
This was not always the case, in the beginning this was a new and strange phenomena. (Armstrong/Steven Mark)
then the JT came along and that had its' own peculiarities. (ULV - ultra-low-voltage modes of operation)
Seeing that (from my perspective) the circuits are analogous,
it was instinctive nature to apply the concepts given to us by Armstrong,
to all circuits that are Armstrong analogies.
[* - I consider all Armstrong analogies to be variations of the Armstrong Oscillator.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't really want to get into this part of the topic discussion, because of the implications involved......
But since I already (oops) opened Pandora's box, im sure that as soon as people start to "get it", they will ask me these questions concerning the feedback loop.
So, in accordance to Armstrongs equations, the feedback loop, (when phased (reflectively) to precisely 180-degrees from the resonance, and with appropriate capacitance and impedance)
is reversed in phase, so that it cycles back into the loop IN PHASE!!!!! -- this is an advanced concept in resonant circuits.
And the positive feedback represented by the feedback loop is in addition to the constructive interference effects of an SRF resonant node.
This phase reversal effect was commented on by another user above,
and while this was only the effect of the particular methodology of measurement, it shows the effect quite clearly.
If you do not understand the basics, as presented in the past few pages, please go back and learn that before attempting to understand what I just stated.
What we have at this stage, is a JT operating at maximum efficiency, with a positive feedback.
For positive feedback to be effective, its' magnitude must be overcome circuit losses.
Since feedback, (of any resonant form), is of lower amplitude than the original signal,
In order for this to cause constructive interference, the system losses must be less than the difference between the two.
The frequency at which this occurs is a factor of the capacitance of the Non-Inductor part of the circuit.
This includes a factor of the battery, the transistor, the resistor as well as the diode(if used).
This is separate from the resonant frequency of the feedback loop as mathematically defined in the previously posted equations.
All these factors must be coordinated to achieve "total circuit resonance".
This YouTube user gives a very well done explanation of this, in the earlier part of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5StwZCeNzVU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5StwZCeNzVU)
I believe this individual to be at a more advanced level than myself. Which has made his work of interest to me, for no other reason than that...
[He is able to apply discrete functions of a crystalline structure, while maintaining coherency of the resonant frequency.
That is just mindboggling if you ask me...., We didn't even get that deep in Computer Engineering classes]
Although the oscillator used in his Armstrong Circuit is a piezoelectric quartz oscillator, the concepts apply exactly the same.
(transistors are comprised of the same silicone element, the primary difference being the atomic resistance across the oxygen bonds, which is negligible in this application)
Also, the laws of induction apply (within proportion to particular materials constants) to all oscillators, not just quartz.
The pertinent information is near the front part of the first half of the video.
He talks about a lot more than what I reference here, because he is building an amplifier,
but if you can keep up, there is a lot of good information to be watched there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most people that take a glimpse of an overview of Edwin Armstrong, and a general sysnapsis of his oscillators:
say one common thing - "If this is so great, why don't we still us it?"
Because of this, i set myself upon a quest to answer THAT question.
The answers to this, are what led me to studying what Armstrong had to say.
This is actually more intriguing than most other energy technology suppression events throughout history.
Simply because it occured at a time when such supression was not common, and the tactics of suppression applied today had not yet been developed.
In other words "it was obvious", and imbedded in the historical record of Radio.
The efforts to suppress Edwin Armstrong's technology became the foundation for Non-Resonant propaganda in electronics theory.
This sounds like a ridiculous conspiracy theory, but look it up.
It actually Happened!
He was building radios with a vacuum triode that powered themselves, AND caused great interference with transmitters, receivers, and transceivers for MILES around!!!!
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain......
-
Smoky2:
There is a great PBS documentary about Edwin Armstrong and the battles he fought in the early days of radio called "Empire of the Air."
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/empire/sketches/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238199/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1
He invented a lot of great radio circuits and he also invented FM radio which was an amazing accomplishment. It's very sad that he got squeezed out and obsessed on his battles and eventually took his own life.
But there is no "suppression" or "Non-Resonant propaganda" in the electronics industry. You are back in "good shepherd" mode. He didn't build radios with vacuum triodes that "powered themselves."
If you are really interested in old radio circuits and perhaps even want to talk to a serious expert in all of this stuff, check out this guy's YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/AllAmericanFiveRadio
The guy is a radio genius and can fix all radios going all the way back to the 1910s.
MileHigh
-
Magluvin:
Great work and you are doing it right. Exercising the circuit and seeing what it can do helps others. So far your waveforms show a standard Joule Thief operating in standard switching mode.
I attached a standard Joule Thief schematic showing two test points that I suggest you connect to your scope channels. Both test points would be relative to the battery ground. One is across the LED and the other is at the input side of the base resistor. You notice that the two test points are for the bottom contacts of the Joule Thief transformer. So by viewing the two test points you see all of the "action" around the transformer. Notice that you can also easily derive the current going into the base input of the transistor. It's just the TP1 potential minus the transistor Base-Emitter forward drop (about 0.7 volts?) divided by the value of the base resistor. So that allows you to "see" the base current.
When the transistor is switched ON, you know there is a ramp up in the current through the main coil. Likewise when the transistor switches OFF, you know that there is a quicker ramp down in the current through the coil as the stored energy in the core does a "burn" through the LED and it is also helped along by the supply battery supplying some energy (for a standard Joule Thief). By looking at TP1 you can make inferences about the LED current also.
MileHigh
Ok. Ill do that up tomorrow. Putting a sub box together for a GTI. Allnighter.
Letting the JT run down the battery. I left it at around 1.6khz its down to 1.5khz now. the batt started at 1.2v. After posting the pics I did the increases of resistance then set it back and let it run. The batt is down to .7v already.
Mags
-
Brad:
You are doing nothing more than playing a bait and switch game again. It's very frustrating.
I showed you a standard Joule Thief circuit and you said, "That's an RLC circuit." That's wrong - it's not an RLC circuit.
Now you are pulling off the switch and saying, "Oh no, there are many Joule Thief type circuits and I am talking about other circuits."
The answer to that is no - no bait and switch nonsense is acceptable.
Nor am I convinced that the other circuits will do what you are saying. If you want to make a case and demonstrate what you are saying then fine, but throwing words at the issue like you are throwing spaghetti against the wall is not going to work and the spaghetti is not sticking. Electronics simply doesn't work like that and you actually have to put some substance behind what you are saying.
MileHigh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mbp1iuB7as
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13IBcCRNF9g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPHfqQFCNtw
-
The Google search engine built into this web site works quite well. I pulled up an old posting I made with my good old mechanical analogy for a Joule Thief. Many people are aware that a perfect mechanical analogy for an inductor is a flywheel. So, starting with a flywheel I "constructed" a mechanical analogy for a Joule Thief as an exercise bike:
<<<
Imagine you go to the gym and you find an old-style exercise bicycle. The type with a seat and pedals and a chain link to a big flywheel, like a regular bicycle. There is a friction belt that goes around the circumference of the flywheel. You set the tension on the friction belt to adjust the difficulty level.
Imagine the belt is completely loose. You pedal for a few seconds and get the flywheel spinning and then you stop pedaling. Then you add tension to the belt and the flywheel spins down and stops. Then you loosen the belt and repeat the whole process all over again.
Even when you are completely exhausted, it's still possible for you to pedal and get the flywheel spinning if you pedal slowly and take your time to build up the speed. Don't forget that the friction strap is loose when you pedal.
That's a Joule Thief. You are the battery. The flywheel is the coil. The friction belt is the LED.
The torque that you put on the flywheel from pedaling is the battery voltage. The torque that the flywheel puts on the belt during the braking is the coil voltage when it's de-energizing. The rotational speed of the flywheel is the current through the coil.
>>>
So that might be mysterious for some or make perfect sense for others. Just about anything that you can do with a coil with respect to energy dynamics and circuit behaviour can be replicated and simulated in the mechanical world with a flywheel.
MileHigh
-
The Google search engine built into this web site works quite well. I pulled up an old posting I made with my good old mechanical analogy for a Joule Thief. Many people are aware that a perfect mechanical analogy for an inductor is a flywheel. So, starting with a flywheel I "constructed" a mechanical analogy for a Joule Thief as an exercise bike:
<<<
Imagine you go to the gym and you find an old-style exercise bicycle. The type with a seat and pedals and a chain link to a big flywheel, like a regular bicycle. There is a friction belt that goes around the circumference of the flywheel. You set the tension on the friction belt to adjust the difficulty level.
Imagine the belt is completely loose. You pedal for a few seconds and get the flywheel spinning and then you stop pedaling. Then you add tension to the belt and the flywheel spins down and stops. Then you loosen the belt and repeat the whole process all over again.
Even when you are completely exhausted, it's still possible for you to pedal and get the flywheel spinning if you pedal slowly and take your time to build up the speed. Don't forget that the friction strap is loose when you pedal.
That's a Joule Thief. You are the battery. The flywheel is the coil. The friction belt is the LED.
The torque that you put on the flywheel from pedaling is the battery voltage. The torque that the flywheel puts on the belt during the braking is the coil voltage when it's de-energizing. The rotational speed of the flywheel is the current through the coil.
>>>
So that might be mysterious for some or make perfect sense for others. Just about anything that you can do with a coil with respect to energy dynamics and circuit behaviour can be replicated and simulated in the mechanical world with a flywheel.
MileHigh
Correction
the proper physical analogy to this circuit is a weight on a spring.
when dropped the weight oscillates exactly like the RLC
the inductor acts like a gravity well
resistance is analogous to friction in this case.
The difference is, unlike reluctance, the gravitational gradient is not affected by a change in frequency.
(that is to say at velocities that are far below relativistic terms)
-
Brad:
You are doing nothing more than playing a bait and switch game again. It's very frustrating.
I showed you a standard Joule Thief circuit and you said, "That's an RLC circuit." That's wrong - it's not an RLC circuit.
Now you are pulling off the switch and saying, "Oh no, there are many Joule Thief type circuits and I am talking about other circuits."
The answer to that is no - no bait and switch nonsense is acceptable.
Nor am I convinced that the other circuits will do what you are saying. If you want to make a case and demonstrate what you are saying then fine, but throwing words at the issue like you are throwing spaghetti against the wall is not going to work and the spaghetti is not sticking. Electronics simply doesn't work like that and you actually have to put some substance behind what you are saying.
MileHigh
Is the below not !your! JT circuit MH?.
It works quite fine without any inductive coupling between the two coils.
How dose it do this without the C in the LRC circuit MH ?.
Like i said--there is not just one JT circuit,and you clearly stated that the JT circuit is an LR circuit only-long before you posted a diagram of 1 JT circuit. But even that circuit you posted !is! an LRC circuit-otherwise the circuit below would not oscillate.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=joule+thief+circuits&espv=2&biw=1024&bih=634&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1rLj5xPnKAhXMFZQKHbdhDSQQsAQIJA
Brad
-
Correction
the proper physical analogy to this circuit is a weight on a spring.
when dropped the weight oscillates exactly like the RLC
the inductor acts like a gravity well
resistance is analogous to friction in this case.
The difference is, unlike reluctance, the gravitational gradient is not affected by a change in frequency.
(that is to say at velocities that are far below relativistic terms)
Here is the "big surprise": I described a Joule Thief in its normal operating mode as a pulse circuit. Note I described the energy dynamics only and I did not make any reference to a timing system. An exhausted peddler on a exercise bicycle can still muster up enough energy to make the flywheel spin because the belt providing resistance setting is slack. That is analogous to a nearly dead battery that can still get current to flow through the coil. It's all about the basic energy dynamics taking place in a Joule Thief: All that a Joule Thief does is energize an inductor and then releases that stored inductor energy into an LED load. Since a discharging inductor is a current source it can discharge just as easily through 10 LEDs in series as a single LED.
When are you going to get over this resonance fetish? It's like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole with you.
As far as your analogy goes, you don't have a sample electrical circuit to base it on so that's not too good. You have yet to show any Joule Thief operating in "resonance" - it's all just talk and talk is cheap.
The inductor acts like a gravity well? Are you referring to the spring perhaps in an oblique way? Nor do you have an equivalent to a battery source in your analogy.
MileHigh
-
Is the below not !your! JT circuit MH?.
It works quite fine without any inductive coupling between the two coils.
How dose it do this without the C in the LRC circuit MH ?.
Like i said--there is not just one JT circuit,and you clearly stated that the JT circuit is an LR circuit only-long before you posted a diagram of 1 JT circuit. But even that circuit you posted !is! an LRC circuit-otherwise the circuit below would not oscillate.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=joule+thief+circuits&espv=2&biw=1024&bih=634&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1rLj5xPnKAhXMFZQKHbdhDSQQsAQIJA (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=joule+thief+circuits&espv=2&biw=1024&bih=634&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1rLj5xPnKAhXMFZQKHbdhDSQQsAQIJA)
Brad
No, they are not Joule Thief circuits because it looks almost certain that they will not have the same performance as a Joule Thief when it comes to extracting energy from a nearly dead battery that has a low voltage-high impedance output.
All that you are really doing is baiting and switching yourself in a case like this. You were playing around with Joule Thief circuits and you stumbled across the "Cool Joule" circuit and decided for yourself that it was a "Joule Thief." It simply does not work like that.
Lidmotor is a great guy and he replicated your circuit for fun, but made no claims and did no serious investigation into how the circuit actually works. He simply had fun and did a demo clip only. The same thing applies to the two other clips, they are just demo clips with zero analysis of the circuit and zero explanation of the operation of the circuit.
Neither did you make any attempt at all to explain how your circuit worked. That's not electronics Brad, it's just show and tell and don't explain. As TK said many times and I echoed him, you are not doing an experiment, your are just observing and nothing more than that.
Those circuits that you see in the clips and the circuit schematic that you posted are simple oscillators based on amplification and feedback. They are basically like having a microphone and a PA system and pointing the microphone at the speakers and getting high-pitched feedback. The base input of the transistor is like a microphone and the input is being "tickled" by the coil. Sometimes even thermal noise in the circuit is enough to get the feedback going to start the oscillation. Since the transistor is firing you take advantage of that to energize an inductor and light an LED.
You guys are blindly saying there is no coupling between one coil and the other coil. Well, I hate to tell you this but there is some kind of coupling taking place somewhere to get the positive feedback oscillation going. It could be inductive, it could be capacitive, it could be just from coupling in the local interconnect wires in the immediate vicinity of the transistor. There is absolutely nothing new and nothing special about an amplification stage (the transistor) spontaneously causing a feedback oscillation. Among other things, I am pretty sure the gain of the transistor itself will affect the frequency - higher gain, higher frequency.
Perhaps the biggest issue is that you yourself have no clue exactly how and why the circuit is oscillating. It's not necessarily easy either because sometimes just putting a scope probe on the circuit may stop the oscillation. This is just a "black box" show and tell and you don't know what's inside the black box.
But going back to the standard Joule Thief, I believe that when the battery is even below the switch-on voltage for the base-emitter diode in the transistor, the Joule Thief can still operate and keep switching on the transistor. That's because the "primary" side of the transformer can still boost the battery voltage before it gets to the transistor base resistor. The "Cool Joule" is nothing more than an oscillator that takes advantage of the transistor switching to do the old coil-light-an-LED trick, but there are no extra tricks to keep it running when the battery voltage gets very low. So it's not a Joule Thief because it does not do anything special to extract energy from a very-low-voltage battery.
Like i said--there is not just one JT circuit,and you clearly stated that the JT circuit is an LR circuit only-long before you posted a diagram of 1 JT circuit.
You are not going there Brad. You have been fully aware of what the standard Joule Thief circuit is for years and you are fully aware that that's exactly what I have been talking about.
But even that circuit you posted !is! an LRC circuit-otherwise the circuit below would not oscillate.
It is absolutely NOT an LRC circuit. There isn't even a capacitor in the schematic and if hypothetically you could somehow remove all of the stray/parasitic capacitance in the circuit the standard Joule Thief would still operate perfectly. Time to get real and stop this nonsense talk.
MileHigh
-
There seems to be something about resonant oscillation within certain systems that preclude their COP from being accurately analysed with closed system criteria (e.g., in terms of internal losses). Closed system criteria cannot completely account for their performance, which share both closed and open system characteristic behaviors.
Bob
-
Sorry Bob but "open systems" vs. "closed systems" is really and truly just a meaningless buzz phrase that means nothing. It's used all the time in free energy pitches by con men. A circuit on your bench is a "closed system" and what you see is what you get and oscillation does not "accept energy from some place I cannot identify in some form I cannot identify." It's simply not true.
It's used all the time for coils and I know that many of you believe it. It's just not true.
-
I was watching one of lidmotors video's of tinmans cool joule and this random video showed up on the right...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7SkE5pERtA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7SkE5pERtA). I could not help but think Jeri Ellsworth, a self-taught engineer, is everything our friend Milehigh can never be. She is smart, talented, open minded and most of all...creative.
Magnetic logic gates based on remnant magnetism which everyone has all but ignored...I like it. It would seem this nonsensical same-same BS milehigh preaches is not all the same-same. Imagine if we had many separate cores some partially saturated by an external magnetic field like the Earths which formed multiple logic gates and this intelligent network would only add the Earth remnant field when switched and recycle the set pulse. A travelling magnetic wave manipulating remnant magnetism, adding it, pushing it forward in a coherent way which implies an inherent intelligence in itself.
Intelligence is imagining creative solutions to any problem, stupidity is thinking everything must remain the same-same and there is nothing we can do. I think Jeri Ellsworth is a ray of light compared to the abyss we know as MH, she is everything he can never be...hands on getting shit done, firing up our imagination versus the fucking wet cold blanket effect which seems to follow MH around, lol.
AC
-
Well that's a bunch of pure BS there AC. There is too much of a tendency to play the pie-in-the-sky game for ordinary vanilla circuits. You have to get pretty creative sometimes to get that message through because people have a secret sauce fetish and reality can be a very good thing sometimes.
So kiss my fat behind with your insults.
if we had many separate cores some partially saturated by an external magnetic field like the Earths which formed multiple logic gates and this intelligent network would only add the Earth remnant field when switched and recycle the set pulse. A travelling magnetic wave manipulating remnant magnetism, adding it, pushing it forward in a coherent way which implies an inherent intelligence in itself.
OMG! You had secret-sauce-o-gasm!
-
Was fiddling at lunch here at my shop. Had an idea to add shorted turns to the transformer to see what would happen. They are not tight turns. Just a standard alligator jumper lead set.
The battery is down to .48v and still running. When I went for 1 turn of the alligator clip lead the circuit died. 3 turns was more interesting..
The running freq at .48v is 2.2khz at this time. When the alligator lead is shorted, 3 turns, the freq jumped to 195khz and very little dimming on the led. :o
Now when I had adjusted the resistor last night to upwards of 80kohm the led was pretty dim. But here with the shorted turns the led is still kickin but at a very high jump in freq. Pretty cool. Will do more tests on that. More turns and even try some caps on the alligator clips to see how things go.
Dont have time to vid it. Just a couple pics for now.
The scope shot is at 2us compared to the earlier shots at 400us. Will try stuff later with a fresh battery after this one runs down.
The blue trace is of the batt at .48v.
Mags
-
Just quickly went to 6 turns shorted and the freq went up to 495khz and the battery went up to .52v. ??? ;D
9 turns brings it up to 943khz and batt is bouncing .48 to .52v.
Fun fun fun. ;D
Mags
-
Popped in another batt at .9v. 11 turns is at around 641khz. So with these, from what I see, the freq goes up as the batt dies.
Mags
-
Starting to see some ringing on the batt at these freq. The last scope shot you can see it a little in the blue trace.
Gotta go back to work
Mags
-
@MH
OMG! You had secret-sauce-o-gasm!
lol, that was a pretty creative response... I like it.
I agree we should try to hold to reality however reality is a brain fart. You are an aggregate of 1% matter moving about near the speed of light separated by EM fields. You cannot feel or sense or think anything anymore that a telephone wire can because all our supposed senses travel as electrical signals to the brain. The brain is simply a bunch of specialized cells, atoms and molecules, which coordinate and store these electrical signals we call our mind and memories. As such technically speaking by your own logic... you cannot exist.
I mean if everything is just the same-same thing, an unintelligent soup of atoms and molecules then how do you explain what you see in the mirror each morning?. You have no idea, nowhere to even begin to explain what or why you are and yet my little ramble on remnant magnetism is far fetched?. As such I think your logic is severely flawed, you have absolute proof all is not as it seems and some things can be much more than the same-same simple sum of it parts... you are that proof. Unless of course you deny your own existence in which case I cannot help you, nobody can.
It is strange that such a simple truth was always there staring us in the face and yet we cannot see it, we cannot comprehend it and at every turn we deny it. If matter cannot have intelligence then how do you explain yours?. You are tangible proof what you are implying cannot be true, one of you is wrong...poof your mind has been blown.
AC
-
As far as your analogy goes, you don't have a sample electrical circuit to base it on so that's not too good. You have yet to show any Joule Thief operating in "resonance" - it's all just talk and talk is cheap.
The inductor acts like a gravity well? Are you referring to the spring perhaps in an oblique way? Nor do you have an equivalent to a battery source in your analogy.
MileHigh
Actually, this is not "my analogy", this comes straight from electronics engineering textbooks.
Where-in the Armstrong oscillator is described in terms of its' real-world physical analogy.
The weight on a spring
the "battery" in this case, as examined as a single pulse (one cycle)
is analogous to the "lifting" of the weight through the gravitational field gradient.
E=mgh is equivalent to the electrical potential energy of the pulse in this example.
Take the round hole, and shave it into a square, then maybe your square peg will fit.
-
Okay the analogy is fine. Using gravity and Mgh is a little bit less intuitive than the analogy I normally think of.
If the mass is horizontal and on a frictionless surface and connected to a spring is the analogy that I prefer. Then the energy in the moving mass and energy in the displacement of the spring are in perfect quadrature. Depending on how you view the variables, the mass is the capacitor and the spring is the inductor, or vice-versa.
MileHigh
-
Magluvin:
You notice that at 655 kHz you can start to see sloping edges for the rise and fall of the LED voltage. So you are really pushing up the frequency there. At very high frequencies the whole switching setup will start to get "sloppy" and get over affected by parasitic capacitance in the circuit.
The glitch on the battery voltage may or may not be there. It could be due to coupling between the two channels. I suggest that you do a low trigger on the battery voltage glitch and then disconnect the channel connected to the LED voltage and see what happens. It's possible that the glitch will remain the same, or get very attenuated and you might lose trigger, or it might disappear completely. You figure looking at the battery voltage alone will give you a "cleaner" view of it.
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg474187#msg474187 date=1455549610
MileHigh
All that you are really doing is baiting and switching yourself in a case like this. You were playing around with Joule Thief circuits and you stumbled across the "Cool Joule" circuit and decided for yourself that it was a "Joule Thief." It simply does not work like that.
It works exactly like that MH,and i have explained to you before that a JT circuit is !not! MHs choice of circuit,but is a circuit that can extract the remaining energy from an otherwise dead battery-->did you not read the wikipedia link i provided ?.
No, they are not Joule Thief circuits because it looks almost certain that they will not have the same performance as a Joule Thief when it comes to extracting energy from a nearly dead battery that has a low voltage-high impedance output.
Please define !performance! MH. Lots of light output with a heavy drain on the battery-short run time--or, less light output,lighter drain on the battery,but longer run time?. Are you now going to set the parameters on how a joule thief should operate as well ?
Neither did you make any attempt at all to explain how your circuit worked. That's not electronics Brad, it's just show and tell and don't explain. As TK said many times and I echoed him, you are not doing an experiment, your are just observing and nothing more than that.
I told MarkE how the circuit was able to function,and he too did not believe me at the start,but then figured out for him self that it did indeed operate as i stated. But one more time for you MH-->it works due to the miller capacitance effect-->the C in LRC MH.
Those circuits that you see in the clips and the circuit schematic that you posted are simple oscillators based on amplification and feedback.Since the transistor is firing you take advantage of that to energize an inductor and light an LED.
And your JT circuit works different how?.
You guys are blindly saying there is no coupling between one coil and the other coil. Well, I hate to tell you this but there is some kind of coupling taking place somewhere to get the positive feedback oscillation going. It could be inductive, it could be capacitive,
Yes,the C in LRC MH.
Perhaps the biggest issue is that you yourself have no clue exactly how and why the circuit is oscillating. It's not necessarily easy either because sometimes just putting a scope probe on the circuit may stop the oscillation. This is just a "black box" show and tell and you don't know what's inside the black box.
Well thats incorrect MH,as i have stated many times how the circuit operates-and again just above.
But going back to the standard Joule Thief, I believe that when the battery is even below the switch-on voltage for the base-emitter diode in the transistor, the Joule Thief can still operate and keep switching on the transistor. That's because the "primary" side of the transformer can still boost the battery voltage before it gets to the transistor base resistor. The "Cool Joule" is nothing more than an oscillator that takes advantage of the transistor switching to do the old coil-light-an-LED trick, but there are no extra tricks to keep it running when the battery voltage gets very low. So it's not a Joule Thief because it does not do anything special to extract energy from a very-low-voltage battery.
When the correct coils are used,the cool joule can keep running with battery voltages as low as 200mV. It dose this in the very same way !your! JT circuit dose. Look again at the two circuits below MH--are the circuit's any different ?-other than the absence of the 1k resistor and core ?
You are not going there Brad. You have been fully aware of what the standard Joule Thief circuit is for years and you are fully aware that that's exactly what I have been talking about.
It is absolutely NOT an LRC circuit. There isn't even a capacitor in the schematic and if hypothetically you could somehow remove all of the stray/parasitic capacitance in the circuit the standard Joule Thief would still operate perfectly. Time to get real and stop this nonsense talk.
Once again MH,a joule thief is not one circuit,but any circuit designed to drain the remaining energy from what otherwise would be considered a dead battery. There is !no! one MH JT circuit,just the same as there is !no! one vehicle designed to transport people.
As i have stated before,there is two capacitance values in your JT circuit. 1 being the capacitance between the two winding's,and even though small,it dose have an effect on a circuit that operates at these low voltages and high frequencies. Take !your! JT circuit,and get it up and running. Now ,place a 1 or 2 pF cap across the two winding's,and see how that effects the running of the circuit.
And then there is the capacitance within the transistor it self.
Quote: In electrical circuits, parasitic capacitance, or stray capacitance is an unavoidable and usually unwanted capacitance that exists between the parts of an electronic component or circuit simply because of their proximity to each other. All actual circuit elements such as inductors, diodes, and transistors have internal capacitance, which can cause their behavior to depart from that of 'ideal' circuit elements. Additionally, there is always non-zero capacitance between any two conductors; this can be significant at higher frequencies with closely spaced conductors.
So you see MH,you are wrong when you say that the JT is not an LRC circuit,as every circuit has some C value. We do not operate within perfect conditions here MH,we operate in reality-as do our circuit's. This small C value starts to play a big part when in higher frequency ranges such as Mags is at now. Your ideal conditions do not exist in these circuit's MH-->and you know this.
It is funny to watch you pick and choose,as we go along in these threads. One time you insist that the extremely small inductance found within an incandescent bulb running on 60hZ AC can have an effect on the operation of a circuit,and yet here you dismiss the small C value that exist in your JT circuit ::). You cant have it both way's MH,and pick and choose what values you wish to include-when you want to include them. You either have to be accurate all the time,or dismiss these small values all the time-->you just cant pick and choose as it suit's you-as you seem to do many times.
It is also funny how you constantly insist that the experimenters here test and understand what they are seeing with there circuits operation. What i have seen in this thread alone,is Smokey and Mag's doing all the research,building,testing,and presenting there findings from years of this,while you sit in your armchair,rocking back and forth,and deciding whether or not they are correct. It's almost like you are flipping a penny-heads there right,tails there wrong. Your beloved electrical theory itself tells you that there is a C value in all these circuit's,and still the coin falls tail up for you. ::). Even whan i present !your! JT circuit functioning from the C value of the transistor alone,you still insist that the JT circuit is not an RLC circuit.
I would be interested in seeing what capacitance Mags measures between his two windings on his JT,and then set it into operation,and place a cap of that value across the two windings,and see how much it effects the operation of the circuit.
Brad
-
Interesting that the fellow that started this topic is named Resonance Man.
Just an observation.
Bill
-
@tinman
It is funny to watch you pick and choose,as we go along in these threads. One time you insist that the extremely small inductance found within an incandescent bulb running on 60hZ AC can have an effect on the operation of a circuit,and yet here you dismiss the small C value that exist in your JT circuit [/size]. You cant have it both way's MH,and pick and choose what values you wish to include-when you want to include them. You either have to be accurate all the time,or dismiss these small values all the time-->you just cant pick and choose as it suit's you-as you seem to do many times.
Strange isn't it tinman?, do you see the trend here in the forums as more and more people catch on?. I think it scares the hell out of people like MH and when it does catch it will be a shit storm of epic proportions. Just around the corner MH... it's just around the corner and when Pandora comes there is no closing that box, she's wide open.
AC
-
Brad:
It works exactly like that MH,and i have explained to you before that a JT circuit is !not! MHs choice of circuit,but is a circuit that can extract the remaining energy from an otherwise dead battery-->did you not read the wikipedia link i provided ?.
No it really doesn't work like that were you arbitrarily attach the same label to different circuits with different architectures to suit your fancy. The Wikipedia link is wrong and was corrupted by somebody. Just like the time I looked up a magnet on Wikipedia and to my shock read that there was a "Bloch wall" at the center of a bar magnet.
Please define !performance! MH. Lots of light output with a heavy drain on the battery-short run time--or, less light output,lighter drain on the battery,but longer run time?
Here is what I wrote: "they will not have the same performance as a Joule Thief when it comes to extracting energy from a nearly dead battery."
But one more time for you MH-->it works due to the miller capacitance effect
You are not explaining how it works at all. You are just referencing an effect. You still have no clue what is inside the "black box."
Yes,the C in LRC MH.
Yes the "Cool Joule" is some form of oscillator most likely based on capacitance and inductance but right now you have no clue how it actually works and cannot produce a timing diagram and explain it. That's in contrast to a Joule Thief that has nothing to do with an RLC-based oscillator.
Well thats incorrect MH,as i have stated many times how the circuit operates-and again just above.
You did not explain how it works just above. I already told you just saying "Miller effect" is a total fail. You actually don't know how it works. If you were determined you would try to figure it out but I don't see that happening.
When the correct coils are used,the cool joule can keep running with battery voltages as low as 200mV. It dose this in the very same way !your! JT circuit dose. Look again at the two circuits below MH--are the circuit's any different ?-other than the absence of the 1k resistor and core ?
It's a subtlety that escapes you but it is what it is. The feedback can sustain your oscillator circuit and drain the battery but the circuit operates as an oscillator. A Joule Thief is a pulse circuit and not an oscillator circuit, and it is purposefully designed to drain a battery.
So you see MH,you are wrong when you say that the JT is not an LRC circuit,as every circuit has some C value. We do not operate within perfect conditions here MH,we operate in reality-as do our circuit's. This small C value starts to play a big part when in higher frequency ranges such as Mags is at now. Your ideal conditions do not exist in these circuit's MH-->and you know this.
That's a very good quote that you posted about parasitic capacitance but it seems you are now suffering from a capacitance fetish. I will just repeat to you that the Joule Thief is not designed with a capacitor, it does not resonate like some kind of RLC circuit, and it is in fact a pulse circuit that is governed in it's operation by the properties of inductance and resistance. If you can't understand that or are just sticking to your original statement and refusing because you will turn blue and nearly faint if you acknowledge the truth, that's your problem. We have all seen this before.
It's amazing how even something as simple and straightforward as Joule Thief can be willfully misrepresented by people on the forums with willful ignorance. You have one guy that has a resonance fetish and wears resonance-glazed glasses and can only see resonance when when it is not even there. And now you have drunk the Kool-Aid yourself and see stray capacitance in a circuit that has no capacitors in it and are now wearing capacitor-glazed glasses with a minor in resonance. You both walk up to what is clearly a pulse circuit sitting on a bench and look up and say it is an RLC resonant circuit. It's insane and this pattern is going to repeat itself forever on the free energy forums. The people on the EEVblog forum would slice both of you to pieces. That's my little rant.
It is funny to watch you pick and choose,as we go along in these threads. One time you insist that the extremely small inductance found within an incandescent bulb running on 60hZ AC can have an effect on the operation of a circuit,and yet here you dismiss the small C value that exist in your JT circuit (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif). You cant have it both way's MH,and pick and choose what values you wish to include-when you want to include them. You either have to be accurate all the time,or dismiss these small values all the time-->you just cant pick and choose as it suit's you-as you seem to do many times.
I would never say that the inductance in a light bulb filament would affect a light bulb powered by mains AC. If you are going to pluck a quote of mine and not ignore the context I will deal with it because I would not be surprised if it is coming. You absolutely can pick and choose because that is how electronics works. That is clearly a weakness on your side and you are seemingly going to ignore all advice given to you about this critical issue.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
It is also funny how you constantly insist that the experimenters here test and understand what they are seeing with there circuits operation. What i have seen in this thread alone,is Smokey and Mag's doing all the research,building,testing,and presenting there findings from years of this,while you sit in your armchair,rocking back and forth,and deciding whether or not they are correct. It's almost like you are flipping a penny-heads there right,tails there wrong. Your beloved electrical theory itself tells you that there is a C value in all these circuit's,and still the coin falls tail up for you. (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif). Even whan i present !your! JT circuit functioning from the C value of the transistor alone,you still insist that the JT circuit is not an RLC circuit.
Well it's really funny how you sleepwalk seemingly in a daze and state that you have explained how the "Cool Joule" works when you apparently haven't even lifted a finger to try to understand it and explain it. You learned a new term "Miller Effect" and threw it at the "Cool Joule" and are now satisfied that you have "explained" it. Or you are in a daze about the Joule Thief. Like I said, if you tried to pull off that stunt on the EEVblog forum, chances are you would end up feeling like you just passed though a Veg-O-Matic.
I don't know if you would know the big old American General Motors sedans from the early 1970s. They were huge with big V8s and they had power steering with no road feedback, you could control the steering with your pinky. You are like a happy big ole' Southern "bubba" type of guy in his big Chevy out on a Sunday drive in the country with a beer in his hand. You are just chilling and driving the car with your knees on the steering wheel, and if you need to make a turn, then you can do it as easy as pie with your pinky. Just cruising along blissfully and barely aware of the road.
The problem is that you can't make a quick turn if you have to. Another problem is that your 1973 Impala is so poorly manufactured that it probably left the production line with 150+ defects. It's gas hungry too. But you can blissfully cruise along in a daze just as happy as can be.
Then in a few short years the Japanese are going to make smaller more fuel efficient cars that have super stringent quality control. Before you know it people in fast nimble cars are whipping by you and leaving you in the dust. The smart agile high-tech high-quality Japanese manufactures are going to bring the big ole' Chevys to their knees and almost make them go extinct.
So it's not me that's sitting back in my armchair. It's you that is cruising along down the road in your big fat car with a beer and steering with your knees in willful ignorance and blissful daydreaming. The only thing that takes you out of your stupor is when you have a close call and nearly have an accident. Then you wake up.
I would be interested in seeing what capacitance Mags measures between his two windings on his JT,and then set it into operation,and place a cap of that value across the two windings,and see how much it effects the operation of the circuit.
My guess is that it would affect the timing by less than 1%.
MileHigh
-
MH:
Big Clive, the man who coined the term Joule Thief, describes the circuit thus:
"A typical transformer feedback single transistor invertor"
http://www.bigclive.com/joule.htm (http://www.bigclive.com/joule.htm)
The Make video that got me started on the JT circuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTAqGKt64WM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTAqGKt64WM)
Video on How to make a Joule Thief circuit by Big Clive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K53beWYdIpc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K53beWYdIpc)
Quote from Clive in above video info: "There are a few variants on the design which add extra components to improve efficiency, but a true Joule Thief uses a single transistor, 1K resistor, hand wound ferrite bead transformer and the LED you want to light."
Bill
-
"A typical transformer feedback single transistor invertor"
Bill
Yes, the "transformer feedback" is the winding that drives the base resistor. The "invertor" is because when the transistor input is "high" the transistor output is "low."
I will see if I can find any links that describe a Joule Thief as a pulse circuit.
-
Yes, the "transformer feedback" is the winding that drives the base resistor. The "invertor" is because when the transistor input is "high" the transistor output is "low."
I will see if I can find any links that describe a Joule Thief as a pulse circuit.
Check my above post again as I modded it with links to Big Clive who invented the term JT for this circuit. He has a very narrow definition of what a real JT is. Since he invented the term, I guess I have to go with his definition. That means, that many of my "so-called" JT circuits are not really JT circuits. I am going to have to think about this.
Bill
-
http://makezine.com/projects/joule-thief-battery-charger/
How a Joule Thief works:
This circuit used in this project is a modified "Joule Thief." A Joule Thief is a self-oscillating voltage booster. It takes a steady low voltage signal and converts it into a series of high frequency pulses at a higher voltage. Here is how a basic Joule Thief works, step by step:
1. Initially the transistor is off.
2. A small amount of electricity goes through the resistor and the first coil to the base of the transistor. This partially opens up the collector-emitter channel. Electricity is now able to travel through the second coil and through the collector-emitter channel of the transistor.
3. The increasing amount of electricity through the second coil generates a magnetic field that induces a greater amount of electricity in the first coil.
4. The induced electricity in the first coil goes into the base of the transistor and opens up the collector-emitter channel even more. This lets even more electricity travel through the second coil and through the collector-emitter channel of the transistor.
5. Steps 3 and 4 repeat in a feedback loop until the base of the transistor is saturated and the collector-emitter channel is fully open. The electricity traveling through the second coil and through the transistor are now at a maximum. There is a lot of energy built up in the magnetic field of the second coil.
6. Since the electricity in the second coil is no longer increasing, it stops inducing electricity in the first coil. This causes less electricity to go into the base of the transistor.
7. With less electricity going into the base of the transistor, the collector-emitter channel begins to close. This allows less electricity to travel through the second coil.
8. A drop in the amount of electricity in the second coil induces a negative amount of electricity in the first coil. This causes even less electricity to go into the base of the transistor.
9. Steps 7 and 8 repeat in a feedback loop until there is almost no electricity going through the transistor.
10. Part of the energy that was stored in the magnetic field of the second coil has drained out. However there is still a lot of energy stored up. This energy needs to go somewhere. This causes the voltage at the output of the coil to spike.
11. The built up electricity can't go through the transistor, so it has to go through the load (usually an LED). The voltage at the output of the coil builds up until it reaches a voltage where is can go through the load and be dissipated.
12. The built up energy goes through the load in a big spike. Once the energy is dissipated, the circuit is effectively reset and starts the whole process all over again. In a typical Joule Thief circuit this process happens 50,000 times per second.
What the heck? No mention of "resonance" anywhere?! No mention of "LC" or "RLC" anywhere?!
It must be an NWO plot and they want to hide the truth from you.
-
http://makezine.com/projects/joule-thief-battery-charger/ (http://makezine.com/projects/joule-thief-battery-charger/)
How a Joule Thief works:
This circuit used in this project is a modified "Joule Thief." A Joule Thief is a self-oscillating voltage booster. It takes a steady low voltage signal and converts it into a series of high frequency pulses at a higher voltage. Here is how a basic Joule Thief works, step by step:
1. Initially the transistor is off.
2. A small amount of electricity goes through the resistor and the first coil to the base of the transistor. This partially opens up the collector-emitter channel. Electricity is now able to travel through the second coil and through the collector-emitter channel of the transistor.
3. The increasing amount of electricity through the second coil generates a magnetic field that induces a greater amount of electricity in the first coil.
4. The induced electricity in the first coil goes into the base of the transistor and opens up the collector-emitter channel even more. This lets even more electricity travel through the second coil and through the collector-emitter channel of the transistor.
5. Steps 3 and 4 repeat in a feedback loop until the base of the transistor is saturated and the collector-emitter channel is fully open. The electricity traveling through the second coil and through the transistor are now at a maximum. There is a lot of energy built up in the magnetic field of the second coil.
6. Since the electricity in the second coil is no longer increasing, it stops inducing electricity in the first coil. This causes less electricity to go into the base of the transistor.
7. With less electricity going into the base of the transistor, the collector-emitter channel begins to close. This allows less electricity to travel through the second coil.
8. A drop in the amount of electricity in the second coil induces a negative amount of electricity in the first coil. This causes even less electricity to go into the base of the transistor.
9. Steps 7 and 8 repeat in a feedback loop until there is almost no electricity going through the transistor.
10. Part of the energy that was stored in the magnetic field of the second coil has drained out. However there is still a lot of energy stored up. This energy needs to go somewhere. This causes the voltage at the output of the coil to spike.
11. The built up electricity can't go through the transistor, so it has to go through the load (usually an LED). The voltage at the output of the coil builds up until it reaches a voltage where is can go through the load and be dissipated.
12. The built up energy goes through the load in a big spike. Once the energy is dissipated, the circuit is effectively reset and starts the whole process all over again. In a typical Joule Thief circuit this process happens 50,000 times per second.
What the heck? No mention of "resonance" anywhere?! No mention of "LC" or "RLC" anywhere?!
It must be an NWO plot and they want to hide the truth from you.
Yes, but Make got the JT design from Big Clive. (see links in my earlier posting)
Bill
-
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/LEDTorchCircuits/LEDTorchCircuits-P1.html
CIRCUIT A
The first circuit in this discussion is the simplest design.
It consists of a transistor, resistor and transformer, with almost any type of LED. The circuit will drive a red LED, HIGH BRIGHT LED, or white LED.
The circuit produces high voltage pulses of about 40v p-p at a frequency of 200kHz.
Normally you cannot supply a LED with a voltage higher than its characteristic voltage, but if the pulses are very short, the LED will absorb the energy and convert it to light. This is the case with this circuit. The characteristic voltage of the LED we used was very nearly 4v and this means the voltage across it for a very short period of time was 4v. The details of the transformer are shown in the photo. The core was a 2.6mm diameter "slug" 6mm long and the wire was 0.95mm diam. In fact any core could be used and the diameter of the wire is not important. The number of turns are not important however if the secondary winding does not have enough turns, the circuit will not start-up.
HOW THE CIRCUIT WORKS
The transformer is configured as a BLOCKING OSCILLATOR and the cycle starts by the transistor turning on via the 2k7 base resistor.
This causes current to flow in the 60-turn main winding. The other winding is called the feedback winding and is connected so that it produces a voltage to turn the transistor on MORE during this part of the cycle.
This winding should really be called a "feed-forward" winding as the signal it supplies to the transistor is a positive signal to increase the operation of the circuit. This is discussed in more detail in Circuit Tricks.
This voltage allows a higher current to flow in the transistor and it keeps turning on until it is saturated.
At this point the magnetic flux produced by the main winding is a maximum but it is not expanding flux and thus it ceases to produce a voltage in the feedback winding. This causes less current to flow into the base of the transistor and the transistor turns off slightly.
The flux produced by the main winding is now called collapsing flux and it produces a voltage in the feedback winding of opposite polarity. This causes the transistor to turn off and this action occurs until it is completely off.
The magnetic flux continues to collapse and cuts the turns of the main winding to produce a very high voltage of opposite polarity.
However this voltage is prevented from rising to a high value by the presence of the LED and thus the energy produced by the collapsing magnetic flux is converted to light by the LED.
The circuit operates at approx 200kHz, depending on the value of the base resistor and physical dimensions of the transformer.
The circuit draws 85mA from the 1.5v cell and the brightness of the LED was equivalent to it being powered from a DC supply delivering 10 - 15mA.
Say what?? No mention of "resonance" or "RLC" again!
-
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/CircuitTricks/CircuitTricks-2.html
CIRCUIT 3:
The third circuit uses feedback from a transformer to turn the circuit ON to a point where it is fully turned on. It is taken from our LED Torch Circuits article. The cycle starts with the 2k7 resistor feeding current into the base of the transistor. This starts to turn the transistor on and current flows in the 60 turn winding and produces magnetic flux that cuts the turns of the 40 turn winding. The 40 turn winding produces extra voltage that adds to the original voltage and this allows extra current to flow into the base of the transistor to turn it on more.
This continues until the transistor is fully turned on. This action is called positive feedback or more accurately REGENERATION.
The three circuits operate in exactly the same mode. This mode is called a SWITCHING MODE. They change from one state to another VERY QUICKLY.
This action is called a SWITCHING ACTION or DIGITAL ACTION or DIGITAL MODE. There are basically two types of circuits, DIGITAL CIRCUITS and ANALOGUE CIRCUITS (also called audio circuits). An audio circuit operates over a smooth range of low output to high output. A digital circuit goes from one state to the other very quickly.
When this change is produced by the components within the circuit, the action is called REGENERATION because the action cannot be stopped and takes the transitor(s) from the state of not being turned on to the state of being fully turned on.
What the hell?
-
snip...
Quote from Clive in above video info: "There are a few variants on the design which add extra components to improve efficiency, but a true Joule Thief uses a single transistor, 1K resistor, hand wound ferrite bead transformer and the LED you want to light."
Bill
So if I substitute the 1K resistor for a 980 ohm, or I substitute hand wound for machine wound, or ferrite for air, etc, then it's not a JT.
Can you see how arbitrary and silly that notion is.?
Since JT is a vernacular term, and not an accepted Electrical Engineering term, then quite frankly, we can call anything a JT if we like and still be correct.
General language dictionaries (like Wikipeadia) reflect common usage and are therefore descriptive not proscriptive.
It seems that MH is not the only person who wants to place arbitrary parameters on what constitutes a JT.
So he (Clive) may have been the first to coin the term JT, but he doesn't own the term any more than the person who first used the term electronic to describe a particular device. As if arbitrarily deciding that only that very specific device can in any way be called 'electronic'.
A f.....g storm in a teacup really.
@Tinman, thanks for your sharing of your time on the bench.
cheers
-
7. With less electricity going into the base of the transistor, the collector-emitter channel begins to close. This allows less electricity to travel through the second coil.
8. A drop in the amount of electricity in the second coil induces a negative amount of electricity in the first coil. This causes even less electricity to go into the base of the transistor.
Induces a negative amount of electricity in the first coil?, a negative amount of something is less than nothing. Sounds like some kind of woo woo perpetual motion claim to me, has no credibility.
Although according to a scientific study just made up by me 9 out of 10 people under the age of four may believe in negative lectricity.
AC
-
Negative Electrickery Generator. :)
-
http://makezine.com/projects/joule-thief-battery-charger/
How a Joule Thief works:
This circuit used in this project is a modified "Joule Thief." A Joule Thief is a self-oscillating voltage booster. It takes a steady low voltage signal and converts it into a series of high frequency pulses at a higher voltage. Here is how a basic Joule Thief works, step by step:
1. Initially the transistor is off.
2. A small amount of electricity goes through the resistor and the first coil to the base of the transistor. This partially opens up the collector-emitter channel. Electricity is now able to travel through the second coil and through the collector-emitter channel of the transistor.
3. The increasing amount of electricity through the second coil generates a magnetic field that induces a greater amount of electricity in the first coil.
4. The induced electricity in the first coil goes into the base of the transistor and opens up the collector-emitter channel even more. This lets even more electricity travel through the second coil and through the collector-emitter channel of the transistor.
5. Steps 3 and 4 repeat in a feedback loop until the base of the transistor is saturated and the collector-emitter channel is fully open. The electricity traveling through the second coil and through the transistor are now at a maximum. There is a lot of energy built up in the magnetic field of the second coil.
6. Since the electricity in the second coil is no longer increasing, it stops inducing electricity in the first coil. This causes less electricity to go into the base of the transistor.
7. With less electricity going into the base of the transistor, the collector-emitter channel begins to close. This allows less electricity to travel through the second coil.
8. A drop in the amount of electricity in the second coil induces a negative amount of electricity in the first coil. This causes even less electricity to go into the base of the transistor.
9. Steps 7 and 8 repeat in a feedback loop until there is almost no electricity going through the transistor.
10. Part of the energy that was stored in the magnetic field of the second coil has drained out. However there is still a lot of energy stored up. This energy needs to go somewhere. This causes the voltage at the output of the coil to spike.
11. The built up electricity can't go through the transistor, so it has to go through the load (usually an LED). The voltage at the output of the coil builds up until it reaches a voltage where is can go through the load and be dissipated.
12. The built up energy goes through the load in a big spike. Once the energy is dissipated, the circuit is effectively reset and starts the whole process all over again. In a typical Joule Thief circuit this process happens 50,000 times per second.
What the heck? No mention of "resonance" anywhere?! No mention of "LC" or "RLC" anywhere?!
It must be an NWO plot and they want to hide the truth from you.
Wow-what do you know--works the very same as the good old ssg pulse motor circuit.
Remember me trying to explain that to you MH--the cascade effect that takes place when the transistor starts to conduct due to the current generated in the trigger coil by the passing magnet.
The solid state version works exactly the same.
I have told you a number of times now MH,you do not get to define what a JT circuit is--it is !NOT! one circuit,it is a circuit that work on an effect,and results in the near total drain of what would otherwise be a dead battery.
I would suggest that you have another look at how these circuits work,and how the transistor can still switch on when the battery voltage is lower than the minimum required base voltage to switch the transistor on. You assume that the base voltage has to be high enough to switch on the transistor,but that is not correct at all. You either raise the base voltage,or pull the emitter voltage down to a negative voltage-which is what L1 dose in these circuits.
Lets test this theory of yours that the (your) JT circuit is the best at what it dose.
I will use the good old SS SSG circuit,and we'll make a comparison. Then we'll see what is the best JT circuit.
Brad
-
Okay the analogy is fine. Using gravity and Mgh is a little bit less intuitive than the analogy I normally think of.
If the mass is horizontal and on a frictionless surface and connected to a spring is the analogy that I prefer. Then the energy in the moving mass and energy in the displacement of the spring are in perfect quadrature. Depending on how you view the variables, the mass is the capacitor and the spring is the inductor, or vice-versa.
MileHigh
This is the analog to the LC circuit, using no ferrite in the inductor. (or the permeability of free space, which is negligible in this case.)
adding both gravity, and friction, is analogous to an RLC, with a ferrite core.
if gravity had a "resonant frequency", this spring would be something strange.......
-
What is a joule thief.
Quote Makezine.com-->A “Joule Thief” is a simple voltage booster circuit. It can increase the voltage of a power source by changing the constant low voltage signal into a series of rapid pulses at a higher voltage.
Quote wikipedia-->A joule thief is a minimalist Armstrong[1] self-oscillating voltage booster that is small, low-cost, and easy to build, typically used for driving light loads.
It can use nearly all of the energy in a single-cell electric battery, even far below the voltage where other circuits consider the battery fully discharged (or "dead"); hence the name, which suggests the notion that the circuit is stealing energy or "joules" from the source. The term is a pun on the expression "jewel thief": one who steals jewelry or gemstones
Apparently MH thinks some one high jacked wiki,and th explanation is wrong ::)
Quote Rimstar.org-->The joule thief (aka blocking oscillator) is an electronic circuit that allows you to make use of batteries normally considered dead. A battery is often considered "dead" when it can't power a particular device.
Quote lizarum.com-->A Joule thief allows you to boost the voltage of a dying battery.
The list go's on.
So the JT is not one single circuit,but can be many types of circuits that perform the same operation -->and that is to drain the last remaining energy from a nearly depleted battery.
The circuit dose not even require the use of a transistor,and can be achieved in many different ways--as long as we get the LED to light,while draining the remaining energy from the battery.
Brad
-
Here is the simple SS SSG circuit being used as a joule thief circuit.
As you can see,no problem at all driving a 10mm LED quite brightly at .25v(250mV)
So be wary of those here that quote things like-->No, they are not Joule Thief circuits because it looks almost certain that they will not have the same performance as a Joule Thief when it comes to extracting energy from a nearly dead battery that has a low voltage-high impedance output.
Or-->So it's not a Joule Thief because it does not do anything special to extract energy from a very-low-voltage battery.
Or-->they will not have the same performance as a Joule Thief when it comes to extracting energy from a nearly dead battery."
Comments like this are untrue,and as can be seen in my video,there are many circuits that operate just as well as a !MH! joule thief circuit. The one pictured in the video (the simple SS SSG circuit)is now running on a battery with a voltage of only .14v--even with the large 2n3055 transistor--you dont get much better than that.
Next we will be building a mechanical JT,and im hoping that it will operate near the .1v area.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f1DG4syHCw
Brad
-
Anyone know if a JT is a good solution for charging a NiCad battery from a low voltage trickle source. I need to include JT in a circuit to run LEDs but I figured if I could use the same circuit for both
1) When turned off Tickle Power Source => JT => charges Nicad
2) When turned on uses Nicad => JT=> LED
If this is the case what would be the best JT circuit to use. Low voltage Low amp power source <1v DC ~5 to 20mA
-
So the JT is not one single circuit,but can be many types of circuits that perform the same operation -->and that is to drain the last remaining energy from a nearly depleted battery.
What's language if we don't use it properly? You want to be an effective communicator and this doubly applies to electronics where you want to use the right concepts, and use the correct nomenclature so as to avoid confusion. If you don't do that then you can lose Mars satellites because someone was too lazy to say they were using metric units instead of English units.
A Joule Thief is a pulse circuit that is a type of blocking oscillator. There can indeed be variations on Joule Thief designs but they are all types of blocking oscillators. Feedback oscillators based on some kind of RLC circuit on the other hand are not pulse circuits at all.
Both Joule Thief/blocking oscillators and feedback oscillators can drain a battery no doubt. For both types of designs there will be a minimum battery voltage where they can self-start. Chances are that Joule Thief designs can self-start at lower voltages than feedback oscillators. Then for both Joule Thiefs and feedback oscillators if they start at a higher voltage and run continuously they can keep on running lower than the minimum self-start voltage and keep on running to some minimum operating voltage. As long as the oscillation takes place the circuit can stay alive.
So a feedback oscillator can drain a battery to a quite low voltage also as long as you don't stop it from oscillating, but it is not a Joule Thief.
Now, is that such a hard concept to understand? I don't think it is.
For both designs, by carefully choosing the configuration and the component values you might be able to get self-starting going at a quite low voltage and sustained oscillation down to an even lower voltage.
Different Joule Thief designs are like variations on Romance languages, like comparing Spanish to French. A feedback oscillator is a totally different beast, like comparing it to Mandarin Chinese.
MileHigh
-
Here is the simple SS SSG circuit being used as a joule thief circuit.
As you can see,no problem at all driving a 10mm LED quite brightly at .25v(250mV)
So be wary of those here that quote things like-->No, they are not Joule Thief circuits because it looks almost certain that they will not have the same performance as a Joule Thief when it comes to extracting energy from a nearly dead battery that has a low voltage-high impedance output.
Or-->So it's not a Joule Thief because it does not do anything special to extract energy from a very-low-voltage battery.
Or-->they will not have the same performance as a Joule Thief when it comes to extracting energy from a nearly dead battery."
Comments like this are untrue,and as can be seen in my video,there are many circuits that operate just as well as a !MH! joule thief circuit. The one pictured in the video (the simple SS SSG circuit)is now running on a battery with a voltage of only .14v--even with the large 2n3055 transistor--you dont get much better than that.
Next we will be building a mechanical JT,and im hoping that it will operate near the .1v area.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f1DG4syHCw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f1DG4syHCw)
Brad
<<< as can be seen in my video,there are many circuits that operate just as well as a !MH! joule thief circuit. >>>
Facepalm.
In an ironic, but not surprising twist, all that you are doing is proving my point.
Your SSG circuit IS a blocking oscillator. So it is a variation on a Joule Thief. From what I could see in the clip, it is self-clocking so it's basically a Joule Thief that you are showing in your clip.
I know that you are not going to provide a schematic, who needs pesky details like that...
-
Brad:
Quote from BigClive: "There are a few variants on the design which add extra components to improve efficiency, but a true Joule Thief uses a single transistor, 1K resistor, hand wound ferrite bead transformer and the LED you want to light."
You forgot to use BigClive's definitions of the JT circuit. He is the one that came up with that name in the first place so, I think he gets to decide what it is, and is not.
Of course, according to BigClive's definitions, a lot of my circuits are not JT's. Maybe we here should come up with our own name to describe a blocking oscillator/feedback type circuit that boosts voltage and runs down batteries?
I used the name "Joule Pirate" on several of my circuits as Pirates have been known to steal stuff, ha ha. I am not saying we need to use that but, all of my Fuji type circuits are not really JT's using Clive's definition. They need to be called something.
Bill
-
<<< as can be seen in my video,there are many circuits that operate just as well as a !MH! joule thief circuit. >>>
Facepalm.
In an ironic, but not surprising twist, all that you are doing is proving my point.
Your SSG circuit IS a blocking oscillator. So it is a variation on a Joule Thief. From what I could see in the clip, it is self-clocking so it's basically a Joule Thief that you are showing in your clip.
I know that you are not going to provide a schematic, who needs pesky details like that...
No MH,the facepalm is on you im afraid.
Like i said right from the word go-these circuits are not variations of a joule thief circuit--they are joule thief circuit's. When will you get it through your head that a joule thief is not one single circuit,but many that can perform the operation of draining a battery down to very low voltage,while putting out higher voltages required to run the required load--in this case,an LED.
If you do not know what the simple SS SSG circuit is,and require a schematic,then you really need to do some home work.
Should i place a capacitor some where on that circuit,just so as you are happy that you can visualize a capacitor ?. Or should i make an individual !!MH approved!! RLC circuit ?
But to save you some trouble of doing a bit of your own research MH,the circuit i used is below. You may place the LED in either position,as it will work quite fine in either.
So is it a blocking oscillator MH,or a flyback driven transformer?. Dose the transistor switch on hard while the magnetic field is building around the inductor,or dose the transistor switch on when the field is collapsing around the inductor?.
Brad
-
Brad:
Quote from BigClive: "There are a few variants on the design which add extra components to improve efficiency, but a true Joule Thief uses a single transistor, 1K resistor, hand wound ferrite bead transformer and the LED you want to light."
You forgot to use BigClive's definitions of the JT circuit. He is the one that came up with that name in the first place so, I think he gets to decide what it is, and is not.
Of course, according to BigClive's definitions, a lot of my circuits are not JT's. Maybe we here should come up with our own name to describe a blocking oscillator/feedback type circuit that boosts voltage and runs down batteries?
I used the name "Joule Pirate" on several of my circuits as Pirates have been known to steal stuff, ha ha. I am not saying we need to use that but, all of my Fuji type circuits are not really JT's using Clive's definition. They need to be called something.
Bill
If i remove the pot,and replace that pot with a resistor,i then have what big Clive states
A resistor,transistor,ferrite bead/toroid,and an LED-see circuit above in my last post.
Brad
-
Brad:
You were basically showing a variation on a Joule Thief/blocking oscilator and not really a different type of circuit architecture like you were alluding to so you get the facepalm. I am pleasantly shocked that you provided a schematic after the fact. Why don't you do that for all future clips in the actual clip where you demonstrate the circuit?
When will you get it through your head that a joule thief is not one single circuit
Get it through your head that circuits have different architectures and we often will refer to a certain architectural class of circuits with a common name and other circuits in a different architectural class with another different common name. Undertake to learn something new instead of being so stubborn and holding your breath until you turn blue.
If you do not know what the simple SS SSG circuit is,and require a schematic,then you really need to do some home work.
Bullshit, the minimum experimenters should expect is to at least get a schematic. Go look at some of your clips that are three years old so you can't remember the circuit anymore and watch yourself do a three minute rundown of where all the alligator clips are connected and see how it feels.
RLC circuit ?
Hey George Orwell, what happened to the Joule Thief as an RLC circuit?
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Get it through your head that circuits have different architectures and we often will refer to a certain architectural class of circuits with a common name and other circuits in a different architectural class with another different common name. Undertake to learn something new instead of being so stubborn and holding your breath until you turn blue.
Bullshit, the minimum experimenters should expect is to at least get a schematic. Go look at some of your clips that are three years old so you can't remember the circuit anymore and watch yourself do a three minute rundown of where all the alligator clips are connected and see how it feels.
MileHigh
You were basically showing a variation on a Joule Thief/blocking oscilator and not really a different type of circuit architecture like you were alluding to so you get the facepalm.
Oh really.
I am pleasantly shocked that you provided a schematic after the fact. Why don't you do that for all future clips in the actual clip where you demonstrate the circuit?
Because it is painfully clear even when i do,you still pay no attention to it.
Here is your description on how the !your! JT circuit works.
How a Joule Thief works:
This circuit used in this project is a modified "Joule Thief." A Joule Thief is a self-oscillating voltage booster. It takes a steady low voltage signal and converts it into a series of high frequency pulses at a higher voltage. Here is how a basic Joule Thief works, step by step:
1. Initially the transistor is off.
2. A small amount of electricity goes through the resistor and the first coil to the base of the transistor. This partially opens up the collector-emitter channel. Electricity is now able to travel through the second coil and through the collector-emitter channel of the transistor.
3. The increasing amount of electricity through the second coil generates a magnetic field that induces a greater amount of electricity in the first coil.
4. The induced electricity in the first coil goes into the base of the transistor and opens up the collector-emitter channel even more. This lets even more electricity travel through the second coil and through the collector-emitter channel of the transistor.
5. Steps 3 and 4 repeat in a feedback loop until the base of the transistor is saturated and the collector-emitter channel is fully open. The electricity traveling through the second coil and through the transistor are now at a maximum. There is a lot of energy built up in the magnetic field of the second coil.
6. Since the electricity in the second coil is no longer increasing, it stops inducing electricity in the first coil. This causes less electricity to go into the base of the transistor.
7. With less electricity going into the base of the transistor, the collector-emitter channel begins to close. This allows less electricity to travel through the second coil.
8. A drop in the amount of electricity in the second coil induces a negative amount of electricity in the first coil. This causes even less electricity to go into the base of the transistor.
9. Steps 7 and 8 repeat in a feedback loop until there is almost no electricity going through the transistor.
10. Part of the energy that was stored in the magnetic field of the second coil has drained out. However there is still a lot of energy stored up. This energy needs to go somewhere. This causes the voltage at the output of the coil to spike.
11. The built up electricity can't go through the transistor, so it has to go through the load (usually an LED). The voltage at the output of the coil builds up until it reaches a voltage where is can go through the load and be dissipated.
12. The built up energy goes through the load in a big spike. Once the energy is dissipated, the circuit is effectively reset and starts the whole process all over again. In a typical Joule Thief circuit this process happens 50,000 times per second.
So now i ask you once again MH--how dose the circuit i posted work?
Hey George Orwell, what happened to the Joule Thief as an RLC circuit?
Hey Wile E Coyote,looking at your description of the workings of your JT circuit, 12-The built up energy goes through the load in a big spike. Once the energy is dissipated, the circuit is effectively reset and starts the whole process all over again,how exactly dose the transistor switch on once the battery voltage go's below the switch on threshold voltage of the transistor ?. I mean ,it wouldnt have anything to do with junction capacitance within the transistor it self--would it MH,as that would mean that the!your! JT circuit would be an RLC circuit-->and we cant have that. :D
Your description is flawed,and as described,your JT circuit would stop operating once the battery voltage dropped below the threshold voltage required to switch on the transistor. In my circuit(provided),i use a 2n3055 transistor,and that requires 700mV at the base to switch on the transistor,and yet (as seen on the video)my circuit is quite happy to run on only 250mV.
So following your description of the workings of your JT MH,how exactly would it continue to run once the battery voltage is below the required voltage to switch on the transistor ?.
Facepalm ?
Below is your JT circuit,along with the circuit i used. Now have a good look MH,and tell me the difference in operation between the two.
Brad
-
I would also like to add that in my circuit below,it is better to have the LED in position 2. This creates a current loop through the LED and inductor only,while position 1 creates a current loop that includes the battery,where the voltage potential through the loop is opposite to that of the batteries voltage potential.
Brad
-
Brad:
We started off this thread with Smoky2 making the "resonance/they don't want you to know" pitch, and you making your pitch by just casually saying, "Oh, it's an RLC circuit, that should be obvious and everybody knows that."
And those two points are completely wrong and it's almost surprising that these things would be said after six years worth of playing with Joule Thieves. So I set out to set the record straight for the benefit of all people that are truly interested in building and experimenting with Joule Thieves.
So I made the correct points so you guys and the readers would get it right. Then I got a lot of push-back from both of you, a hell of a lot of it. So I pushed back myself. So now there is a lot of drama associated with this thread and the old Joule Thief regulars are watching it.
You have been making mistakes and that upsets you and you would almost die if you would admit that. You should resolve that problem within yourself. So you are taking a counter-measure strategy where you are doing a "play." The "play" is to try to feign that I am the one that doesn't understand what is going on, so you are asking me questions. The backdrop to all of this is that I have been around long enough so that you, and nearly everybody else watching, already has a very decent idea what my knowledge level is.
So I am not going to answer your silly basic questions that you know I know the answer to and presumably most of the readers know that I know the answer to. We are going to get this right for your benefit and for others' benefit without the needless BS and fake psychodrama.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Because it is painfully clear even when i do,you still pay no attention to it.
That's an example of the fake psychodrama and I wish it would stop.
I mean ,it wouldnt have anything to do with junction capacitance within the transistor it self--would it MH,as that would mean that the!your! JT circuit would be an RLC circuit-->and we cant have that. (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif))
The ball is in your court on this one. You tell me why with junction capacitance or without junction capacitance, it's not an RLC circuit.
So following your description of the workings of your JT MH,how exactly would it continue to run once the battery voltage is below the required voltage to switch on the transistor ?.
Facepalm ?
Your question is another example of the fake psychodrama. You already know the answer to this question. So why don't you, for the benefit of the readers, give them a nice succinct paragraph that explains the whys and hows for them. This is one of the great key things about the Joule Thief.
Below is your JT circuit,along with the circuit i used. Now have a good look MH,and tell me the difference in operation between the two.
There is a huge mistake in the circuit that you plucked off the Internet. Why don't you fix the mistake first and even annotate it so that it reflects what was shown in your clip. How about you discuss the starting procedure for the benefit of the readers.
Now have a good look MH,and tell me the difference in operation between the two.
The real challenge for you is this: Explain to the readers how the two circuits are virtually identical and how they operate essentially the same way in your own words.
I would also like to add that in my circuit below,it is better to have the LED in position 2. This creates a current loop through the LED and inductor only,while position 1 creates a current loop that includes the battery,where the voltage potential through the loop is opposite to that of the batteries voltage potential.
Besides the huge mistake in your schematic that you need to fix, the latter part of the quote above is ambiguous and has issues. Please fix it up so that it is understandable.
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg474397#msg474397 date=1455680774
Brad:
We started off this thread with Smoky2 making the "resonance/they don't want you to know" pitch, and you making your pitch by just casually saying, "Oh, it's an RLC circuit, that should be obvious and everybody knows that."
I was not the first to claim it was an RLC circuit MH-->hint,reply 104
Quote: Several heated discussions, have led to the understanding of SRF with respect to the LRC portion of the circuit.However, the transistor function seems to cause problems for many.
Now MH-weather you like it or not,this is where the C is in the LRC-->in the junction capacitance of the transistor,where the miller effect is created.
And those two points are completely wrong and it's almost surprising that these things would be said after six years worth of playing with Joule Thieves. So I set out to set the record straight for the benefit of all people that are truly interested in building and experimenting with Joule Thieves.
The fact is MH,you are doing the opposite. You are plastering incorrect/incomplete information all over this thread,and as you can see,the thread has died,and Smokey has left<--got sick of arguing with the arm chair guru i would expect.
So I made the correct points so you guys and the readers would get it right. Then I got a lot of push-back from both of you, a hell of a lot of it. So I pushed back myself. So now there is a lot of drama associated with this thread and the old Joule Thief regulars are watching it.
No MH,your points are incorrect,and 1 example is that you think that the JT is a circuit. It is not 1 single circuit,it is any circuit that can perform or create a similar outcome-->that being able to almost fully deplete a battery of it's stored energy while driving an LED(or other loads)
The reason you get pushback MH,is because you are trying to tell people like Smokey and myself that we are wrong,even though i(and a few others) have shown you that the C value in these types of circuit's can alone keep the circuit functioning-->the miller effect. As soon as you add a transistor MH,you have a capacitance value that plays a part in the overall circuit operation-->these are fact's,and anyone reading this thread can look for them self what the junction capacitance value is for the transistor they are using. It's there MH,and you cant make it go away.
You have been making mistakes and that upsets you and you would almost die if you would admit that. You should resolve that problem within yourself.
I have made no mistakes MH in my claims here on this thread. In fact,i have shown you people that have replicated JT circuit's that rely on the C of the RLC circuit to operate. This is fact MH,and as much as you would like to try and push your rubbish through,i have presented evidence against your claims by way of working devices.
So you are taking a counter-measure strategy where you are doing a "play." The "play" is to try to feign that I am the one that doesn't understand what is going on, so you are asking me questions. The backdrop to all of this is that I have been around long enough so that you, and nearly everybody else watching, already has a very decent idea what my knowledge level is.
Unfortunately MH,your knowledge is from yesty year,and there are those that have gained more knowledge through bench time,and results achieved,and then being able to interpret those result's.
As i said,the operation description you gave for the JT is incomplete,and incorrect.
So I am not going to answer your silly basic questions that you know I know the answer to and presumably most of the readers know that I know the answer to.
Big copout MH,and clearly show's you cannot answer my questions,as you know that your explanation of how the JT circuit will be shown to be incorrect if you do answer my two questions.
So i will ask once again MH,how dose the transistor switch on once the batteries voltage drops below the threshold voltage required to turn the transistor on?. Answer this by using your quoted operation of a JT
Lets have a close look at your operation description.
1. Initially the transistor is off.
2. A small amount of electricity goes through the resistor and the first coil to the base of the transistor. This partially opens up the collector-emitter channel. Electricity is now able to travel through the second coil and through the collector-emitter channel of the transistor.
3. The increasing amount of electricity through the second coil generates a magnetic field that induces a greater amount of electricity in the first coil.
Ok,so right from the start,the battery voltage must be slightly more than the voltage required to start to open the C/E junction of the transistor(the required base voltage). With a 2n3055 this voltage is 700mV as per spec's.
Now lets look at the last part of your operating description.
Quote: 12. The built up energy goes through the load in a big spike. Once the energy is dissipated, the circuit is effectively reset and starts the whole process all over again.
So MH,dont take the copout route--explain to everyone here,how the circuit continues to operate once the battery voltage falls below the switch on threshold voltage of the transistor?.
For example(which i have provided proof of operation),my last circuit(that you claim to be a different variation of your JT circuit)uses a 2n3055 transistor,and the base voltage required to switch that transistor on is around 700mV(this you can check for your self). So if we use your operating description,then my circuit should stop working once the battery voltage is close to that 700mV needed to switch on the transistor. But as everyone can see here,it is happy to keep running on a supply voltage less than 250mV :o.
So like i said MH,your operation description of how the JT works is incorrect,and the evidence speaks for it self.
We are going to get this right for your benefit and for others' benefit without the needless BS and fake psychodrama.
Your darn right we are,and as can be clearly seen MH--you are posting incorrect operations of how the circuit work's. The only one leading people astray here MH,is you,and your incorrect operation explanations of how the JT work's.
12. The built up energy goes through the load in a big spike. Once the energy is dissipated, the circuit is effectively reset and starts the whole process all over again.
This is absolute bollocks,and i have proven it to be in my last video.
If you want people to learn the correct operations of a JT circuit MH,then i recommend you go and do some more home work your self,as the operation you stated is clearly wrong--and the fact that you refuse to answer my question's, speaks volume's in your actual knowledge of how JT circuits actually work.
Brad
-
For those interested,here is a variation of my last circuit.
This one is far more efficient than the last,as far as light output verses P/in go's.
This circuit drives the LED via L2 instead of L1
Brad
-
A quick video on the circuit above.
The 10k VR has been omitted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCnT6C7T81o
Brad
-
A quick video on the circuit above.
The 10k VR has been omitted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCnT6C7T81o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCnT6C7T81o)
Brad
Perfect demonstration. Though, to really top it off you could have shown the 2n3055 in standard current control mode with a led connected to its collector back to a separate continual voltage source with a high enough voltage (3.6V?) to drive the led if the transistor turns on, and then connect your 236mV directly to the base. Connect with the emitter sharing the negative rail of each separate voltage source.
Obviously nothing will happen until you wind the 236mv up to 720mV. Comparative circuits really hit the message home. It would show clearly that without the L(& C) components of the circuit, nothing will happen until the base threshold voltage is attained. The ball's in MH court, but I think he'll just dribble with it rather than score any goals.
Cheers Tinman, keep up your enthusiastic exploration.
-
Okay Brad so you say I have gotten it all wrong and you say you are the one that is right. You asked me how a Joule Thief works. I have linked to videos and references from the web, and I have discussed various aspects of how a Joule Thief works throughout the thread.
Here is the main YouTube clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg)
Then look at the following postings:
230
255
257
258
267
Also post #197 and there is a small error in that post.
I state "Time constant #2 = Inductance/(Coil resistance + LED "resistance")"
It should read, "Time constant #2 = Inductance/(Battery resistance + Coil resistance + LED "resistance")"
Anybody that has a basic understanding of electronics will be able to understand how a Joule Thief works by reading the provided information and watching the main clip. So there is your explanation.
So, since I supposedly have goten it all wrong, the YouTube clip must be wrong, and the web sources that I linked to must be wrong, and the information that I added above must be wrong.
Okay, here is your opportunity to get it right. Please explain to the readers exactly how a Joule Thief works using any sources of information you want. That is the big issue. I will be happy to respond to all outstanding questions that you have posed to me, but let's get the big stuff done first.
The floor is yours: Please explain to the readers exactly how a Joule Thief works.
MileHigh
-
Also post #197 and there is a small error in that post.
I state "Time constant #2 = Inductance/(Coil resistance + LED "resistance")"
It should read, "Time constant #2 = Inductance/(Battery resistance + Coil resistance + LED "resistance")"
MileHigh
your awareness of the battery resistance and how it affects the circuit is an important step in understanding all of the processes that are involved.
However one should not lose sight of the effects of the magnetic ferrite in this situation. It acts as a resistance in one instance, and a capacitance in the other.
-
Here is the main YouTube clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg)
Then look at the following postings:
230
255
257
258
267
Also post #197 and there is a small error in that post.
I state "Time constant #2 = Inductance/(Coil resistance + LED "resistance")"
It should read, "Time constant #2 = Inductance/(Battery resistance + Coil resistance + LED "resistance")"
Anybody that has a basic understanding of electronics will be able to understand how a Joule Thief works by reading the provided information and watching the main clip. So there is your explanation.
and the web sources that I linked to must be wrong, and the information that I added above must be wrong.
Okay, here is your opportunity to get it right. Please explain to the readers exactly how a Joule Thief works using any sources of information you want. That is the big issue. I will be happy to respond to all outstanding questions that you have posed to me, but let's get the big stuff done first.
The floor is yours: Please explain to the readers exactly how a Joule Thief works.
MileHigh
Okay Brad so you say I have gotten it all wrong and you say you are the one that is right. You asked me how a Joule Thief works. I have linked to videos and references from the web, and I have discussed various aspects of how a Joule Thief works throughout the thread.
And i have shown time and time again,that the cycle is not restarted by the battery--it just cannot once the battery voltage falls below the voltage required to switch on the transistor. Surely you understand this MH,or are you going to continually just copy and past incorrect information found on the internet ?.
It's a simple question MH--how is it that i have 720mV being delivered to the base of my transistor,and yet only have a supply voltage of around 250mV?. How can it be the battery(supply voltage) that is switching on the transistor ?.
So, since I supposedly have goten it all wrong, the YouTube clip must be wrong,
Yes,the youtube clip is wrong,and because you just believe in what some one else is telling you,then you to are wrong. Go and listen to your video again MH,right at the end of the first cycle-->5 minute mark,where he state's--Quote: Once the magnetic field is all gone,there is no more current for the LED,and it turn's off.And we wait for the battery voltage to start opening the base to emitter gate again,to start the whole cycle over again.
Now,with that information MH, please explain as to how the battery can open the base/emitter gate,when that battery voltage falls below the required base voltage of the transistor for it to switch on?.
Like i said,you,your video,and provided operation information are wrong,and i have show this a number of times now with actual working devices. It simply dose not work that way,and cannot work that way once the battery voltage falls below the required switch on voltage of the transistor.
Please go and do a little more research before providing more incorrect information.
Brad
-
your awareness of the battery resistance and how it affects the circuit is an important step in understanding all of the processes that are involved.
However one should not lose sight of the effects of the magnetic ferrite in this situation. It acts as a resistance in one instance, and a capacitance in the other.
I would also add smOky2,that the transistors junction capacitance also plays a vital role in the operation of most of the JT circuit's.
Brad
-
The answer to your question is that the turns ratio in the Joule Thief transformer allows the feedback coil that drives the base resistor to amplify the voltage that is across the main coil that drives the LED. In your recent setup you used an 8:1 turns ration such that the low battery voltage can be multiplied by eight so that you can still switch on the transistor.
Now that your question has been answered, the floor is yours.
Please explain to the readers exactly how a Joule Thief works.
-
I would also add smOky2,that the transistors junction capacitance also plays a vital role in the operation of most of the JT circuit's.
Brad
as well as the "C" of the diode, and the smaller "C" formed by the reverse-bias impulse across the battery.
a comment about the YT video: with the 10k TrimPot removed, the base connector is seeing only the resistance of the coil and the wire that connects coil to base. this is a very low "R", and as thus, the voltage at the base is at a more maximum value, more so than when you turned the variable resistor "all the way down". If we used a superconductor here, the base voltage would approach the "ideal" voltage calculated by the number of (-) number of turns * area of coil * (change in B/ change in T) of the inductor w ferrite during the discharge part of the cycle.
This seems to defy the concept of linear time, because this voltage is required prior to the charging of the inductor.
But as we can see, by single-fire pulse analysis, this actually occurs.
-
I find this discussion highly amusing. Because you're both right, and you're both wrong, about the same and different things. The blocking oscillator is the key.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet (as far as I remember) is transistor saturation. TinMan's circuit (the SSG one with the pot) is a good one to demonstrate what happens when the base is overdriven higher than the collector. The system can stop oscillating because the transistor stays off (Vb too low) or because it stays on (Vb too high). TinMan's 8:1 transformer circuit can overdrive the base in certain circumstances. Depending on the input voltage, the pot can be adjusted to a "sweet spot" where the LED is brightest; too much resistance stops oscillation by underdriving, too little resistance stops oscillation by driving to saturation. This effect may be easier to see with other NPN transistors rather than the 2n3055.
The 3055 transistor is "kicked" into oscillation in the first place even though the voltage supplied seems too low, by ... wait for it... .stray capacitance. Once it starts oscillating, then it's getting plenty of base voltage because of the 8:1 transformer. Again, this effect may be easier to see with other transistors, which will need more stray capacitance to start oscillating (like by touching the Collector or Emitter lead with a finger or a small cap lead.) And all 2n3055s are not created equal... this is an extremely common transistor to be "faked" by unscrupulous Chinese sources. Performance varies wildly.
There is also a big difference between powering one of these circuits with a voltage-regulated power supply, and a battery whose voltage will vary as the circuit oscillates between On and Off states. Personally, I do not trust the meters on power supplies for anything other than a rough estimate. Connecting one scope probe across the power supply while testing these circuits to see what it's really doing can be ... surprising, especially at very low voltages.
The last two variants (LEDs connected "across coil" vs "C to E") that TinMan shows are also the same as those shown by Mags back up in the thread as "wrong" and "right" except that the SSG coil connection is used rather than the center-tapped "standard" version. A blocking oscillator by any other name is still a blocking oscillator.
I don't like to get involved in "theory" discussions, because there are many levels of analysis possible and everybody's got a "theory". What matters to me is whether or not something works, and how changes affect the workings. "Just the facts, ma'am". But proper testing often uncovers facts that might make some people revise their theories.
-
Brad:
For the sake of completeness, I will respond to this:
Yes,the youtube clip is wrong,and because you just believe in what some one else is telling you,then you to are wrong. Go and listen to your video again MH,right at the end of the first cycle-->5 minute mark,where he state's--Quote: Once the magnetic field is all gone,there is no more current for the LED,and it turn's off.And we wait for the battery voltage to start opening the base to emitter gate again,to start the whole cycle over again.
Now,with that information MH, please explain as to how the battery can open the base/emitter gate,when that battery voltage falls below the required base voltage of the transistor for it to switch on?.
Well you missed it in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg)
Starting at 2:45 he says, "An interesting feedback happens during the time the red coil is creating a magnetic field. That changing magnetic field induces a voltage in the green coil. What's good is that the voltage is in the right direction to add to the voltage already being provided by the battery."
What is not too clear in the video is that all of this needs an initial "kick" to get started when the battery voltage is less than the switch-on voltage for the transistor base-emitter diode. That is explained in the attached annotated Joule Thief schematic. The sudden voltage drop at TP2 will be amplified by the turns ratio and become a sudden voltage increase at TP1 switching the transistor ON.
NOTE: The YouTube video does not deal with the case when the battery voltage is less than the switch-on voltage of the transistor for the sake of simplicity.
NOTE: Also in post #267 I state this: "Then for both Joule Thiefs and feedback oscillators if they start at a higher voltage and run continuously they can keep on running lower than the minimum self-start voltage and keep on running to some minimum operating voltage. As long as the oscillation takes place the circuit can stay alive."
Now Brad, the floor is yours.
Please explain to the readers exactly how a Joule Thief works.
MileHigh
-
Now that your question has been answered, the floor is yours.
Please explain to the readers exactly how a Joule Thief works.
The answer to your question is that the turns ratio in the Joule Thief transformer allows the feedback coil that drives the base resistor to amplify the voltage that is across the main coil that drives the LED.
No MH. We are talking about !your! JT circuit. Lets say the battery voltage is down to 300mV,the transistors required base voltage for switch on is 700mV-->how dose the transistor switch on by way of the battery voltage alone--as described in your video and provided paper work?.
Nothing can be amplified MH,until the transistor starts to switch on--no current flows through any coil until the transistor starts to conduct.
So answer the question MH-how can 300mV switch on a transistor that requires a minimum of 700mV to switch on?.
In your recent setup you used an 8:1 turns ration such that the low battery voltage can be multiplied by eight so that you can still switch on the transistor.
Well we all knew that MH--what is your point?
Once again--how dose my setup work,and how is it just another variation of the !your! JT circuit that you claim it to be?.
You asked me to read your posted explanation's, watch the video you posted. I did that MH,and they are both wrong. The transistor is not switched on by the battery voltage alone when the next cycle start's. If it were,then !your! JT circuit would stop working once the battery voltage dropped below the required voltage needed to switch on the transistor--but it dosnt.
Remember MH--> current will not start to flow until the transistor begins to conduct,and the transistor will only start to conduct once the threshold voltage is reached at the base/emitter junction. Are you saying that--if i use a 2n3055 transistor, that requires 700mV to start to conduct,that your JT circuit will stop running when the battery reaches a voltage less than 700mV ?.
You know as well as i do that it will not stop working once the battery falls below the transistors switch on voltage threshold. With this information,you also know that the video and explanations you have provided for the operation of the JT circuit is incorrect. This is the sole reason you are not answering my questions correctly,but instead,head off on some crooked garden path explanation that makes no sense at all.
Brad
-
The answer to your question is that the turns ratio in the Joule Thief transformer allows the feedback coil that drives the base resistor to amplify the voltage that is across the main coil that drives the LED. In your recent setup you used an 8:1 turns ration such that the low battery voltage can be multiplied by eight so that you can still switch on the transistor.
Now that your question has been answered, the floor is yours.
Please explain to the readers exactly how a Joule Thief works.
The problem with your explanation for the specific alternative circuit shown by Tinman, is that , at turn on, no current can flow through the collector junction until the base has been turned on, and by your explanation the base cannot turn on, because no current is induced into the coil that feeds, because no current can flow through the collector coil while the collector junction is open, until the base turns on.
There is no direct source voltage coupling to trigger the base because there is no direct DC connection to the base, only an inductive connection which requires current through the collector coil. A severe case of chicken and egg, unless their is something else in the circuit momentarily allowing the base to initially trigger. That initial trigger mechanism lies in the tiny capacitance in the transistor junction.
Cheers
-
TK:
The 3055 transistor is "kicked" into oscillation in the first place even though the voltage supplied seems too low, by ... wait for it... .stray capacitance. Once it starts oscillating, then it's getting plenty of base voltage because of the 8:1 transformer. Again, this effect may be easier to see with other transistors, which will need more stray capacitance to start oscillating (like by touching the Collector or Emitter lead with a finger or a small cap lead.) And all 2n3055s are not created equal... this is an extremely common transistor to be "faked" by unscrupulous Chinese sources. Performance varies wildly.
Nope, see my previous posting. The transistor is initially "kicked" on by pure transformer action. There is a regenerative cycle (positive feedback) to turn the transistor ON, and a regenerative cycle (positive feedback) to turn the transistor OFF.
Brad, the floor is yours.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
For the sake of completeness, I will respond to this:
Well you missed it in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg)
Now Brad, the floor is yours.
Please explain to the readers exactly how a Joule Thief works.
MileHigh
Starting at 2:45 he says, "An interesting feedback happens during the time the red coil is creating a magnetic field. That changing magnetic field induces a voltage in the green coil. What's good is that the voltage is in the right direction to add to the voltage already being provided by the battery."
Once again MH--he is referring to the cascade effect taking place once the transistor starts to conduct. The driven coil can only amplify the base coil once the transistor start to conduct. The battery send a current through the green coil and resistor to the base of the transistor. Before the transistor can switch on,the voltage being supplied must be the minimum required by the transistor. Once the transistor starts to conduct,current starts to flow through the red coil. This increase the current and voltage flowing through the green coil,and so switches the transistor on even harder. No problem at all with this transformer effect MH,but how dose the transistor start to conduct once the battery voltage falls below that of what is required by the transistor to switch on. This is the part you are missing,and how you are doing that is beyond me. I dont see much skill on your behalf MH playing a role here.
The sudden voltage drop at TP2 will be amplified by the turns ratio and become a sudden voltage increase at TP1 switching the transistor ON.
This alone MH shows us that your supplied information and video's are wrong,and is what i have been trying to tell you for the last two pages on this thread.-->the battery is not solely responsible for switching on the transistor-->and only now are you admitting that i was correct.
Brad
-
Brad,
At this point the transistor switching ON has been explained. So forget about the battery voltage issue and please explain to the readers exactly how a regular Joule Thief circuit works.
Now more stalling, no more conditions. If you continue with that it's going to look like you are stalling and trying to avoid the request.
It's time for you to explain the big picture of exactly how a Joule Thief works. The floor is yours.
MileHigh
-
TK:
Nope, see my previous posting. The transistor is initially "kicked" on by pure transformer action. There is a regenerative cycle (positive feedback) to turn the transistor ON, and a regenerative cycle (positive feedback) to turn the transistor OFF.
Brad, the floor is yours.
MileHigh
Dont pull that one MH.
It only took you !how long! to work out that your provided explanations and videos were incorrect,and that i was correct when i said(countless times) that the battery cannot be what is switching on the transistor once the battery voltage falls below that of the required voltage to turn on the transistor.
Great to see you admitting to being incorrect.
Brad
-
Brad,
The videos are not incorrect. Forget about all of that now.
You are on stage now, it's your show. So either put out and tell us exactly how a Joule Thief works or be a BSer and run away like a coward with all talk no action.
MileHigh
-
Brad,
At this point the transistor switching ON has been explained. So forget about the battery voltage issue and please explain to the readers exactly how a regular Joule Thief circuit works.
Now more stalling, no more conditions. If you continue with that it's going to look like you are stalling and trying to avoid the request.
It's time for you to explain the big picture of exactly how a Joule Thief works. The floor is yours.
MileHigh
What we had to do first MH,was correct your mistakes in your explanations and video's--so as people can get off on the right foot.
It needs to be made clear that it is not the battery that switches on the transistor once the battery voltage falls below the required switch on voltage of the transistor. The tuning can only start once a !correct! description is given of the basic workings of a JT(your JT)circuit.
Another thing needs to be explained correctly before we go any further. When you stated-What is not too clear in the video is that all of this needs an initial "kick" to get started.
Not always correct. If the battery voltage is high enough,then the JT circuit will start oscillating as soon as you switch on the battery. If the battery voltage is lower than the required voltage needed to switch the transistor on,then yes,a kickstart is required--a quick emitter/collector short will start the oscillations.
Brad.
-
Enough Brad, get on with your show.
-
Brad,
The videos are not incorrect. Forget about all of that now.
You are on stage now, it's your show.
MileHigh
So either put out and tell us exactly how a Joule Thief works or be a BSer and run away like a coward with all talk no action.
I have proven that your videos and explanations are incorrect-others will see this MH,so why try and deny it?.
Speaking of all talk and no action-->where are your JT video's MH ?,i cant seem to locate them ::)
It is very clear who is all talk,and who is all action around here MH-->can you guess what one you are?
So far,i have 377 video's up on youtube of my various projects. This of course dose not reflect the time taken to design and build each project. Then there is the time to shoot each video,convert it to a Jpeg format,and upload to youtube. How many hours in total do you think i have spent doing all this MH,while you sit back in your arm chair,and play God.
Who is the talker,and who is the one performing actions?.
Brad
-
well
-
NOW THAT IS WHAT YOU CALL A REAL JEWEL THIEF MILE HIGH.
-
NOW NOW YOU HAVE BEEN A BAD BOY AGAIN MICROM LOW.. I TOLD MY MOTHER IN LAW ABOUT YOU ML.
Dude--really :o
Could we maybe remove that post and image ?
Cheers
Brad
-
I have proven that your videos and explanations are incorrect-others will see this MH,so why try and deny it?.
Speaking of all talk and no action-->where are your JT video's MH ?,i cant seem to locate them ::)
It is very clear who is all talk,and who is all action around here MH-->can you guess what one you are?
So far,i have 377 video's up on youtube of my various projects. This of course dose not reflect the time taken to design and build each project. Then there is the time to shoot each video,convert it to a Jpeg format,and upload to youtube. How many hours in total do you think i have spent doing all this MH,while you sit back in your arm chair,and play God.
Who is the talker,and who is the one performing actions?.
Brad
So you are just using a bunch of stalling and deflection tactics.
Apparently you can't explain to the readers how a Joule Thief works.
-
author=TinselKoala link=topic=8341.msg474430#msg474430 date=1455707224
I find this discussion highly amusing. Because you're both right, and you're both wrong, about the same and different things. The blocking oscillator is the key.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet (as far as I remember) is transistor saturation. TinMan's circuit (the SSG one with the pot) is a good one to demonstrate what happens when the base is overdriven higher than the collector. The system can stop oscillating because the transistor stays off (Vb too low) or because it stays on (Vb too high).
The 2n3055 is a very robust transistor,and very forgiving as well. As you can see in my last video,the base voltage is 3 times that of the collector voltage,and it still keeps on oscillating quite fine,even with a duty cycle of around 70%--way to high i know.
And all 2n3055s are not created equal... this is an extremely common transistor to be "faked" by unscrupulous Chinese sources. Performance varies wildly.
The one's i am using start to conduct with a base voltage of 692mV--so very close to the stated 700mV
The 3055 transistor is "kicked" into oscillation in the first place even though the voltage supplied seems too low, by ... wait for it... .stray capacitance.
I actually have to start mine by a quick shorting of the emitter/collector junction,as there is very little stray capacitance in this simple circuit.
Once it starts oscillating, then it's getting plenty of base voltage because of the 8:1 transformer.
Indeed,and the very reason for the 8:1 ratio. This circuit is designed to run at very low input voltages. It will still light the LED at 170mV--not bad for a big metal can transistor.
The last two variants (LEDs connected "across coil" vs "C to E") that TinMan shows are also the same as those shown by Mags back up in the thread as "wrong" and "right" except that the SSG coil connection is used rather than the center-tapped "standard" version. A blocking oscillator by any other name is still a blocking oscillator.
In my last video,i have the LED across the base/emitter,and this is a far more efficient JT than the standard version. The flyback from L2 is a good way to drive the LED,it lowers current draw,and increases light output from the LED.
-
So you are just using a bunch of stalling and deflection tactics.
Apparently you can't explain to the readers how a Joule Thief works.
Well i was waiting to see one of your JTs in action MH,but i believe the cobwebs would take over first :D
Which one would you like me to explain,and do i have to explain your JT circuit after countless pages of getting you to see how it actually work's--which is not by way of the battery switching on the transistor as you claimed by way of video's and documented writings.
My JT circuit operates in a different manner to your JT circuit MH,as my two windings are parallel,and not crossed over like your JT circuit has them. You see,the current flow in my L! and L2 is in the same direction when the magnetic field collapses,where as the current flow in your L1 and L2 is in opposite directions when the magnetic field collapses. As you seen in my last video,when the transistor switches off,both L1 at B+, and L2 at the base both go negative,and so cannot switch the transistor on at that point like your JT circuit dose. So what triggers the initial switching of the transistor,so as the 8:1 winding ratio can kick in,and switch on the transistor hard?. Where could there be a higher voltage potential being stored for the initial switch on of the transistor,due to our very low supply voltage of only 250mV ?.
Im just seeing if your on the ball MH,and not just going to go and have a googlegasm,and post more incorrect information,as we have just all been witness to.
We have not yet covered junction capacitance,and as you refuse to believe that the circuit is actually an RLC due to this transistor junction capacitance,then there really is not much point in going into it--is there?. But i will give you a little information MH. The BC junction output capacitance for the 2n3055 can be as high as 700pF at frequencies 0 to 100KHz,with voltages up to 10 volt's.
Brad
-
The problem with your explanation for the specific alternative circuit shown by Tinman, is that , at turn on, no current can flow through the collector junction until the base has been turned on, and by your explanation the base cannot turn on, because no current is induced into the coil that feeds, because no current can flow through the collector coil while the collector junction is open, until the base turns on.
There is no direct source voltage coupling to trigger the base because there is no direct DC connection to the base, only an inductive connection which requires current through the collector coil. A severe case of chicken and egg, unless their is something else in the circuit momentarily allowing the base to initially trigger. That initial trigger mechanism lies in the tiny capacitance in the transistor junction.
Cheers
Thank you Hoptoad.
It is good to see some one is on the ball here.
The 2n3055 BC capacitance can get as high as 700pF. This is more than enough to start the transistor conducting.
Internal capacitances are due to the storage of charge at the PN junction's. These PN junctions act just like the plates of a capacitor,where in they can store charge. This stored charge is enough to trigger the transistor when in circuits like my cool joule circuit. This is where the miller effect kicks in,and this stored charge is what switches the transistor on. This charge exist weather or not the transistor is being pulled on harder by a second current input source--such as MH JT circuit. This is the C in the LRC circuit--it exists,and is there.
There is junction capacitance,and diffusion capacitance.
Junction capacitance-where the charge is stored in the depletion region of the PN junction.
Diffusion capacitance--quote wiki: Diffusion Capacitance is the capacitance due to transport of charge carriers between two terminals of a device, for example, the diffusion of carriers from anode to cathode in forward bias mode of a diode or from emitter to baseforward-biased junction for a transistor.
We do not have to worry to much about diffusion capacitance with everyday JT circuit's.
Brad
-
That's a complete and total fail Brad. No bait and switch. Why would a few hundred picofarads of capacitance affect anything? It's just a rhetorical question.
Just explain to the readers how an ordinary Joule Thief actually works. How does the timing work and how does the switching work?
The floor is yours.
-
Post #288 was edited and text was added in bold to address some of Brad's "objections."
Brad, in the last four or five postings you have dropped the line that you have "corrected my mistakes."
I already addressed this issue in an earlier posting when I said this, "So you are taking a counter-measure strategy where you are doing a "play." The "play" is to try to feign that I am the one that doesn't understand what is going on, so you are asking me questions. The backdrop to all of this is that I have been around long enough so that you, and nearly everybody else watching, already has a very decent idea what my knowledge level is."
So don't try to "play" me. Just get on with it and explain to the readers exactly how a regular Joule Thief works with no muss, no fuss, no misdirection, no bait and switch, no "plays," and no shenanigans.
The floor is yours.
-
The floor is yours.
That junction capacitance is enough to make the transistor switch on,and a circuit to oscillate,where there is no inductive coupling between L1 and L2. Myself and many others have proven this,and was also confirmed by MarkE,and worked out by Vortex1. Are you going to argue with all them MH ?--i didnt think so.
Just explain to the readers how an ordinary Joule Thief actually works. How does the timing work and how does the switching work?
I have given you two examples of ordinary JT circuit's,that have different operating parameters.
But before you burst a bubble,i will give a quick and simple rundown on the one below--seen as you like it so much. Why im doing this again,i do not know,because we have just spent the best part of 3 days trying to get you to describe the correct switching and operation of the JT circuit you provided.
What do you mean by timing MH ?. If you are referring to frequency,on times,off time's ETC,how can i possibly do that from a picture?. Where is all the information needed to calculate this?--battery voltage,torroid size and grade.wire size and type-ETC ?.
Or,if by timing,you mean how each event takes place for one complete cycle,then that is much the same as how it work's-is it not?.
Before i can give an accurate description of the operation MH,i will need you to provide some information on your transistor. I need to know the required base current and voltage for the transistor to start conducting. Without that,there is no way of giving an accurate operation description,as it can go two way's,and this depends the required current and voltage needed at the base to switch the transistor on. Even if we have the full 1.5 volt's on the battery,the base of the transistor will only receive a maximum current from the battery of 1.5 mA. So for example,if the 2n2222 needs 2mA of current at the base to switch on,then we need a 2v battery-which we do not have. So this would in turn drop the available base voltage down--see what i mean. So i need the required base voltage and current to switch on the 2n2222 transistor. Once you give me that,then i will provide the operation description you so much require.
Brad
-
Brad:
If you really believe that the transistor junction capacitance is relevant, then put it into your description. The schematic shows a 1K base resistor and a 2N2222 transistor but that is not even relevant to the discussion. Nor are the specifics of the toroid and the windings truly relevant to the discussion.
So don't get hung up on the details and use that as an excuse. Or if you insist that you need these kinds of details (which you don't) then put in some reasonable values by yourself.
Descriptions of how circuits operate are done without needing to have component specifics all the time. You saw how I posted three descriptions of how a Joule Thief operates and there were no component specifics.
I am looking forward to reading your complete description of how a standard Joule Thief works.
MileHigh
-
Ive figured that the shorted winding just causes the inductance of the primary and trigger windings to be much lower than without the shorted winding.
In a normal say 60hz transformer, if we short out a winding it causes the primary to pull lots of current from the source. But here it is different because the operating freq of the JT depends on the reactions in the transformer, and with the shorted winding the drive coils inductance is lowered and the circuit self adjusts to operate at a much higher freq. But with a normal 60hz transformer, the input doesnt change so the input current rises hard.
Got the thing to get up to 2.5mhz but at that point the led is fairly dim. Havnt seen any resonant nodes so far. I tried some caps on the 3rd coil and there seems to be certain band widths that the led jumps to a decent brightness and jumps back down when out of that band width. But nothing brighter than normal running.
Id like to make a new thread to work on JT mods experimenting with resonance, but I dont want it to become a thread like this one has become in the past days. And there are sooo many JT threads that Im not sure another should be made. Stumped on that idea. If I title the thread for JT Mods Experimenting with resonance, then there shouldnt be any bickering about resonance because the thread should be about how to get the JT to have resonance. But I dont believe that would be enough to keep the thread on target.
Still fiddling with it.
Mags
-
Ive figured that the shorted winding just causes the inductance of the primary and trigger windings to be much lower than without the shorted winding.
In a normal say 60hz transformer, if we short out a winding it causes the primary to pull lots of current from the source. But here it is different because the operating freq of the JT depends on the reactions in the transformer, and with the shorted winding the drive coils inductance is lowered and the circuit self adjusts to operate at a much higher freq. But with a normal 60hz transformer, the input doesnt change so the input current rises hard.
Got the thing to get up to 2.5mhz but at that point the led is fairly dim. Havnt seen any resonant nodes so far. I tried some caps on the 3rd coil and there seems to be certain band widths that the led jumps to a decent brightness and jumps back down when out of that band width. But nothing brighter than normal running.
Id like to make a new thread to work on JT mods experimenting with resonance, but I dont want it to become a thread like this one has become in the past days. And there are sooo many JT threads that Im not sure another should be made. Stumped on that idea. If I title the thread for JT Mods Experimenting with resonance, then there shouldnt be any bickering about resonance because the thread should be about how to get the JT to have resonance. But I dont believe that would be enough to keep the thread on target.
Still fiddling with it.
Mags
There is no resonance in a JT circuit.
Yes there is.
No, there isn't.
Yes there is.
No, there isn't.
Is too.
Is not!
Too!
Not!
Mags, that is what your topic would look like.
Bill
-
Ive figured that the shorted winding just causes the inductance of the primary and trigger windings to be much lower than without the shorted winding.
In a normal say 60hz transformer, if we short out a winding it causes the primary to pull lots of current from the source. But here it is different because the operating freq of the JT depends on the reactions in the transformer, and with the shorted winding the drive coils inductance is lowered and the circuit self adjusts to operate at a much higher freq. But with a normal 60hz transformer, the input doesnt change so the input current rises hard.
Got the thing to get up to 2.5mhz but at that point the led is fairly dim. Havnt seen any resonant nodes so far. I tried some caps on the 3rd coil and there seems to be certain band widths that the led jumps to a decent brightness and jumps back down when out of that band width. But nothing brighter than normal running.
Id like to make a new thread to work on JT mods experimenting with resonance, but I dont want it to become a thread like this one has become in the past days. And there are sooo many JT threads that Im not sure another should be made. Stumped on that idea. If I title the thread for JT Mods Experimenting with resonance, then there shouldnt be any bickering about resonance because the thread should be about how to get the JT to have resonance. But I dont believe that would be enough to keep the thread on target.
Still fiddling with it.
Mags
Moderate your thread mag's,and just remove the junk.
Brad
-
The 3055 transistor is "kicked" into oscillation in the first place even though the voltage supplied seems too low, by ... wait for it... .stray capacitance. Once it starts oscillating, then it's getting plenty of base voltage because of the 8:1 transformer. Again, this effect may be easier to see with other transistors, which will need more stray capacitance to start oscillating (like by touching the Collector or Emitter lead with a finger or a small cap lead.) And all 2n3055s are not created equal... this is an extremely common transistor to be "faked" by unscrupulous Chinese sources. Performance varies wildly.
TK:
Nope, see my previous posting. The transistor is initially "kicked" on by pure transformer action. There is a regenerative cycle (positive feedback) to turn the transistor ON, and a regenerative cycle (positive feedback) to turn the transistor OFF.
Brad, the floor is yours.
MileHigh
You are both correct from different perspectives, in that the feedback IS related to a stray capacitance value.
And while a "current" cannot be measured prior to the transistor switching on, there IS a voltage induced at the base of the transistor.
-
unfortunately Bill speaks the wisdom of the ages.
Even if you stated resonance as a prerequisite of experiment,
there would still be those that subject the topic to conjecture, and disinformation.
(I think I may have attempted that at one time, when I was less articulate in discussions of this topic)
I can give you a (generic) set of guidelines, that may vary slightly, depending on the particulars of your design.
That may help identify if your particular circuit is able to converge with resonant nodes of the various parts of the circuit.
an "ideal" situation would be to have every component, and every portion of the circuit at resonance,
however, this is sometimes more difficult that I made it seem in the words of my previous posts.
Mathematically, we can see how this is done, as I have shown.
But in reality, even the tiniest resistances and capacitances from our wiring can change the resultant frequency node, and where it lay on the scale of frequencies the device can operate at.
this is why I recommended using your oscilloscopes
It simplifies the whole ordeal because (provided your scope is of quality) the mathematics are performed for you by the machine.
I recommend starting with the standard setup, (LED in either location), the only modification is the use of a VR instead of the set resistance at the base of the transistor.
1) The first step should be taking the transistor out of digital mode. With a scope across the Emitter and the center tap of the coil,
adjustments are made to the base resistor until this signal closer resembles a sine-wave, than a sharp peak and long slope.
There is a range in which this occurs, depending on the transistor, this can be a very small range in resistances.
The actual frequency data is available from the manufacturer, labeled: linear mode, or linear freq range, etc.
to give you a guideline of what you are looking for.
2) expand your scope image, so that you can see the fluctuating details within the signal. You don't need to go TOO deep, just enough that the little spikes and whatnot are visible to you on the screen.
Now, within the range of step 1, so that you don't throw the switch back into digital mode, make adjustments to the base VR,
to attempt to locate nodes that clean up the spikes, a smoothing effect will occur, and you may notice certain of those little spikes getting larger. (this looks like a problem, but let it be, it actually raises the RMS of the total signal amplitude)
What you are doing here, in a sense, is reducing the amount of conflicting feedback, that damages the quality of the signal.
Or as I state it: bringing the system closer to a "total circuit resonance".
or minimizing destructive interference.
3) Pay close attention to the quality of your coils, not just the number of turns, but where the first and last turn begin and end, as well as the straightness of the wire and spacing between coils / slope.
This may seem trivial, but when you examine what this does to the circuit, imperfections create variances in capacitance and inductance along the length of the coil. This can destroy some of the effects of positive feedback.
There are more, most of which I have already gone over last week, so will not regurgitate here.
But an important thing to remember, about resonance:
Your scope is your friend, scoping multiple parts of the circuit and comparing changes in one, to changes in the other.
This will assist in identifying destructive interference (negative feedback), and otherwise signal disrupting events occurring within the circuit.
Quality is important, not just peak values.
resonance has pure qualities, an inverse or reflection of itself.
anything other than that is disruptive.
-
Yes I think it would make perfect sense for Magluvin to make a thread called "Joule Thief in Resonance Mode" or something akin to that and give it a go.
I would only ask Magluvin when he has his Joule Thief operating normally that he post a nice scope shot of TP1 and TP2 like was previously discussed.
I for one will assure you that I won't touch it or I will barely touch it because I am only interested in seeing if it is going to be possible for this thread to reach its logical conclusion and arrive at an understanding about how a Joule Thief really works.
I will just repeat from here that if the hacked Joule Thief manages to oscillate or resonate the big questions will be "So what?" and "What's next?" In the long run "finding the delicate balance of resonance in a Joule Thief" will mean absolutely nothing. Instead of twisting pots and fiddling with your coil like Smoky2 is saying, you may as well look up a single-transistor based oscillator and put it together and you are done.
Or perhaps there is something out there and "they" don't want you to know. After all, the X-Files is coming back on TV.
The whole thing is nothing more than chasing the resonance fetish and as if you were going to strike gold or something. It's nothing more than fool's gold.
So, presuming that Magluvin makes another thread and sees sine waves on his scope with a Joule Thief circuit, are big things supposed to happen? Super efficiency?
The real question will be whether or not the proponents of a "resonant Joule Thief" will account for the final results or will the thread just die with the key players just "running away" for lack of a better term.
A "resonant Joule Thief?" Bring it on and I will watch from the peanut gallery.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
So the ball is still in your court. You mentioned stuff about transistor junction capacitance and "RLC."
Please explain exactly how a regular Joule Thief works and give it your best shot and leave no stone upturned.
The floor is yours.
MileHigh
-
Below is MH test point scope shot.
Also a shot of the circuit running at 320mv and a pic of the led. looks brighter on camera. (Mislabeled (named) the 320mv pics as 360mv.)
And a pic of another transformer or say filter choke from a pc power supply.
Also a shot of the original test point at 100kohm showing a dip after led pulse. Then another showing something resembling a sine at about 160kohm. Will do more and also with the original transformer I made.
Mags
-
Bring it on and I will watch from the peanut gallery.
MileHigh
So, despite the mathematics, and solid foundations in electronics theory,
despite all that has thus been discussed here,
you set in stone your ridiculous opinion, before even considering the experimentation?
-
Magluvin:
Thanks for the scope shot. You can see the how the Joule Thief transformer is an inverting transformer relative to the two test points. If I assume that the winding is a 1:1 ratio then I can even see the battery voltage in the scope shot. The LED voltage peaks at about 6.5 volts and the feedback volage peaks at about -5.3 volts. So the battery voltage must be about 1.2 volts.
More importantly, this scope shot of a Joule Thief operating normally confirms everything I said about how it operates including the copy-paste articles. There is no "resonance," there is just the energizing cycle time and then the discharge into the LED cycle time. Add those two values together and invert it and you get the operating frequency for the Joule Thief. The positive-feedback "snap ON" and "snap OFF" events are nice clean very-high-slew-rate events. Finally you can see it is running at a nice "low" frequency of 4.2 kHz.
You can also see that potential issue that I raised on the other thread. How bright is the LED at 6.5 volts? (Actually the LED is probably over-driven at 6.5 volts and and you are getting less bang for your current buck at that operating point. The LED would probably burn up with a constant 6.5 volts across it.) How bright is the LED at 5 volts? How bright is the LED at 3.8 volts? Is this an issue? Is the decaying voltage/current discharge curve though the LED resulting in a lot of "lost" inductor energy that is not really contributing to the brightness of the LED? If so, how can you improve upon this?
MileHigh
-
Try to clean that up
-
So, despite the mathematics, and solid foundations in electronics theory,
despite all that has thus been discussed here,
you set in stone your ridiculous opinion, before even considering the experimentation?
Honestly, I could slice and dice your technical comments apart if I wanted to. I think that you are just being a poseur throwing out some technical terms and making a tired worn-out resonance play. Why don't you sketch out various "resonance" waveforms for Magluvin ahead of time so he knows what to expect and where to look for them? Why don't you explain the multiple resonance instances that you alluded to and explain where they are and what and where each of the two resonating components are in each instance? Or do you just want to sit back and watch the experimenters fiddle with pots and comment when you think someone has "struck" resonance? Why should an experimenter have to "hunt" for resonance and find some "special delicate balance" if you have been pitching it all this time? If I strike a bell it resonates. What kind of "special" or "remarkable" results should Magluvin and others get if they "strike resonance?" What are they supposed to see?
If Magluvin or anyone else succeeds in achieving something remarkable with a Joule Thief in "resonance" and explains what is actually taking place instead of just observing something, I will be happy to admit that I was wrong and acknowledge that something special is taking place due to the resonance.
On the other hand, if all that Magluvin or others can get is mushy wobbly scope traces that are difficult to explain and don't clearly show "resonance" and yield unremarkable power-in to LED-illumination-out results (or any other metric you want to define), what are YOU going to do?
MileHigh
-
Magluvin and other Joule Thief enthusiasts:
I reattached Magluvin's second scope shot to this posting. Clearly a Joule Thief when running at a very low battery voltage does not operate in the standard switching mode as shown in his first scope capture. I certainly can't explain what I am seeing. I think that we have all seen similar scope captures of Joule Thieves running at very low battery voltages in the past - but most people have never seriously questioned what they were looking at. Clearly something different is happening and it's happening at a much higher frequency than the normal operating frequency.
So do you just observe this, or, do you try to explain it and understand it completely? If you can figure it out and explain it will you will get some satisfaction from that and in addition perhaps that new knowledge will give you more insight into trying to get a Joule Thief to resonate?
The good news is that you can slowly lower the supply voltage and observe how the waveforms change and that will help you a lot in determining what is taking place.
MileHigh
-
Magluvin:
Thanks for the scope shot. You can see the how the Joule Thief transformer is an inverting transformer relative to the two test points. If I assume that the winding is a 1:1 ratio then I can even see the battery voltage in the scope shot. The LED voltage peaks at about 6.5 volts and the feedback volage peaks at about -5.3 volts. So the battery voltage must be about 1.2 volts.
More importantly, this scope shot of a Joule Thief operating normally confirms everything I said about how it operates including the copy-paste articles. There is no "resonance," there is just the energizing cycle time and then the discharge into the LED cycle time. Add those two values together and invert it and you get the operating frequency for the Joule Thief. The positive-feedback "snap ON" and "snap OFF" events are nice clean very-high-slew-rate events. Finally you can see it is running at a nice "low" frequency of 4.2 kHz.
You can also see that potential issue that I raised on the other thread. How bright is the LED at 6.5 volts? (Actually the LED is probably over-driven at 6.5 volts and and you are getting less bang for your current buck at that operating point. The LED would probably burn up with a constant 6.5 volts across it.) How bright is the LED at 5 volts? How bright is the LED at 3.8 volts? Is this an issue? Is the decaying voltage/current discharge curve though the LED resulting in a lot of "lost" inductor energy that is not really contributing to the brightness of the LED? If so, how can you improve upon this?
MileHigh
No problem.
Well sure there is no resonance, yet. ;) I dont think anyone has said that there is resonance going on in a normal JT. That is why we are modding the thing to get it to do so.
Mags
-
Try to clean that up
Will give it a go. Need to increase the resistance a bit more, and slowly scan the pot and watch for what you are asking for. My 10k 10 turn broke internally. Have a 1k 10 turn that Ill put in series with a larger 100k pot and a 100k resistor and use the 100k as a course set and the 1k a a fine tune.
Thanks ;D
Mags
-
Honestly, I could slice and dice your technical comments apart if I wanted to. I think that you are just being a poseur throwing out some technical terms and making a tired worn-out resonance play. Why don't you sketch out various "resonance" waveforms for Magluvin ahead of time so he knows what to expect and where to look for them? Why don't you explain the multiple resonance instances that you alluded to and explain where they are and what and where each of the two resonating components are in each instance? Or do you just want to sit back and watch the experimenters fiddle with pots and comment when you think someone has "struck" resonance? Why should an experimenter have to "hunt" for resonance and find some "special delicate balance" if you have been pitching it all this time? If I strike a bell it resonates. What kind of "special" or "remarkable" results should Magluvin and others get if they "strike resonance?" What are they supposed to see?
If Magluvin or anyone else succeeds in achieving something remarkable with a Joule Thief in "resonance" and explains what is actually taking place instead of just observing something, I will be happy to admit that I was wrong and acknowledge that something special is taking place due to the resonance.
On the other hand, if all that Magluvin or others can get is mushy wobbly scope traces that are difficult to explain and don't clearly show "resonance" and yield unremarkable power-in to LED-illumination-out results (or any other metric you want to define), what are YOU going to do?
MileHigh
Well like Smoky said, it has to be fine tuned to search for resonant nodes. They could be within very tiny adjustments of the pots and could pass and miss it if not careful, and I totally understand that.
Mags
-
Well like Smoky said, it has to be fine tuned to search for resonant nodes. They could be within very tiny adjustments of the pots and could pass and miss it if not careful, and I totally understand that.
Mags
Yes that sounds fine and like I said, I am not really going to be involved in the resonance discussion. The question of how a Joule Thief works in its normal operating mode has been answered and there was enough information covered over the past two weeks such that all the information is there if you want to do the reading and the research.
But at least let's look at a rough mechanical analogy for a resonant circuit and this would also apply to a hacked Joule Thief running in some kind of resonant mode.
Suppose you are in a museum and you come across a kinetic sculpture that demonstrates resonance. You are looking at a big box-like open-air metal frame. Attached to the frame are all sorts of springs with different sized weights attached, there are thin rectangular metal bars attached to the frame on one side only, bells, tuning forks, sheets of tin, and so on. It looks like a small metal junkyard in 3D space and it stands about 10 feet high. It looks like a shambles.
You can see how the base of the metal frame sits on four big springs. There is a big variac that allows you adjust the speed of a 1/2 horsepower motor. You notice the motor is in the center of the sculpture off to one side and there is a big off-balanced flywheel attached to the motor.
So when you play with the variac the spinning flywheel on the motor shaft makes the whole thing shake into a frenzied shambles at different frequencies. You find different resonant frequencies for different things on the sculpture as the the whole crazy sculpture shakes and rattles.
However, you notice at each resonant frequency that whatever component is resonating will reache a certain maximum resonant amplitude and THAT'S IT - the sculpture doesn't shake it self apart and explode. Rather, different components reach a maximum resonating amplitude where the losses equal and balance out with the supplied power - balance.
The sculpture never shakes itself apart because the resonating components always have losses that burn off the supplied vibratory mechanical power coming from the motor-flywheel.
And any electrical circuit operates in EXACTLY the same way. A resonating Joule Thief will simply reach a resonant amplitude where the resonant AC currents will burn off power and be in balance with the supplied power. In other words, a resonating Joule Thief will have a TON of i-squared-R looses and that will take power AWAY from lighting the LED.
The whole concept of a "resonating Joule Thief" is not exciting at all.
But I will leave it up to the experimenters to determine that for themselves, or I will admit that I was wrong the whole time if credible remarkable results are reported.
MileHigh
-
I replicated Tinman's low voltage circuit today and it does run well below 200mV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eup3iaHS5Oo
I used an MPSA18 instead of a 2N3055. Maybe this will help you guys and maybe it won't but it was pretty cool seeing an led light up at that low a voltage. Thanks for the discussion going on here. It is very interesting.
-----Lidmotor
PS --I asked my friends Hewey, Dewey, and Lewey if they they like to resonate.
All I got was a blank stare.
-
I replicated Tinman's low voltage circuit today and it does run well below 200mV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eup3iaHS5Oo
I used an MPSA18 instead of a 2N3055. Maybe this will help you guys and maybe it won't but it was pretty cool seeing an led light up at that low a voltage. Thanks for the discussion going on here. It is very interesting.
-----Lidmotor
PS --I asked my friends Hewey, Dewey, and Lewey if they they like to resonate.
All I got was a blank stare.
Thanks for the replication--great job as always ;)
Brad
-
Magluvin and other Joule Thief enthusiasts:
I think that we have all seen similar scope captures of Joule Thieves running at very low battery voltages in the past - but most people have never seriously questioned what they were looking at. Clearly something different is happening and it's happening at a much higher frequency than the normal operating frequency.
So do you just observe this, or, do you try to explain it and understand it completely? If you can figure it out and explain it will you will get some satisfaction from that and in addition perhaps that new knowledge will give you more insight into trying to get a Joule Thief to resonate?
The good news is that you can slowly lower the supply voltage and observe how the waveforms change and that will help you a lot in determining what is taking place.
MileHigh
I reattached Magluvin's second scope shot to this posting. Clearly a Joule Thief when running at a very low battery voltage does not operate in the standard switching mode as shown in his first scope capture.
MH
You do understand that a JT circuit is meant to operate at very low voltages?. I mean,that is what the JT is all about--taking the last bit of energy from an almost dead battery. Why are you talking about standard switchmode operation,when we are all talking about how the circuit operates at the low voltages we want them to run at.
I certainly can't explain what I am seeing.
Post 316-Quote: You mentioned stuff about transistor junction capacitance and "RLC."
Of course you cant,as you refuse to accept that the circuit !is! an RLC circuit. As long as you continue to exclude the C in RLC,then you will never understand as to how !your! JT circuit can run on voltages well below that of the threshold voltage required to switch on the transistor.
Take another look at Mag's scope shot that has you confused. What is the threshold voltage required by the transistor Mag's is using to switch on?. If the supply voltage to the JT is 320mV,then how come we see a higher voltage during the on time portion in the scope shot?.
Dont panic MH,i am putting together all the information you required from me on the workings of a JT !!at low voltages!, as that is what JT's are all about. Yesterday was just a big headf--k day,as i had doctors appointments,Xrays--all that crap. But i'll be back onto it today--just doing the video and scope shot's to go with the explained workings of the JT (your JT) circuit.
Brad
-
Have a look at this one, once it's started i doesn't need a battery, see if you can copy it ! ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmlpV1MWm40
-
Have a look at this one, once it's started i doesn't need a battery, see if you can copy it ! ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmlpV1MWm40 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmlpV1MWm40)
I think the battery is in the hollowed out ceramic resistor and he uses the pizo clicking sound to mask the sound of his flipping the ON switch from his hidden battery that just happens to go out of camera view when it is switched on.
That is my take...any others?
Bill
-
the device has a coil going through the mine toroid coil you dont think it could be 1/4 wave ie 4 x f then ? he does say the device is a mos fet and not a juction tranie.
-
the device has a coil going through the mine toroid coil you dont think it could be 1/4 wave ie 4 x f then ? he does say the device is a mos fet and not a juction tranie.
I don't know, I am just guessing and that was my opinion as I mentioned. I just do not think that that device runs itself. I mean, I had a large ballast resistor on my 440 magnum 1970 high performance engine. Why would you need such a huge resistor on a little board like that with those other dinky components?
Bill
-
Brad:
You do understand that a JT circuit is meant to operate at very low voltages?. I mean,that is what the JT is all about--taking the last bit of energy from an almost dead battery. Why are you talking about standard switchmode operation,when we are all talking about how the circuit operates at the low voltages we want them to run at.
This is just another bait and switch. You have probably tried to pull off about 20 bait and switches in this thread so far and every time you do that you compromise your integrity. When is it going to stop?
Post 316-Quote: You mentioned stuff about transistor junction capacitance and "RLC."
Of course you cant,as you refuse to accept that the circuit !is! an RLC circuit. As long as you continue to exclude the C in RLC,then you will never understand as to how !your! JT circuit can run on voltages well below that of the threshold voltage required to switch on the transistor.
Take another look at Mag's scope shot that has you confused. What is the threshold voltage required by the transistor Mag's is using to switch on?. If the supply voltage to the JT is 320mV,then how come we see a higher voltage during the on time portion in the scope shot?.
This is just another "play" which also compromises your integrity.
Dont panic MH,i am putting together all the information you required from me on the workings of a JT !!at low voltages!
Don't do yet another bait and switch. Do what you are supposed to do, explain how a standard Joule Thief circuit works. If you want to go beyond that and describe more stuff then fine, but start by describing how a standard Joule Thief circuit works.
MileHigh
-
I replicated Tinman's low voltage circuit today and it does run well below 200mV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eup3iaHS5Oo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eup3iaHS5Oo)
I used an MPSA18 instead of a 2N3055. Maybe this will help you guys and maybe it won't but it was pretty cool seeing an led light up at that low a voltage. Thanks for the discussion going on here. It is very interesting.
-----Lidmotor
PS --I asked my friends Hewey, Dewey, and Lewey if they they like to resonate.
All I got was a blank stare.
Wow, a home-made version of a gold-leaf electroscope. That is the first time I have seen that! You are the "MacGyver" of experimenters.
MileHigh
-
Wow, a home-made version of a gold-leaf electroscope. That is the first time I have seen that! You are the "MacGyver" of experimenters.
MileHigh
He truly is.
Bill
-
Brad:
For the sake of completeness, I will respond to this:
Well you missed it in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg)
[/b]
NOTE: The YouTube video does not deal with the case when the battery voltage is less than the switch-on voltage of the transistor for the sake of simplicity.
NOTE: Also in post #267 I state this: "Then for both Joule Thiefs and feedback oscillators if they start at a higher voltage and run continuously they can keep on running lower than the minimum self-start voltage and keep on running to some minimum operating voltage. As long as the oscillation takes place the circuit can stay alive."
Now Brad, the floor is yours.
Please explain to the readers exactly how a Joule Thief works.
MileHigh
Lets have a look at what you believe to be the timing and operation of your JT circuit MH.
Starting at 2:45 he says, "An interesting feedback happens during the time the red coil is creating a magnetic field. That changing magnetic field induces a voltage in the green coil. What's good is that the voltage is in the right direction to add to the voltage already being provided by the battery."
No,-no voltage is added to the green coil that go's to base,as the red coil cannot create a magnetic field until the transistor has already began to conduct.
What is not too clear in the video is that all of this needs an initial "kick" to get started when the battery voltage is less than the switch-on voltage for the transistor base-emitter diode.
No,that is incorrect with your JT circuit MH. The circuit will start even if the battery voltage is below that of the required switch on voltage of the transistor--as can be seen in my up and coming video.
That is explained in the attached annotated Joule Thief schematic. The sudden voltage drop at TP2 will be amplified by the turns ratio and become a sudden voltage increase at TP1 switching the transistor ON.
No-again incorrect. The flyback from the red coil(L1) is what pulls the transistor off--not on. The green coil(L2) is wound in the wrong direction to pull the transistor on when L1 is switched off,and we get the flyback spike across L1 to drive the LED.
As can be seen in the scope shot below,all of the flyback energy in L1 is dissipated before the transistor once again switches on. This is because the flyback energy from L1 is what is pulling the base of the transistor down(keeping it off).
You continually ignore the junction capacitance of the transistor MH,and this is why you cannot understand as to how the circuit actually work's. Current flows through L2 before any current flows through L1, so L2 is the coil that starts to create the magnetic field within the toroid core first-not L1. Current can flow in L2 before the emitter/collector junction starts to open,due to the junction capacitance in the transistor. This in turn creates a voltage potential in L1 that is opposite that to L2,and add's to the voltage being supplied to the base of the transistor via the base/collector junction capacitor/capacitance. Although very small in capacity,it is enough to get the emitter/collector junction to start to open. Once this happen's,then a stronger magnetic field starts to build in the toroid. Now you start to get your transformer action between L1 and L2,and this then starts to pull the transistor on hard. The magnetic field builds to a point where the available current can no longer keep the magnetic field amplitude rising,or the core reaches a point of saturation,and the induced current in L2 stop's. The magnetic field begins to collapse due to the transistor no longer receiving enough current,and begins to switch off. As the magnetic field is now decreasing in strength,a reverse current flow is produced in L2,and this pulls the transistor hard off--as can be seen in the scope shot below.Some of this stored energy in L1 is used to drive the LED,and the rest is used to pull the transistor down/off. Once all the stored energy in L1 has been depleted,and no longer can hold the transistor off,the cycle starts all over again.
This is why your JT circuit is not very efficient MH,as most of the stored energy in the magnetic field that we want to use to drive the LED, is fighting against the energy being supplied by the battery ,to keep the transistor switched off. So the battery is trying to switch the transistor on,and the flyback energy is trying to keep the transistor switch off. This is why i like to use circuit's that disconnect the battery during the flyback part of the cycle.
Brad.
-
Here is one of them WTF moments when your fooling around with circuits.
The circuit is as below,but i am now supplying the circuit with a voltage of 1 volt.
Looking at the scope shots,it appears that the transistor is still switched on after the inductive kickback spike starts ???
Brad
-
Brad:
Lets have a look at what you believe to be the timing and operation of your JT circuit MH
I am not going to even argue about the two positive-feedback regenerative cycles in a Joule Thief that snap the transistor ON and snap the transistor OFF. It's a done deal and has been explained properly. If you want to make a point, then I look forward to your description of how a standard Joule Thief works.
As can be seen in the scope shot below,all of the flyback energy in L1 is dissipated before the transistor once again switches on. This is because the flyback energy from L1 is what is pulling the base of the transistor down(keeping it off).
Your scope shot is clearly not showing a Joule Thief running in it's normal operation mode so I am not going to discuss it right now. It's just another case of crossed and jumbled up signals coming from you. You start off trying to argue about the normal regenerative switching in a Joule Thief running at normal frequencies and you point to a scope capture of a Joule Thief that is clearly not switching normally and not running at normal frequencies to make your point.
You continually ignore the junction capacitance of the transistor MH,and this is why you cannot understand as to how the circuit actually work's. Current flows through L2 before any current flows through L1, so L2 is the coil that starts to create the magnetic field within the toroid core first-not L1. Current can flow in L2 before the emitter/collector junction starts to open,due to the junction capacitance in the transistor. This in turn creates a voltage potential in L1 that is opposite that to L2,and add's to the voltage being supplied to the base of the transistor via the base/collector junction capacitor/capacitance. Although very small in capacity,it is enough to get the emitter/collector junction to start to open. Once this happen's,then a stronger magnetic field starts to build in the toroid. Now you start to get your transformer action between L1 and L2,and this then starts to pull the transistor on hard. The magnetic field builds to a point where the available current can no longer keep the magnetic field amplitude rising,or the core reaches a point of saturation,and the induced current in L2 stop's. The magnetic field begins to collapse due to the transistor no longer receiving enough current,and begins to switch off. As the magnetic field is now decreasing in strength,a reverse current flow is produced in L2,and this pulls the transistor hard off--as can be seen in the scope shot below.Some of this stored energy in L1 is used to drive the LED,and the rest is used to pull the transistor down/off. Once all the stored energy in L1 has been depleted,and no longer can hold the transistor off,the cycle starts all over again.
You clearly don't have a clue what Junction Capacitance is all about. All that it means is that before the transistor starts conducting a tiny weenie microscopic capacitor has to be charged first. That's the base-emitter capacitance. So it takes a fraction of a microsecond to charge that capacitance via L1, the feedback coil. That will not affect the L2, the output coil in any way. See the attached small-signal model for a transistor and that model will apply in this case for initiation of the regenerative cycle.
From section 5.6.3 of this: http://ecee.colorado.edu/~bart/book/book/chapter5/ch5_6.htm (http://ecee.colorado.edu/~bart/book/book/chapter5/ch5_6.htm)
The turn-on of the BJT consists of an initial delay time, td,1, during which the base-emitter junction capacitance is charged. This delay is followed by the increase of the collector current, quantified by the rise time, trise.
Here is another document that I was looking through about the nitty-gritty details about transistors.
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~hu/Chenming-Hu_ch8.pdf (http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~hu/Chenming-Hu_ch8.pdf)
Current can flow in L2 before the emitter/collector junction starts to open,due to the junction capacitance in the transistor. This in turn creates a voltage potential in L1 that is opposite that to L2,and add's to the voltage being supplied to the base of the transistor via the base/collector junction capacitor/capacitance. Although very small in capacity,it is enough to get the emitter/collector junction to start to open.
Any tiny microscopic puff of current that flows through L2, the output coil, to charge a microscopic junction capacitance associated with the collector will create a microscopic puff of a magnetic field energy which will induce a microscopic puff of positive voltage in L1, the feedback coil. The magnetic energy will be so small that it will have no effect. It's just a new fetish on your part.
It's end of the dumping of the magnetic energy in the coil that just lit up the LED that makes the potential of L1 jump up to switch the transistor back on. This energy is millions or billions times the size of any microscopic puff of energy associated with charging any possible pico-capacitor associated with the transistor collector input.
This is why your JT circuit is not very efficient MH,as most of the stored energy in the magnetic field that we want to use to drive the LED, is fighting against the energy being supplied by the battery ,to keep the transistor switched off. So the battery is trying to switch the transistor on,and the flyback energy is trying to keep the transistor switch off. This is why i like to use circuit's that disconnect the battery during the flyback part of the cycle.
That's just another bewildering statement. All that I can say is that when the coil discharges into the LED, the battery and the coil are working together and their voltages are adding when this happens. You seem to be indicating that this is not the case and if that is what you are saying you are wrong.
Instead of obsessively telling me that I "don't understand" just go ahead and explain how a Joule Thief works.
MileHigh
-
Here is one of them WTF moments when your fooling around with circuits.
The circuit is as below,but i am now supplying the circuit with a voltage of 1 volt.
Looking at the scope shots,it appears that the transistor is still switched on after the inductive kickback spike starts ???
Brad
It is another WTF moment but not what you think and the timing shown in your scope shot is most likely unreliable.
This goes out to you and to all Joule Thief experimenters because I have seen this poor practice before: Why would you put your scope probe right on the base input of the transistor? There is a very high impedance signal there because the signal source is on the other side of a 1K resistor. It's the perfect place to put a scope probe to disturb the operation of the device because the base input is the high-gain input of the switching device.
Why don't you put your scope probe on the other side of the 1K resistor, which is the output of the feedback coil L2? That is a low impedance signal that will not really be affected by the presence of the scope probe. That will show you the operation of the transformer in action. You just have to look at the voltage at that point and at the same time to look at the potential of the collector to know precisely whether or not the base-emitter junction of the transistor is conducting or not and if the transistor is ON or OFF. You need to put your scope probe on the base input of the transistor like a hole in the head.
MileHigh
-
It is another WTF moment but not what you think and the timing shown in your scope shot is most likely unreliable.
This goes out to you and to all Joule Thief experimenters because I have seen this poor practice before: It's the perfect place to put a scope probe to disturb the operation of the device because the base input is the high-gain input of the switching device.
Why don't you put your scope probe on the other side of the 1K resistor, which is the output of the feedback coil L2? That is a low impedance signal that will not really be affected by the presence of the scope probe. That will show you the operation of the transformer in action. You just have to look at the voltage at that point and at the same time to look at the potential of the collector to know precisely whether or not the base-emitter junction of the transistor is conducting or not and if the transistor is ON or OFF. You need to put your scope probe on the base input of the transistor like a hole in the head.
MileHigh
MH
Im done with arguing with you.
You make error after error.
Examples.
Why would you put your scope probe right on the base input of the transistor? There is a very high impedance signal there because the signal source is on the other side of a 1K resistor.
Because MH,the pot was turned right down to it's lowest resistance,so it would make no difference to which side the scope probe was on.
I am not going to even argue about the two positive-feedback regenerative cycles in a Joule Thief that snap the transistor ON and snap the transistor OFF. It's a done deal and has been explained properly.
And my scope shot's clearly show you are wrong. Just think about how the coils are wound in your JT circuit MH-->surly you can work it out--you know how transformers work-dont you?.
Your scope shot is clearly not showing a Joule Thief running in it's normal operation mode so I am not going to discuss it right now. It's just another case of crossed and jumbled up signals coming from you.
More rubbish MH-->what do you think a JT circuit is designed to do-->thats right,run at low voltages,and be able to light an LED. We are looking at the operation of the JT circuit running at the voltages we want them to run at-->not MH's fully charged battery voltage.
Go back to your book's MH,and leave the experimenting to those that actually experiment.
You do what you want MH,but i will show those that are interested,what actually is happening in JT circuit's when running at the low voltages we want them to.
A competition MH-?. You build your JT based around what you think is going on,and i will build mine using what i believe is going on. We then see who can drain a AA battery down the lowest. Which one of us can design and build a JT circuit that will do the best job of what a JT circuit is designed to do-->drain the most energy from what would otherwise be considered a dead battery.
But we wont stop there MH. After we have done that,then we will see who can get a JT circuit to oscillate without any inductive coupling between the two coils.
So now it's time to put up or shut up MH. I have explained correctly how a(your) JT circuit operates at low voltages(which is what we want a JT circuit to do),and i have explained as to how the cool joule circuit operates without the inductive coupling between the two coils.
Like i said,(and i see you are not brave enough to question or argue with these guy's-1 of whom you sadly cannot),if you disagree with me on that,then take it up with Vortex1, physics Prof, Lidmotor,and a number of other guys that have successfully replicated my cool joule JT. Are you also going to say that MarkE was wrong?--No,i did not think so,you dont have the balls to stand against those guy's-do you.
So thats it MH--take up my challenge,and prove to everyone here that you know better than i ,or shut up.
Brad
-
@MH'
Think about what is happening with your JT circuit as the magnetic field is increasing in the toroid--L1 induces L2,and this sends more current to the base of the transistor--the transformer effect.
Now think about what happens to the current flowing in L2 when the magnetic field starts to collaps-->The voltage invert's,and the current flows in the opposite direction--unlike L1 where the current keeps flowing in the same direction. This pulls the transistor down/off during the flyback spike MH,not on. We can even place an LED across L2,and watch this happen -for those that do not have a scope.
Brad
-
Just messing around with the stator from a smart drive washing machine motor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3YCpsEliRs
Brad
-
@MH'
Think about what is happening with your JT circuit as the magnetic field is increasing in the toroid--L1 induces L2,and this sends more current to the base of the transistor--the transformer effect.
Now think about what happens to the current flowing in L2 when the magnetic field starts to collaps-->The voltage invert's,and the current flows in the opposite direction--unlike L1 where the current keeps flowing in the same direction. This pulls the transistor down/off during the flyback spike MH,not on. We can even place an LED across L2,and watch this happen -for those that do not have a scope.
Brad
No kidding Brad, you are more or less explaining it properly here but insinuating that I did not say that. It's just more confusion from you where you are not understanding what I am saying to you and what was said in the videos and explanations that I linked to. I attached a schematic where I labeled L1 (main coil) and L2 (feedback coil to base resistor) so we can definitively standardize on this labeling for the two coils.
The output from L2 drops in potential first because the rate of change of current in L1 starts to decrease at the end of the energizing cycle. That starts to turn the transistor off. That initiates the collapse of the magnetic field in the toroid, which then makes the output from L2 drop even more in potential. That is the regenerative cycle.
However, the current in L2 does not literally flow in the opposite direction but indeed the transistor is switched OFF. L2 is simply generating EMF when the transistor is switched OFF.
That's one of the two positive feedback regenerative cycles.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Because MH,the pot was turned right down to it's lowest resistance,so it would make no difference to which side the scope probe was on.
Great, so you hacked the Joule Thief to get it to run at even lower voltages. So you pull a bait and switch for the 100th time to force a square peg into a round hole to make your "point."
You are like some combination of a bull in a china shop and a "stream of consciousness" experimenter where everything is fluid and things change back and forth and you jump in and out of different ideas and statements and ultimately leave a jumbled mess of a trail of discongruent ideas that all add up to a convoluted mess but in your head it's all normal and "other people are the ones that have the problem."
You are not talking about one Joule Thief circuit, you are talking about five different Joule Thief circuits at the same time.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
More rubbish MH-->what do you think a JT circuit is designed to do-->thats right,run at low voltages,and be able to light an LED. We are looking at the operation of the JT circuit running at the voltages we want them to run at-->not MH's fully charged battery voltage.
We are back to where you agreed to do what I requested of you: Describe how a standard Joule Thief circuit works. Standard Joule Thief, standard circuit, standard running voltage, no bait and switch, no stream of consciousness. Keep your mind focused on a single task.
Now are you capable of doing that or not?
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Here, I undertook to do a fairly complete annotation of Magluvin's scope capture that I requested. That is an example of the WORK and the thinking and analyzing that is REQUIRED if you are going to understand how a circuit works.
Now, when you look at Magluvin's scope capture for the "rundown to 360 mv" capture, the full compliment of WORK has to be done to understand it. I am assuming that he did not change the circuit when he took that capture. He simply observed how the Joule Thief switched over to a completely different operating mode at the lower voltage. I have not analyzed that and I have no intention of analyzing it.
The reason I am emphasizing the "WORK" angle is because this was your "explanation" for how your "Cool Joule" feedback oscillator circuit worked: "Miller effect."
Your explanation for your "Cool Joule" circuit's operation is a joke.
Now, if you want to describe how a standard Joule Thief circuit works I am all ears.
MileHigh
-
Why should an experimenter have to "hunt" for resonance and find some "special delicate balance" if you have been pitching it all this time? If I strike a bell it resonates. What kind of "special" or "remarkable" results should Magluvin and others get if they "strike resonance?" What are they supposed to see?
"why" is more of a philosophical question. I could blame it on some not willing to read what was presented to them, others on their lack of equipment, while others still, because they missed some pertinent piece of information or data that induces unknown factors into their circuit. I did my best to describe each of these details from my own perspective, as well as from (my interpretation of) others perspectives whom also understand these principals, as have been presented.
Consider this: Place a clamp + weight onto one side of your bell. Notice how this changes the resonance.
The waveform is destroyed.
you might only get a plink, or a ding.
Now, place other weights clamped to other places around the bell, and notice how this changes, not only the resonant frequency of the bell, but its ability to resonate.
If Magluvin or anyone else succeeds in achieving something remarkable with a Joule Thief in "resonance" and explains what is actually taking place instead of just observing something, I will be happy to admit that I was wrong and acknowledge that something special is taking place due to the resonance.
On the other hand, if all that Magluvin or others can get is mushy wobbly scope traces that are difficult to explain and don't clearly show "resonance" and yield unremarkable power-in to LED-illumination-out results (or any other metric you want to define), what are YOU going to do?
MileHigh
I, unlike you, do not depend on the ability of others to succeed or fail in particular experiments, to formulate an already proven theory.
especially when the parameters of any single experiment have not even been defined.
what I will do, is offer the best help I can to walk them through making their particular JT, better.
locating and reducing the destructive interference in the system,
bringing resonances in the circuit closer to "in phase", so as to aid in constructive interference.
What I have a hard time understanding, MH:
is why you are so adamantly against such attempts to improve efficiency in this manner.
this is not a matter of me "proving" anything to you, this was proven 200 ago.
when it comes down to it, this is simple signal processing....
-
I have not analyzed that and I have no intention of analyzing it.
MileHigh
yes, this seems to be your general viewpoint here.
Do you even "own" a Joule thief?
-
Brad:
Great, so you hacked the Joule Thief
MileHigh
what does that even MEAN?
-
Smoky2:
Don't make me laugh with all of the "cards" you are playing. What you can't do is even describe a Joule Thief resonant mode beyond "fiddle with a pot and look for a sine wave." Wow. No kidding the "parameters haven't been defined."
What I have a hard time understanding, MH: is why you are so adamantly against such attempts to improve efficiency in this manner."
This must be about the 20th time that you have tried to play straw man with me and attempt to claim I said things that I didn't say. It makes your argument beyond weak and you are too weak to ever have acknowledged that you are doing it.
this is simple signal processing
I will just repeat what I have said before, throwing around "big electronics words" that don't really mean anything tangible with respect to the humble Joule Thief does not add to the discussion at all.
You are left with saying this from what I can surmise: "Trust me, if you can fiddle with a Joule Thief and find some kind of resonance I can't really define then you will get some kind of better efficiency that I can't really define."
You are making a lot of vague unproven claims about a Joule Thief. Do you have a scope and a multimeter and a camera? Why don't YOU demonstrate a Joule Thief in "resonance" instead of preaching about it? I am not making any claims beyond what Magluvin has already shown and can be seen in many clips on YouTube and in many web links. You are making claims that right now you can't deliver on.
So you entered this thread preaching "resonance 'magic'" and Brad entered this thread saying, "Oh, it's an RLC resonant circuit" and at this point what we can clearly see is that it's a device that energizes an inductor and then discharges that inductor through an LED where the operating frequency is based on two timing events; an L/R type energizing cycle and an L/R type discharge cycle though an LED. "Resonance" and "RLC resonant circuit" have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a normal Joule Thief.
And why not get it right and discuss the reality of the Joule Thief? Why do I do it? Well, did you see the magic "resonant" flash light? The "resonance magic" is quickly going away and it's apparent that it's just another "resonance con." The "cult of resonance" on the free energy forums is always there and the tangible results are never there. Why not actually evaluate a circuit with less than five components properly. Why not?
MileHigh
-
"why" is more of a philosophical question. I could blame it on some not willing to read what was presented to them, others on their lack of equipment, while others still, because they missed some pertinent piece of information or data that induces unknown factors into their circuit. I did my best to describe each of these details from my own perspective, as well as from (my interpretation of) others perspectives whom also understand these principals, as have been presented.
Consider this: Place a clamp + weight onto one side of your bell. Notice how this changes the resonance.
The waveform is destroyed.
you might only get a plink, or a ding.
Now, place other weights clamped to other places around the bell, and notice how this changes, not only the resonant frequency of the bell, but its ability to resonate.
I, unlike you, do not depend on the ability of others to succeed or fail in particular experiments, to formulate an already proven theory.
especially when the parameters of any single experiment have not even been defined.
what I will do, is offer the best help I can to walk them through making their particular JT, better.
locating and reducing the destructive interference in the system,
bringing resonances in the circuit closer to "in phase", so as to aid in constructive interference.
What I have a hard time understanding, MH:
is why you are so adamantly against such attempts to improve efficiency in this manner.
this is not a matter of me "proving" anything to you, this was proven 200 ago.
when it comes down to it, this is simple signal processing....
"what I will do, is offer the best help I can to walk them through making their particular JT, better.
locating and reducing the destructive interference in the system,
bringing resonances in the circuit closer to "in phase", so as to aid in constructive interference."
I can accept those terms. ;)
"What I have a hard time understanding, MH:
is why you are so adamantly against such attempts to improve efficiency in this manner."
I have been trying to be social with mh lately. I used to feel the need to hammer the same thoughts that you have written above to him many times before. Im afraid we cant fix that. So I just stay off that battlefield because it takes toooo much time and thread space to just end up with what we see today. Its not only the constant insistence that an 'idea'(s) will not work, but topping it all off with degrading insults doesnt fare well with me either. I have written a few reply posts in the last couple weeks that once I reread and thought about it, I just deleted them instead of falling in a never ending dual that doesnt account for much but a couple of hot heads.. >:( >:( ;D
Below is a scope shot that I produced last night. The battery was near fresh at 1.44v when I started. When I finally got to this point I let it set over night. At lunch today the batter showed a solid 1.46v. But that could be due to many odd things. But it was nice to see. Seems like a nice clean sine to me.
Here I had reverted back to my original transformer because the choke coil prewound with 2 windings wouldnt show a clean sine before it dies out. The only way I could come close to a sine with either transformer was to add the shorted winding. The original was better at it with these low inputs.
There isnt much range in which I can produce the clean sine before dying out. So I figure the best way around that is to up the input voltage. Will be doing that tonight. Got some various larger npn transistors to work with if the 3904 blows on me.
I need to get some pots with plastic casings and control shafts. The 100k Im using at the moment is the standard metal casing with split aluminum shaft that if I touch it it offsets tuning at these near 1mhz freq, even with a big rubber pipe end cap, if I touch the rubber the effect is still there.
Also, I did a check on the circuit without the led and it still operates. ;) Not exactly the same freq. but still the same other than without the led there is no clamping of the spike.
Mags
-
Brad:
Here, I undertook to do a fairly complete annotation of Magluvin's scope capture that I requested. That is an example of the WORK and the thinking and analyzing that is REQUIRED if you are going to understand how a circuit works.
Now, when you look at Magluvin's scope capture for the "rundown to 360 mv" capture, the full compliment of WORK has to be done to understand it. I am assuming that he did not change the circuit when he took that capture. He simply observed how the Joule Thief switched over to a completely different operating mode at the lower voltage. I have not analyzed that and I have no intention of analyzing it.
The reason I am emphasizing the "WORK" angle is because this was your "explanation" for how your "Cool Joule" feedback oscillator circuit worked: "Miller effect."
Your explanation for your "Cool Joule" circuit's operation is a joke.
Now, if you want to describe how a standard Joule Thief circuit works I am all ears.
MileHigh
The scope shot of the test points was with a fresher battery. Just noticed that I had the menu on with that shot as I was checking to see if the blue or yellow traces were inverted, and they were not. Happened to me before so I checked
Mags
-
snip....
You are not talking about one Joule Thief circuit, you are talking about five different Joule Thief circuits at the same time.
MileHigh
So you finally acknowledge there is more than one type of JT circuit.
-
Brad:
We are back to where you agreed to do what I requested of you: Describe how a standard Joule Thief circuit works. Standard Joule Thief, standard circuit, standard running voltage, no bait and switch, no stream of consciousness. Keep your mind focused on a single task.
Now are you capable of doing that or not?
MileHigh
What is a joule thief.
A joule thief is a minimalist Armstrong[1] self-oscillating voltage booster that is small, low-cost, and easy to build, typically used for driving light loads.
It can use nearly all of the energy in a single-cell electric battery, even far below the voltage where other circuits consider the battery fully discharged (or "dead"); hence the name, which suggests the notion that the circuit is stealing energy or "joules" from the source. The term is a pun on the expression "jewel thief": one who steals jewelry or gemstones.
The circuit is a variant of the blocking oscillator that forms an unregulated voltage boost converter. The output voltage is increased at the expense of higher current draw on the input, but the integrated (average) current of the output is lowered and brightness of a luminescence decreased.
The name "Joule Thief" was coined by Clive Mitchell[3][4] and given to his variant of Kaparnik's circuit which consisted of a single cell, a single BC549 NPN transistor, a coil with two windings, a single resistor (typically 1000 ohms), and a single white LED. Clive originally named the circuit "Vampire Torch", because it sucked the last remnants of life from a battery.
At lower supply voltages a different mode of operation takes over: the gain of a transistor is not linear with VCE. At low supply voltages (typically 0.75 V and below) the transistor requires a larger base current to maintain saturation as the collector current increases. Hence, when it reaches a critical collector current, the base drive available becomes insufficient and the transistor starts to pinch off and the previously described positive feedback action occurs turning it hard off.
I dont know what planet your on MH,but a JT circuit is designed to drain the remaining energy from batteries that would otherwise be considered dead. So,i will only be describing how the (your) JT circuit works during the operation at voltages we would see when draining the last remaining energy from a dead battery--not MH's new battery blocking oscillator.
But we can take a poll if you like MH,and if more people here agree that they want to use a JT just to light an LED on a healthy/charged battery,rather than be able to drain the life out of all there dead batteries,then we will go your way MH,and you lead the way in making the new single 1.5 volt battery cell torch.
Brad
-
Magluvin:
"What I have a hard time understanding, MH:
is why you are so adamantly against such attempts to improve efficiency in this manner."
I have been trying to be social with mh lately. I used to feel the need to hammer the same thoughts that you have written above to him many times before. Im afraid we cant fix that. So I just stay off that battlefield because it takes toooo much time and thread space to just end up with what we see today. Its not only the constant insistence that an 'idea'(s) will not work, but topping it all off with degrading insults doesnt fare well with me either. I have written a few reply posts in the last couple weeks that once I reread and thought about it, I just deleted them instead of falling in a never ending dual that doesnt account for much but a couple of hot heads..
We will take a reality check on this one. You will not find a single statement by me saying that I am against improving the efficiency of a Joule Thief. So why are you agreeing with him? Of course between the lines in Smoky1's statement is that "Smoky1 is attempting to bring increased efficiency to the Joule Thief by preaching that "resonance" will make a Joule Thief more efficient so if you challenge Smoky1 then you are 'against such attempts to improve efficiency.'" But Smoky1 has only talk to offer that you have seen many times before so why would you agree with him before he has shown any evidence that his pitch is real?
Don't do the "degrading insults" play. If you read me carefully I never take a first step in that direction, never. Tinman and I are "fighting" over how a Joule Thief works. If he says something nasty I might respond, but I am never the initial aggressor. If his behaviour shows some attributes that are not conducive to an orderly understanding of how a circuit works and he is all over the map and it gets frustrating, I will call him out. Your own record on "degrading insults" is one of the worst on this forum and I assume that you have thought long and hard about that as well as thinking about the whole raison d'être for this forum which had you doing some soul searching about how much time to invest in "the search." I commend you for that. Your one-time tag-team "partner in crime" is getting serious push-back on EF for his horrible behaviour and people are openly expressing how unacceptable it is. I only wish other people on this forum challenged you and your tag-team partner when it was absolutely horrible around here. It's the one time that the people on EF have outshone the people on OU and demonstrated some backbone and character. Again, don't put the "degrading insults" label on me because it is not true. It's just another cynical card to play.
The gist of it is this: People have to get past the back-slapping and mutual stroking when discussing simple circuits in fake imaginary terms that actually don't make sense in real life. That's is what was happening about the Joule Thief. I made my case and got push-back, and then I pushed-back. There is nothing wrong with that.
So you got a nearly 1 MHz sine wave on your scope display. What next? That's the hard part and I wish you luck. What you want and need to do is figure it out just like I annotated your scope shot for the regular Joule Thief. You have to do that to see where it is going to lead you. Will it be a dead end or "improved efficiency through resonance?"
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg474813#msg474813 date=1455896984]
Brad:
The reason I am emphasizing the "WORK" angle is because this was your "explanation" for how your "Cool Joule" feedback oscillator circuit worked: "Miller effect."
Your explanation for your "Cool Joule" circuit's operation is a joke.
A Joke--really ::)
I just explained as to how it was able to still oscillate with no inductive coupling between L1 and L2--not the whole operation process.
Let me guess--you are full bottles on it,even though you probably have never looked into it's operation?-->do tell.
Brad
-
Brad:
I dont know what planet your on MH,but a JT circuit is designed to drain the remaining energy from batteries that would otherwise be considered dead. So,i will only be describing how the (your) JT circuit works during the operation at voltages we would see when draining the last remaining energy from a dead battery--not MH's new battery blocking oscillator.
It's just a question of not being all over the map. The Joule Thief has two operating modes. The first one is defined and it's operation is understood. It is not in any way, shape or form an "RLC oscillator" like you stated, you were dead wrong.
Do you agree with my description of how a standard Joule Thief operates or not? If you disagree then please do your explanation for how it operates like you said it would.
The Joule Thief obviously changes the way it works at low voltages and it has not been properly explained by anybody at all. Don't you dare try to pull off another bait and switch and say, "When I sad RLC oscillator I meant at low voltages" or "I have been talking about this mode of operation the whole time." I am truly sick and tired of your bait and switch bullshit.
You want to tackle the low-voltage operation where the standard digital switching mode with nice clean energizing and discharge cycles breaks down and the way the transistor works and presumably the way the feedback system works completely changes into some new mode of operation? If yes then go for it.
MileHigh
-
Magluvin:
We will take a reality check on this one. You will not find a single statement by me saying that I am against improving the efficiency of a Joule Thief. So why are you agreeing with him? Of course between the lines in Smoky1's statement is that "Smoky1 is attempting to bring increased efficiency to the Joule Thief by preaching that "resonance" will make a Joule Thief more efficient so if you challenge Smoky1 then you are 'against such attempts to improve efficiency.'" But Smoky1 has only talk to offer that you have seen many times before so why would you agree with him before he has shown any evidence that his pitch is real?
Don't do the "degrading insults" play. If you read me carefully I never take a first step in that direction, never. If he says something nasty I might respond, but I am never the initial aggressor. If his behaviour shows some attributes that are not conducive to an orderly understanding of how a circuit works and he is all over the map and it gets frustrating, I will call him out. Your own record on "degrading insults" is one of the worst on this forum and I assume that you have thought long and hard about that as well as thinking about the whole raison d'être for this forum which had you doing some soul searching about how much time to invest in "the search." I commend you for that. Your one-time tag-team "partner in crime" is getting serious push-back on EF for his horrible behaviour and people are openly expressing how unacceptable it is. I only wish other people on this forum challenged you and your tag-team partner when it was absolutely horrible around here. It's the one time that the people on EF have outshone the people on OU and demonstrated some backbone and character. Again, don't put the "degrading insults" label on me because it is not true. It's just another cynical card to play.
The gist of it is this: People have to get past the back-slapping and mutual stroking when discussing simple circuits in fake imaginary terms that actually don't make sense in real life. That's is what was happening about the Joule Thief. I made my case and got push-back, and then I pushed-back. There is nothing wrong with that.
So you got a nearly 1 MHz sine wave on your scope display. What next? That's the hard part and I wish you luck. What you want and need to do is figure it out just like I annotated your scope shot for the regular Joule Thief. You have to do that to see where it is going to lead you. Will it be a dead end or "improved efficiency through resonance?"
MileHigh
Tinman and I are "fighting" over how a Joule Thief works.
It would seem to me,it's more of an argument as to the JT is suppose to do,and what we want it to do. You want it to be used at voltages where you have a standard blocking oscillator operation,were as!i believe! the rest of us wish to use it to drain nearly dead batteries all the way down. This is what the JT is used for mostly MH,so why should we be looking at how it operates at higher voltage supplies?.
Brad
-
Brad:
Let me guess--you are full bottles on it,even though you probably have never looked into it's operation?-->do tell.
The real problem is that it's a circuit that you stumbled upon and you yourself have never looked into its operation beyond merely observing it.
I looked into something similar 30 years ago. Stop BSing yourself with two-word "explanations" for the way a circuit works when in reality your "explanation" is nothing more than a property of a transistor.
For example: You don't have the slightest clue what actually determines the frequency of your "Cool Joule" circuit.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
It would seem to me,it's more of an argument as to the JT is suppose to do,and what we want it to do. You want it to be used at voltages where you have a standard blocking oscillator operation,were as!i believe! the rest of us wish to use it to drain nearly dead batteries all the way down. This is what the JT is used for mostly MH,so why should we be looking at how it operates at higher voltage supplies?.
Now you are playing straw man and trying to put words in my mouth. It was an argument about how it operates and two weeks ago the statements about how it operates were nonsensical bunk. As a blocking oscillator it will still manage to pull the battery voltage low. Below a certain threshold something different happens. I saw that in Joule Thief clips years ago.
Stop the baiting and the switching and stand up for what you say with conviction and backbone, even if you are wrong. Go ahead and do what will probably be a more complex analysis of a Joule Thief when the normal mode of operation breaks down at very low voltages if you want to do that.
MileHigh
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co4WsKOcJk0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co4WsKOcJk0)
200 leds lit from a single "dead" AA battery. To me, this is what the JT circuit is for. I have also done 300 and then 400 but, they are not as bright as these 200 leds. The battery was well below 1 volt at this time. I am still impressed by this...call me simple but, it is still pretty cool.
Bill
-
Brad:
Now you are playing straw man and trying to put words in my mouth. It was an argument about how it operates and two weeks ago the statements about how it operates were nonsensical bunk. As a blocking oscillator it will still manage to pull the battery voltage low. Below a certain threshold something different happens. I saw that in Joule Thief clips years ago.
Stop the baiting and the switching and stand up for what you say with conviction and backbone, even if you are wrong. Go ahead and do what will probably be a more complex analysis of a Joule Thief when the normal mode of operation breaks down at very low voltages if you want to do that.
MileHigh
Already done that.
The only reason you are not happy with that,is because it go;s against what you believe.
So--how about that little competition MH ?. You up for it ?.
It's quite simple really MH. All you have to do is use your understanding of how thing's work,and i will use mine :D
Brad
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co4WsKOcJk0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co4WsKOcJk0)
200 leds lit from a single "dead" AA battery. To me, this is what the JT circuit is for. I have also done 300 and then 400 but, they are not as bright as these 200 leds. The battery was well below 1 volt at this time. I am still impressed by this...call me simple but, it is still pretty cool.
Bill
Great job Bill.
It is good to see some one that knows what a JT was designed to do.
Brad
-
Great job Bill.
It is good to see some one that knows what a JT was designed to do.
Brad
Thanks Brad. I really do appreciate that.
Bill
-
Brad:
Already done that.
Are you trying to suggest that you have done an analysis of how a Joule Thief works at extra low voltage when the normal switching cycle breaks down?
If yes, where is it?
MileHigh
-
Magluvin:
We will take a reality check on this one. You will not find a single statement by me saying that I am against improving the efficiency of a Joule Thief. So why are you agreeing with him? Of course between the lines in Smoky1's statement is that "Smoky1 is attempting to bring increased efficiency to the Joule Thief by preaching that "resonance" will make a Joule Thief more efficient so if you challenge Smoky1 then you are 'against such attempts to improve efficiency.'" But Smoky1 has only talk to offer that you have seen many times before so why would you agree with him before he has shown any evidence that his pitch is real?
Don't do the "degrading insults" play. If you read me carefully I never take a first step in that direction, never. Tinman and I are "fighting" over how a Joule Thief works. If he says something nasty I might respond, but I am never the initial aggressor. If his behaviour shows some attributes that are not conducive to an orderly understanding of how a circuit works and he is all over the map and it gets frustrating, I will call him out. Your own record on "degrading insults" is one of the worst on this forum and I assume that you have thought long and hard about that as well as thinking about the whole raison d'être for this forum which had you doing some soul searching about how much time to invest in "the search." I commend you for that. Your one-time tag-team "partner in crime" is getting serious push-back on EF for his horrible behaviour and people are openly expressing how unacceptable it is. I only wish other people on this forum challenged you and your tag-team partner when it was absolutely horrible around here. It's the one time that the people on EF have outshone the people on OU and demonstrated some backbone and character. Again, don't put the "degrading insults" label on me because it is not true. It's just another cynical card to play.
The gist of it is this: People have to get past the back-slapping and mutual stroking when discussing simple circuits in fake imaginary terms that actually don't make sense in real life. That's is what was happening about the Joule Thief. I made my case and got push-back, and then I pushed-back. There is nothing wrong with that.
So you got a nearly 1 MHz sine wave on your scope display. What next? That's the hard part and I wish you luck. What you want and need to do is figure it out just like I annotated your scope shot for the regular Joule Thief. You have to do that to see where it is going to lead you. Will it be a dead end or "improved efficiency through resonance?"
MileHigh
Well lets just see what happens. If Smoky for what ever reasons doesnt want to fully demonstrate a device then it is what it is. If he is willing to spend some time here and help out toward a more efficient goal, then im fine with doing what he suggests. Its a JT. Not much to do but tinker some mod ideas. So on that end, lets not beat the horse before race.
If you want to argue with Brad about what a JT is, then thats what is going to happen. I dont care if what I end up with is even remotely close to being a JT, as long as I can possibly get some 'better' performance. If I happen to end up with a circuit that runs best at 3v, then I suppose its not under the jt rules any longer. Or in the end, this can be called a modified jt, as long as it can run an led with a AA as low as .3v at very low amperage. Like scooping ice cream with a spoon in the bowl. Using an ice cream scoop, which is simply a modified spoon, will get the ice cream out much easier. ;)
What next? I think I just put some thoughts on that in my last post. Also, I have reached the goal that Smoky asked me to get to. Soo, lets calm down and see what happens next.
Mags
-
Magluvin:
I actually alluded to another interesting "what's next."
Supposing there is a very common super-bright white LED that most Joule Thief experimenters use and it turns out that the decaying voltage/current waveform from the discharging coil does indeed show that the inductor's energy output is not being used very efficiently.
So that begs the question: Can you do an improved Joule Thief design where the extra power required to support the presumably increased circuit complexity to improve the efficiency of the inductor's energy output still manages to give you better overall performance? Heck, even if the performance is not significantly improved it's a new challenge to get your minds out of the same-old-same-old Joule Thief rut and get some juices flowing.
It means that you actually have to apply your knowledge and try to design something new instead of painting by numbers all the time. That would inject some life into a static subject that has not really changed in years.
MileHigh
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co4WsKOcJk0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co4WsKOcJk0)
200 leds lit from a single "dead" AA battery. To me, this is what the JT circuit is for. I have also done 300 and then 400 but, they are not as bright as these 200 leds. The battery was well below 1 volt at this time. I am still impressed by this...call me simple but, it is still pretty cool.
Bill
Where were you at Christmas
-
Magluvin:
I actually alluded to another interesting "what's next."
Supposing there is a very common super-bright white LED that most Joule Thief experimenters use and it turns out that the decaying voltage/current waveform from the discharging coil does indeed show that the inductor's energy output is not being used very efficiently.
MileHigh
So that begs the question: Can you do an improved Joule Thief design where the extra power required to support the presumably increased circuit complexity to improve the efficiency of the inductor's energy output still manages to give you better overall performance? Heck, even if the performance is not significantly improved it's a new challenge to get your minds out of the same-old-same-old Joule Thief rut and get some juices flowing.It means that you actually have to apply your knowledge and try to design something new instead of painting by numbers all the time. That would inject some life into a static subject that has not really changed in years.
Im beginning to think that you do not read all of what is posted in threads MH.
I have told you ,and explained to you why and how !your! JT circuit is an inefficient circuit. I also posted a circuit,shot a video of the circuit running,and also the fact that replications have been made and posted here on that very simple circuit--the one below. Results are far more light output(measured with Lux meter)for less input energy. The ability to drain a battery down far more than !your! standard JT circuit. Due to the fact that it was just a quick throw together circuit,it could be made far more efficient than what i presented.
Brad.
-
Where were you at Christmas
Well, back a few years ago, (2008) I lit my tree using 300 leds and a JT circuit and a single AA battery. This past Christmas, I did not even bother to put up a tree.
Bill
-
Magluvin:
I actually alluded to another interesting "what's next."
Supposing there is a very common super-bright white LED that most Joule Thief experimenters use and it turns out that the decaying voltage/current waveform from the discharging coil does indeed show that the inductor's energy output is not being used very efficiently.
So that begs the question: Can you do an improved Joule Thief design where the extra power required to support the presumably increased circuit complexity to improve the efficiency of the inductor's energy output still manages to give you better overall performance? Heck, even if the performance is not significantly improved it's a new challenge to get your minds out of the same-old-same-old Joule Thief rut and get some juices flowing.
It means that you actually have to apply your knowledge and try to design something new instead of painting by numbers all the time. That would inject some life into a static subject that has not really changed in years.
MileHigh
Can I? Im Hoping I can. No time machine available in my area. ;D Like I said. Lets see where it goes here and skip the supposing and assumptions, because thats all they are, assumptions. Lets just 'do' and 'try' before any guessing. It would be nice to just do some peaceful experimenting. If it doesnt pan out, then it doesnt. Then thats on me. And Im willing to put the time in. So lets let it happen. ;) If anything it will be a learning experience.
Where Im at here is a little sloppy. I want to shorten leads and solidify a circuit to a nice soldered board, etc. This was my first JT and just getting used to it and what variances affect the circuit like changing the resistor values, different input voltages, and which value changes affect the freq and so on. Whether I read it some where or someone tells me those things, its always better to experience it. Like martial arts. I could have 205 books on all the arts and practice in my room for years. But going out and using it in a real fight turns out to almost as difficult as not knowing any of the arts at all. lol, been there done 'that'. ;) When I started boxing at the gym I learned that fact. Then I continued to go to the gym for 6 yrs. Now I can fight. ;) 9 amateur fights won 7.
Mags
-
Is it a JT if it doesn't use LEDs? Or can work wirelessly with no battery at all? And drives a pulse motor?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPt7xbmHXfY
-
Is it a JT if it doesn't use LEDs? Or can work wirelessly with no battery at all? And drives a pulse motor?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPt7xbmHXfY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPt7xbmHXfY)
I am not sure...is there any cheese involved in the circuit?
Ha ha...I have always liked that circuit of yours. It would probably fry leds unless you used a lot of them.
Bill
-
Im beginning to think that you do not read all of what is posted in threads MH.
I have told you ,and explained to you why and how !your! JT circuit is an inefficient circuit. I also posted a circuit,shot a video of the circuit running,and also the fact that replications have been made and posted here on that very simple circuit--the one below. Results are far more light output(measured with Lux meter)for less input energy. The ability to drain a battery down far more than !your! standard JT circuit. Due to the fact that it was just a quick throw together circuit,it could be made far more efficient than what i presented.
Brad.
Well, I told you that there were some mistakes in a posting of yours that included the same schematic a few days ago and there still are no dots on the transformer.
Im beginning to think that you do not read all of what is posted in threads MH.
I am reading the posts in this thread and I saw your posting and watched your related clip. But you apparently are not reading all the posts in this thread yourslf because I am talking about something completely different. See how silly this part of the exchange is with its silly mind games?
As far as your circuit goes, I see a resistor in series with the LED so to me that spells unnecessary power wasted in the resistor. So I don't see that circuit as being better than a standard optimized Joule Thief circuit. And of course there is no comparative data. If you were convinced you were onto something you would present credible data comparing the two circuits.
It's not "my" Joule Thief circuit and you are only propagandizing yourself when you state, "I have told you ,and explained to you why and how !your! JT circuit is an inefficient circuit."
You connected your power supply to the circuit and ran it at a low voltage. Presumably you have not run it with a battery and there is a significant difference between a power supply at low voltage and a battery at low voltage so right now you don't even know if it will drain a battery like you hope.
So, did you analyze a standard Joule Thief circuit running at a low voltage or not? This is the second time I am asking you. You made a cryptic claim that you did but I am not convinced that is true at all. Did you do it or not?
What about a standard Joule Thief running normally? Do you agree with my description of the operation of the circuit or not? Are you going to describe how a standard Joule Thief runs or not?
What about the picofarads of gate capacitance in the transistor? Is that relevant or not or do you continue to ignore that?
MileHigh
-
As far as your circuit goes, I see a resistor in series with the LED so to me that spells unnecessary power wasted in the resistor. So I don't see that circuit as being better than a standard optimized Joule Thief circuit.
Didnt Brad show the circuit running without the resistor? I think it was him. Nobody else seems to be showing their JTs. I have to look back and see.
Mags
-
Didnt Brad show the circuit running without the resistor? I think it was him. Nobody else seems to be showing their JTs. I have to look back and see.
Mags
Yes,it is painfully obvious that MH dose not read the entire thread,nor pay much attention to any video's you post on your circuit.
Quote post 279 : A quick video on the circuit above.
The 10k VR has been omitted.
Also in the related video (at MH's request),i also show the schematic of the circuit with !no! resistor at all in the schematic. MH ask you to put up a schematic with each video,and also to give any information about the circuit in the thread. But even when you do this,he still gets it wrong,and once again gives incorrect information, along with incorrect assumptions about the circuit. No matter what you do to try and please him,it makes no difference--he still gets it wrong.
He is yet to take up my challenge.
Brad
-
Well, I told you that there were some mistakes in a posting of yours that included the same schematic a few days ago and there still are no dots on the transformer.
I am reading the posts in this thread and I saw your posting and watched your related clip. But you apparently are not reading all the posts in this thread yourslf because I am talking about something completely different. See how silly this part of the exchange is with its silly mind games?
As far as your circuit goes, I see a resistor in series with the LED so to me that spells unnecessary power wasted in the resistor. So I don't see that circuit as being better than a standard optimized Joule Thief circuit. And of course there is no comparative data. If you were convinced you were onto something you would present credible data comparing the two circuits.
It's not "my" Joule Thief circuit and you are only propagandizing yourself when you state, "I have told you ,and explained to you why and how !your! JT circuit is an inefficient circuit."
You connected your power supply to the circuit and ran it at a low voltage. Presumably you have not run it with a battery and there is a significant difference between a power supply at low voltage and a battery at low voltage so right now you don't even know if it will drain a battery like you hope.
So, did you analyze a standard Joule Thief circuit running at a low voltage or not? This is the second time I am asking you. You made a cryptic claim that you did but I am not convinced that is true at all. Did you do it or not?
What about a standard Joule Thief running normally? Do you agree with my description of the operation of the circuit or not? Are you going to describe how a standard Joule Thief runs or not?
What about the picofarads of gate capacitance in the transistor? Is that relevant or not or do you continue to ignore that?
MileHigh
What resistor?
-
What resistor?
Yes I watched the clip again and saw a different schematic in the clip as compared to the one you posted twice. So you post a schematic in the thread twice that doesn't match what you are showing in the clip and you are giving me a hard time for not remembering your posted comment and the schematic shown in the clip.
In both the mismatched schematic and the schematic shown in the clip you can't be bothered to show the dot convention for the transformer and in the past I told you there was a major mistake in the schematic and after that I told you that you weren't showing the dot convention. And of course in fact there are two major mistakes in the posted schematic.
MH ask you to put up a schematic with each video,and also to give any information about the circuit in the thread. But even when you do this,he still gets it wrong,and once again gives incorrect information, along with incorrect assumptions about the circuit. No matter what you do to try and please him,it makes no difference--he still gets it wrong.
"But even when you do this" my ass. Look in the mirror because your self-documentation level is abysmal. If you tried to pull that kind of nonsense off on a serious electronics forum they would probably be merciless and slice you to pieces.
Looking at the correct schematic, since you have no base resistor at all, it is pretty likely the case that you are passing way too much current through the transistor to switch it on. So that could represent a significant loss in energy. On the schematic you posted in the thread you state 50-60 turns and that length of wire and the associated resistance represents more lost energy during the transistor ON time. I am assuming that that didn't even occur to you.
From looking at the scope traces and by doing a bit more simple testing you could have determined just how much energy is lost to keep the transistor ON during a single cycle. Since you are making better efficiency claims about this setup you would think that you would want to try to at least make some measurements along those lines and see how that compares to a standard Joule Thief, but you don't. The setup is right there on your bench and you could simply configure it as a conventional Joule Thief and then as a "zero resistance" Joule Thief and make some measurements, but you don't. Welcome to Brad's world of stream-of-consciousness electronics.
I also notice there is still a decaying voltage/current waveform during the coil discharge cycle into the LED. So the idea I floated about possible coil discharge efficiency issues due to that factor is also happening for this setup. But just to play your game, I guess you are not reading the thread.
So all in all, I am not convinced there is anything better in your "zero resistance" Joule Thief setup and I strongly suspect that it would be less efficient than a regular Joule Thief because of excessive current used to switch on the transistor. Beyond that, we have only anecdotal evidence for your claim - "You said so."
MileHigh
-
Below is a scope shot that I produced last night. The battery was near fresh at 1.44v when I started. When I finally got to this point I let it set over night. At lunch today the batter showed a solid 1.46v. But that could be due to many odd things. But it was nice to see. Seems like a nice clean sine to me.
Here I had reverted back to my original transformer because the choke coil prewound with 2 windings wouldnt show a clean sine before it dies out. The only way I could come close to a sine with either transformer was to add the shorted winding. The original was better at it with these low inputs.
There isnt much range in which I can produce the clean sine before dying out. So I figure the best way around that is to up the input voltage. Will be doing that tonight. Got some various larger npn transistors to work with if the 3904 blows on me.
I need to get some pots with plastic casings and control shafts. The 100k Im using at the moment is the standard metal casing with split aluminum shaft that if I touch it it offsets tuning at these near 1mhz freq, even with a big rubber pipe end cap, if I touch the rubber the effect is still there.
Also, I did a check on the circuit without the led and it still operates. ;) Not exactly the same freq. but still the same other than without the led there is no clamping of the spike.
Mags
you can "zoom in" on the scope, just before the lower peak, you'll notice a blip, this is a wavefront hitting slightly out of phase.
advanced a bit, probably due to an inductance somewhere not being exactly what it needs. you may or may not be able to get rid of that, but it would be interesting to play with things and figure out exactly where its coming from.
If your scope can show two signals at once, probe different spots looking for a signal that peaks just in front of the one your are scoping here.
Also, for more precision:
If you can OHM the VR near where you have it adjusted above, and try to find one in that range, that has a higher sensitivity.
for instance, if it reads around 72k with that transistor, to get a clean(er) signal, look for a VR that has a range of say:
60-90k (30k range, vs 70k range of a 30-100k trim pot)
this may give you a better adjustability.
-
a side though, if your scope doesn't have multiple channels like that.
you can take like a 100 ohm resistor, or something small.
and make a jumper wire while you watch the signal.
B<-> (-)
or
B <-> E
and see if you can get that thing to increase or decrease. If it creates a 3rd peak, you know that's not it.
if it changes the secondary peak that is shown in your image above, you can adjust a few parameters there depending on which side of the circuit it is on.
thing to remember, the coil doesn't care where the impedance comes from, it can be simply a resistance, or another coil, or the reactance factor of another load...
at times, you can dig out a blip by simply adding a thin metal plate between the battery ground and the connecting wire.
(a battery holder already does this, provided the plate is the proper thickness needed in the circuit)
other times you may find the coil itself is interfering with itself, because of the ends of the start or ending loops,
or a spacing in the middle of the torroid may be bent
the important thing is to measure everything, and understand how they affect each other.
something like changing the LED, can increase voltage, and lower current.
while the freq. may not change, because the parameter that was altered was a function of the led, not the transistor.
it can get really deep, if you don't have a set circuit to examine.
one thing my brother played with for a while was finding LED's that had the same internal resistance,
but different capacitances.
This allowed him to take advantage of longer "on" times of the LED, without disrupting the waveform.
The same approach is used with dual-phase motors as the load.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[not entirely ignoring the questions about me building a joule thief to display here]
apart from the two I linked from my youtube acct,
I do not have any to display at this time.
the last JT I built, was several years ago, after I lost my lab.
It flew.
2" microwave torroid, superbright LED in the center, in fashion of the Iron Man arc reactor.
a micromotor, with an oversized propeller.
following several crashes into the ceiling, my roommate at the time made me sign an addendum to our lease agreement, stating that I would not create dangerous technologies inside our apartment.
I haven't built one since.
I could probably indulge in experiments with the Armstrong oscillator for an endless series of lifetimes.
but I have not the free time, nor the proper equipment at this particular point in my life.
maybe after the little ones are grown, and I have amounted another 1/4 mil to sink into a proper lab.
but in all honesty, people like Bill or TK make anything I build look like a kid with crayons standing beneath Picasso.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg474927#msg474927 date=1455958588]
Yes I watched the clip again and saw a different schematic in the clip as compared to the one you posted twice. So you post a schematic in the thread twice that doesn't match what you are showing in the clip and you are giving me a hard time for not remembering your posted comment and the schematic shown in the clip.
In both the mismatched schematic and the schematic shown in the clip you can't be bothered to show the dot convention for the transformer and in the past I told you there was a major mistake in the schematic and after that I told you that you weren't showing the dot convention. And of course in fact there are two major mistakes in the posted schematic.
Well as you need to be spoon feed MH,o hope the schematic below passes inspection-regardless of the fact that you should have associated the schematic in the video with the post that went with the video. If it dose not meet your requirements-->too bad,as thats all your getting. If you new anything about the SSG circuit's,then you would not have needed a dot schematic,as the conections give the answer as to what way the bifilar coil is wound.
"But even when you do this" my ass. Look in the mirror because your self-documentation level is abysmal. If you tried to pull that kind of nonsense off on a serious electronics forum they would probably be merciless and slice you to pieces.
Thankfully everyone here(other than your self) new exactly what i was showing,and have no problem with the schematic.
Looking at the correct schematic, since you have no base resistor at all, it is pretty likely the case that you are passing way too much current through the transistor to switch it on. So that could represent a significant loss in energy. On the schematic you posted in the thread you state 50-60 turns and that length of wire and the associated resistance represents more lost energy during the transistor ON time. I am assuming that that didn't even occur to you.
No,it did not MH,and this is where bench time once again win's hands down. 50 turn's of .4mm wire oscillating at that frequency--wonder how much the resistance rises due to the skin effect at that frequency ?. The current flowing through L2 would have to be about 8 time's less than the current flowing through L1,due to there being an 8:1 winding ratio--would it not?. But the current would be raised i guess,as the voltage is dropped. But what is that voltage drop to that of the supply voltage?. Oh wait,the supply voltage was less than the voltage at the base of the transistor-about 3 times less ;). There is also the fact that the transistor stayed at room temperature,which would indicate very little power dissipated as heat.
Are you sure you are full bottles on EE MH ?.
I think i am going to put a low value resistor on the base in that circuit,and we will see just how little current is flowing to the base--would you like me to do that MH ?-->just so as we can see if your comment has any merit at all.
From looking at the scope traces and by doing a bit more simple testing you could have determined just how much energy is lost to keep the transistor ON during a single cycle. Since you are making better efficiency claims about this setup you would think that you would want to try to at least make some measurements along those lines and see how that compares to a standard Joule Thief, but you don't. The setup is right there on your bench and you could simply configure it as a conventional Joule Thief and then as a "zero resistance" Joule Thief and make some measurements, but you don't. Welcome to Brad's world of stream-of-consciousness electronics.
Mmm-you mean like using a super cap charged to a certain voltage,then doing a rundown time test to say .4 volt's on the cap,while measuring the light output with my lux meter ?.Hell MH,i would never had thought about doing that before making my claim ::)
Of course you will want video proof--yeah?
Let me know,and i will waste a little more of my time on you.
I also notice there is still a decaying voltage/current waveform during the coil discharge cycle into the LED. So the idea I floated about possible coil discharge efficiency issues due to that factor is also happening for this setup. But just to play your game, I guess you are not reading the thread.
MH
Could you draw up the current loop during the flyback pulse of each circuit,and post them here please?.
So all in all, I am not convinced there is anything better in your "zero resistance" Joule Thief setup and I strongly suspect that it would be less efficient than a regular Joule Thief because of excessive current used to switch on the transistor. Beyond that, we have only anecdotal evidence for your claim - "You said so."
So lets do it MH-->your beloved circuit V my circuit. You V me-->a joule thief challenge ;)
If there is disbelief in the results given by both of us,we could post our circuits to an agreed third party for testing,and let them post the results them self.
What do you say MH ?
Brad
-
@ Brad
I can't help but point out here, that he skillfully avoided my question as to whether or not he owned one....
-
@ Brad
I can't help but point out here, that he skillfully avoided my question as to whether or not he owned one....
I am trembling in my tracks but I will answer your question: No I don't "own" a Joule Thief and never have and never will.
Think about all of the questions and issues that I raised with you that you "skillfully avoided."
finding LED's that had the same internal resistance
Ha ha ha - busted.
Brad: No to the competition, but you already knew the answer to that question, it's just theater on your part. I understand Bedini motors inside-out, never built one, just more theater on your part.
Same thing for you, think about all of the questions and issues that I raised with you that you "skillfully avoided."
MileHigh
-
Brad:
No guts to apologize for posting a schematic in the thread that doesn't match the circuit in the clip, twice.
If you new anything about the SSG circuit
I know everything about the SSG, you are just having a pissing competition with yourself. Put the bloody dots on your transformer schematics like any self-respecting experimenter would do. New is the new new, who would have none?
Thankfully everyone here(other than your self) new exactly what i was showing,and have no problem with the schematic.
My knew crystal ball is telling me something much different than your old crystal ball.
No,it did not MH,and this is where bench time once again win's hands down. 50 turn's of .4mm wire oscillating at that frequency--wonder how much the resistance rises due to the skin effect at that frequency ?. The current flowing through L2 would have to be about 8 time's less than the current flowing through L1,due to there being an 8:1 winding ratio--would it not?. But the current would be raised i guess,as the voltage is dropped. But what is that voltage drop to that of the supply voltage?. Oh wait,the supply voltage was less than the voltage at the base of the transistor-about 3 times less (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif). There is also the fact that the transistor stayed at room temperature,which would indicate very little power dissipated as heat.
Stream of consciousness that doesn't even make any sense. Just use a current sensing resistor and choose the value carefully and come up with a method to double-check your results.
Wow, the supply voltage was low. Makes you wonder how much the current would be and how much of a price you would have to pay in wasted energy if the supply voltage was 1.5 volts, doesn't it? I seriously doubt that occurred to you.
Mmm-you mean like using a super cap charged to a certain voltage,then doing a rundown time test to say .4 volt's on the cap,while measuring the light output with my lux meter ?.Hell MH,i would never had thought about doing that before making my claim (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
Of course you will want video proof--yeah?
Let me know,and i will waste a little more of my time on you.
No, make proper measurements with your equipment.
Could you draw up the current loop during the flyback pulse of each circuit,and post them here please?.
?
After you are prodded you post a proper schematic. In the future you need to prod yourself beforehand to post a proper schematic.
I will take your complete and total silence about how a Joule Thief normally operates as an admission that I was correct. It's also an admission that your statement about a Joule Thief being an RLC circuit is totally wrong. It's also an admission that you went whackadoo a while back making crazy arguments about the regenerative cycle that made no sense, especially the picofarad nonsense. Just more Brad stream-of-consciousness electronics.
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg474950#msg474950 date=1455967570]
No guts to apologize for posting a schematic in the thread that doesn't match the circuit in the clip, twice.
MH
I apologize.
I was unaware that you cannot understand the english language,nor can associate a given schematic posted on the video explaining as to what exact circuit the video and results were all about. When one uses a pot on the base of a transistor in a circuit,do you always ask them to give you the exact value the pot was set at,at say the two minute mark into the presentation of the device running?.
I know everything about the SSG, you are just having a pissing competition with yourself. Put the bloody dots on your transformer schematics like any self-respecting experimenter would do. New is the new new, who would have none?
And yet you are the only one that had a problem with the circuit--no bloody dot's.
Lidmotor had it replicated within a day--still no bloody dots on the transformer. :D
My knew crystal ball is telling me something much different than your old crystal ball.
Lol. You have no new crystal ball MH--your set in stone-wrong or right.
You even admitted to this in a thread at OUR,in regards to the TPU. Im guessing you have debunked that one too ?.
Wow, the supply voltage was low. Makes you wonder how much the current would be and how much of a price you would have to pay in wasted energy if the supply voltage was 1.5 volts, doesn't it? I seriously doubt that occurred to you.
Well i have never seen a nearly depleted 1.5 volt battery with 1.5 volts across it before :o
A clear example that you are stuck,and really have no idea as to what people want JT's for.
Perhaps go and check out the video Pirate posted not long back here,and see all those LED's light up with a nearly dead 1.5 volt battery.
I think your in the wrong thread.
After you are prodded you post a proper schematic. In the future you need to prod yourself beforehand to post a proper schematic.
Lets take my incorrect schematic with the 10 VR.
My circuit i test has that VR in it. Tell us all here what my pot was set at during the test ?.
Point us toward a post in a thread where a similar thing has happened,and where you ask that experimenter -->what value was your VR set at when you did the test run.
I could have wound that pot up and down during the test,but you would have no way of knowing as to what the resistance value was during the VR sweep. Now,if you had of watch the video carefully,then there is no way in hell you could miss the near full size A4 schematic drawn in large black marker pen-->but some how you did.
Both circuit's are correct for the test MH,i had the pot turned down to .1 of an ohm--how's them for apples :D
I will take your complete and total silence about how a Joule Thief normally operates as an admission that I was correct.
MH
You dont even know what a JT is most commonly used for,so how do you think you could ever present a correct explanation as to how it is working.
It's also an admission that your statement about a Joule Thief being an RLC circuit is totally wrong. It's also an admission that you went whackadoo a while back making crazy arguments about the regenerative cycle that made no sense, especially the picofarad nonsense. Just more Brad stream-of-consciousness electronics.
And the cool joule JT works just fine.
There was also my last video where i showed two LEDs being lit from the ground rail and steel laminated isolated core of the stator. Lot;s of C there MH.
So junction capacitance plays no part in it hey MH. Well go check out rise and fall times associated with that junction capacitance of some transistors. Dose this not play a part in at what frequencies different setups will oscillate at?.
Sorry MH,it is there,and you cannot remove it. Like i said,it is a small value of C,but it is there,and so the JT circuit is an LRC circuit.
Brad
-
@ Brad
I can't help but point out here, that he skillfully avoided my question as to whether or not he owned one....
I doubt it.
MH has all the answers--there in the books-he needs no JT.
I think i saw him make an electromagnet once--some copper wire rapped around a nail or bolt. Was long ago,so im not sure.
Brad
-
I am trembling in my tracks but I will answer your question: No I don't "own" a Joule Thief and never have and never will.
Think about all of the questions and issues that I raised with you that you "skillfully avoided."
Ha ha ha - busted.
Brad: No to the competition, but you already knew the answer to that question, it's just theater on your part. I understand Bedini motors inside-out, never built one, just more theater on your part.
Same thing for you, think about all of the questions and issues that I raised with you that you "skillfully avoided."
MileHigh
finding LED's that had the same internal resistance
Ha ha ha - busted.
Something wrong with that statement MH ?.
-
Well my point has been made in this thread.
Two weeks ago people were talking about how a Joule Thief runs like they were from another planet - Planet Bizarro. And now people understand how a Joule Thief actually works, they understand how its operating frequency is determined, and they understand how it has absolutely nothing to to with resonance at all.
After all, this is like a circuit with five components and it should be understood. But of course there was a huge amount of push-back and it was a total slog to get these basic concepts across. It reminds me a bit of EMJunkie and the coils discussion. I called his bluff and asked him how a circuit worked that consisted of only two components, a voltage source and a coil, and was unable to answer the question after he was talking about coils for months. It just shows how easy it is for people out there in YouTube land and elsewhere to deceive people that want to believe.
The Joule Thief in its normal operating mode is understood. What happens when a Joule Thief changes operating mode at very low voltages is not understood, and it will be up to the people on this thread if they want to pursue that investigation at all.
Magluvin now has a sine wave in his setup running at about 900 kHz. There is no significance to it because almost all signals in circuits turn into sine waves at higher frequencies due to low-pass filtering inherent in the setups. I wish him luck but I am not counting any chickens.
Brad:
Your sarcasm about the incorrect schematic is misplaced. All experimenters should do that otherwise you end up with mass confusion. Look at your push-back on the question of the dots for the transformer. It's not the fact that in this case it was not to difficult to discern, in other schematics it will be difficult to discern. It's all about the principle of the thing and good practices. Shame on you for such a sucky attitude - put on the bloody dots.
You have never seen a depleted battery at 1.5 volts? How about I interrupt your stream of consciousness with some reality: Lots of people will pop in a fresh or slightly used battery in their Joule Thieves. It's supposed to be designed to give you decent performance over a voltage range, not just at a certain low voltage. Welcome to the real world.
I didn't miss the schematic in your clip - stop pissing. I was actually shocked to see a schematic in your clip and I should have remembered that memorable event. What I did do was get thrown off a few days later when you posted a schematic that did not match what transpired in your clip and I commented on that incorrect schematic. Work on developing some effective communication skills for your audience.
You dont even know what a JT is most commonly used for,so how do you think you could ever present a correct explanation as to how it is working.
More pissing. I just did and I practically has to pound it into your head and now you finally understand how one works. You are welcome.
Like i said,it is a small value of C,but it is there,and so the JT circuit is an LRC circuit.
ROTFLMAO, you are not at the point in your understanding where you can properly name a circuit by its type. I am not going to try again because there are other issues at play which result in you making that foolish statement.
MileHigh
-
Ha ha ha - busted.
MileHigh
Since you have never actually built a JT,
you can go to school.
http://www.learningaboutelectronics.com/Articles/Diode-resistance.php (http://www.learningaboutelectronics.com/Articles/Diode-resistance.php)
combine the magnitude of the resistance, with the phase angle,
and you can observe the effects of adding the diode to the circuit.
(impedance)
once you learn this, we can move on to the concept of capacitance, within the diode.
maybe tomorrow I can teach you how a WIRE works....
-
Don't make me laugh Smoky2. The term "internal resistance" is used for things like batteries, not diodes. In common electronics terminology, you never say that diodes have an "internal resistance," you talk about their I-V transfer curves or absolute equivalent resistance at a given operating point or their differential resistance at a given operating point.
You have seen me post enough in this thread to have a reasonable grasp of my electronics knowledge level. So posting the "instructional material" is just you making a fool of yourself, more pants pissing.
combine the magnitude of the resistance, with the phase angle,
and you can observe the effects of adding the diode to the circuit.
(impedance)
once you learn this, we can move on to the concept of capacitance, within the diode.
ROTFLMAO
-
I'm not going to pretend to know what level your "electronics skills" are at,
as you seem to have a difficult time grasping simple basic concepts.
You have absolutely no hands on experience with this circuit,
you are both unqualified, and out of your field of expertise
the only reference point you have on this subject is other peoples work on the JT.
Yet you argue over "how it works", and don't even know what type of circuit this is.
or maybe you just get to high to even bother to read whats sat in front of you.
either way, if all you want to do is argue and laugh at things, wtf are you here for?
we already established 6 pages ago,
the effects of tiny changes in impedance, capacitance, and inductance can change the outcome.
at a given frequency, voltage and current curves:
a diode performs rather consistently.
If you take this diode and place it in that JT, or the other JT, at the same freq.
it will represent the same impedance.
I would tell you to:
Take the red and the green out of your desktop PC case, and compare them.
but I think we both know you are not going to follow me through such a simple lesson.
you would rather tell me that nothing matters and demand I demonstrate "how a diode works"
or some other unfounded protest against basic electronics theory.
the two images above pretty much say it all, the link was more of sarcasm....
I doubt you read more than the first sentence, if you even followed the link at all.
-
I have no intention of discussing the internal resistance, voltage levels, and current through the battery.
this can be considered a unique "constant" to a circuit. And may vary from battery to battery.
it is presumed that any testing will take place using the same battery (per rendition of the device).
We have very little control over the batteries internals (in most battery types).
So, for now, such discussion would just add unnecessary confusion.
AA, AAA, button cell?
EB, electrochemical, galvanic?
reverse fed through a neon bulb, powered by proximity to a leyden jar?
[I think I'll stop there, so as not to raise too many eyebrows]
-
Depending on which tune is playing the trons and the hoes might eye each other across the dance floor on opposite sides of the room like so many wallflowers. Then the DJ puts on a new tune and the trons and the hoes race towards each other in the center of the dance floor in a frenzy and make contact and seemingly leave this plane of existence.
The DJ is really good, and as the Millenniums say these days, "He is dope."
-
riotous man, and groovy. 8)
here's one for ya.
Metal Desk (wasn't dodged, just seemed irrelevant, but since challenged....)
As was discovered upon placing the computer onto an insulating support
The metal case of the computer is charged up to ~45V above the rest of the house.
This is generally unnoticed with the small computer. However the large metal desk acts as a capacitance.
When the desk is not insulated from the computer case, it too measures at around ~+45v
this was in reference to both house ground at the plug, as well as the floor, the door knob, and several other
random points of reference.
It was presumed that some low-current flow forms between the power supply plugged into the wall
grounded through the circuits, to the case, then the desk.
this is all extremely large compared to the JT which uses the desk as its' "battery".
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg474965#msg474965 date=1455982986]
MileHigh
The term !blocking oscillator! is a bit of an incorrect description.The current flow isnt actually blocked,the current path is disconnected/becomes open--nothing is actually blocked. When the current path becomes open,no current can flow,and so the magnetic field collapses. But it is what it is.
ROTFLMAO, you are not at the point in your understanding where you can properly name a circuit by it's type. I am not going to try again because there are other issues at play which result in you making that foolish statement.
Odd words from a man that needs dots on coils to work out how an SS SSG circuit is wired.
Or from some one that dose not even have a JT circuit of there own,even though(as you say) is only 5 components.
Two weeks ago people were talking about how a Joule Thief runs like they were from another planet - Planet Bizarro. And now people understand how a Joule Thief actually works, they understand how its operating frequency is determined, and they understand how it has absolutely nothing to to with resonance at all.
Well i never actually got into the resonance thing,as i dont think that is important towards efficiency,nor plays a key role in it. But then again,we all know the kid on the swing theory,where resonance plays a key roll in efficiency. I mean,you wouldnt want to try and push the kid forward again when he was only half way back on the return swing--would you. You would wait until he hit his return peak,and then give a little push as he just started the cycle all over again. You could also give that little push in the right direction when he reached the mid point in the forward swing--this would be the zero volt line on the AC sine on every down slope crossing.
After all, this is like a circuit with five components and it should be understood. But of course there was a huge amount of push-back and it was a total slog to get these basic concepts across. It reminds me a bit of EMJunkie and the coils discussion. I called his bluff and asked him how a circuit worked that consisted of only two components, a voltage source and a coil, and was unable to answer the question after he was talking about coils for months. It just shows how easy it is for people out there in YouTube land and elsewhere to deceive people that want to believe.
Well there could be two answers to that one MH--you were not clear enough in your description.
Was the voltage source AC or DC ?
As you said !voltage source and coil!,im guessing there was no core for the coil?.
If the voltage source was DC,then you just get a resistive heater with a stable magnetic field.
If the voltage source was AC,then you would have a resistive heater with an alternating/varying magnetic and electric field.
The Joule Thief in it's normal operating mode is understood. What happens when a Joule Thief changes operating mode at very low voltages is not understood, and it will be up to the people on this thread if they want to pursue that investigation at all.
You mean-not understood by your self MH. I mean,you even said in a reply to Mag's scope shot that you were not even going to try and work it out--but yet,tell me im wrong-->even though you have no idea what is right ::)
Your sarcasm about the incorrect schematic is misplaced. All experimenters should do that otherwise you end up with mass confusion. Look at your push-back on the question of the dots for the transformer. It's not the fact that in this case it was not to difficult to discern, in other schematics it will be difficult to discern. It's all about the principle of the thing and good practices. Shame on you for such a sucky attitude - put on the bloody dots.
Some time's MH you become to critical when you find you made a booboo. Like i said,how would you determine the resistance of a 10k VR. It could be .1ohm or 10 000 ohms--but as long as i put it there in the schematic,it's all good.I could turn that pot down to it's lowest resistance,and then the two circuits are the very same--i turn the pot to 1 ohm resistance,and now there different lol. But dot's for such a well known simple circuit?--really :o
Do i need to come and write keyboard on your keyboard so as you know what it is ? Should i put a sticky note on it for you,saying belongs on computor desk--just so as you know where it go's-like the wires on the SS SSG circuit.. do i really need to place dot's on the bifilar coil for such a simple and well know circuit ?.
You have never seen a depleted battery at 1.5 volts? How about I interrupt your stream of consciousness with some reality: Lots of people will pop in a fresh or slightly used battery in their Joule Thieves. It's supposed to be designed to give you decent performance over a voltage range, not just at a certain low voltage. Welcome to the real world.
The real world MH,is that most people want there JT to run LED's from nearly dead batteries.
Reality check MH-->If people wanted to use good batteries to run LED's,then why worry about a JT (or any other)circuit at all ?,as more components results in more losses. If you want maximum light for a minimum power cost,then you just run your LED of two x 1.5 volt batteries(using 3 volt LED's)--the best efficiency you will get. But you want to take a good 1.5 volt battery,and loose some of that stored energy in other components as well as your LED--makes no sense.
I didn't miss the schematic in your clip - stop pissing. I was actually shocked to see a schematic in your clip and I should have remembered that memorable event. What I did do was get thrown off a few days later when you posted a schematic that did not match what transpired in your clip and I commented on that incorrect schematic. Work on developing some effective communication skills for your audience.
Like i said MH,i turn the VR down to it's lowest resistance,and the two schematics are the same :D
If i go by 1 ohm intervals,do i have to post 10 000 schematics for you?. Oh how hard it would be to follow MH's rules when we put a VR in the circuit lol.
More pissing. I just did and I practically has to pound it into your head and now you finally understand how one works. You are welcome.
Well i have understood what a JT is for,and how it operates under conditions we all want it to operate at(other than yourself MH)for quite some time. It would seem MH,that you want to use good batteries to run an LED,so as the battery becomes run down,but not quite fully discharged,where as the bulk of us want to use as much energy from that battery as we can.
I think you may be in the minority here MH,and i think that bothers you.
Well my point has been made in this thread.
Yes--that much is clear.
Brad
-
ROTFLMAO
Don't make me laugh Smoky2. The term "internal resistance" is used for things like batteries, not diodes. In common electronics terminology, you never say that diodes have an "internal resistance," you talk about their I-V transfer curves or absolute equivalent resistance at a given operating point or their differential resistance at a given operating point.
Are you serious MH :o
Lol--you have got to be kidding me--and everyone else here.
You have seen me post enough in this thread to have a reasonable grasp of my electronics knowledge level. So posting the "instructional material" is just you making a fool of yourself, more pants pissing.
Im sorry MH,but things are not looking bright for you ATM.
Can you calculate the !!internal!! resistance of the LED in the below graph?. I saved this page from some years back when learning all about LED's and there current/voltage curve.
Brad
P.S
Hey MH--at the end of the day,where all having fun-right?.
I mean,i love our games of tennis,and no hard feelings at the end of the day--well not on my side anyway. :)
-
If the voltage source was DC,then you just get a resistive heater with a stable magnetic field.
If the voltage source was AC,then you would have a resistive heater with an alternating/varying magnetic and electric field.
That just shows how linear and insulated your thought patterns are.
You mean-not understood by your self MH.
You have made a claim that you understand how a Joule Thief works at very low voltages. I am calling BS on you. Tell me, what determines the operating frequency at very low voltages?
As far as just about all of the content in your two postings goes, you can sure lay the poseur BS on thick when you want to. It's like watching a bad actor in an amateur theater production.
P.S.: The only feelings are frustration because of the willful ignorance.
-
riotous man, and groovy.
But do you get it?
-
As far as just about all of the content in your two postings goes, you can sure lay the poseur BS on thick when you want to. It's like watching a bad actor in an amateur theater production.
P.S.: The only feelings are frustration because of the willful ignorance.
That just shows how linear and insulated your thought patterns are.
And how un-definitive your question was.
You have made a claim that you understand how a Joule Thief works at very low voltages. I am calling BS on you. Tell me, what determines the operating frequency at very low voltages?
Once again-another question that cannot be answered without further information--like i asked for before,and you refused to give.
Transistor type
core type,size,grade
wire size,turn ratio
supply voltage that can be delivered without drop
LED type and specifications-->including internal resistance lol.
The list go's on MH
EMJ did not fall for your trick's,and i gave you the answer your question deserved--it's that simple.
What else do you get when you supply a DC voltage to a coil of wire MH ?-other than dissipated heat,and a magnetic field that dose not vary in time. Perhap's it's time you answered some of your own question's. :D
Brad
-
That just shows how linear and insulated your thought patterns are.
You have made a claim that you understand how a Joule Thief works at very low voltages. I am calling BS on you. Tell me, what determines the operating frequency at very low voltages?
As far as just about all of the content in your two postings goes, you can sure lay the poseur BS on thick when you want to. It's like watching a bad actor in an amateur theater production.
P.S.: The only feelings are frustration because of the willful ignorance.
Says the man that refuses to even have a go at decoding Mag's low voltage scope shot,and who laugh's at those who say LED's have an internal resistance that can effect the operating parameters of such a circuit. You dont even have a go at answering the question about the LED's internal resistance i asked you-even though i gave a graph for you to go by.
And you call me ignorant ::) .
It is funny that you want everyone to answer your question's,but you dodge all those ask of you.
Brad
-
And how un-definitive your question was.
Once again-another question that cannot be answered without further information--like i asked for before,and you refused to give.
Transistor type
core type,size,grade
wire size,turn ratio
supply voltage that can be delivered without drop
LED type and specifications-->including internal resistance lol.
The list go's on MH
EMJ did not fall for your trick's,and i gave you the answer your question deserved--it's that simple.
What else do you get when you supply a DC voltage to a coil of wire MH ?-other than dissipated heat,and a magnetic field that dose not vary in time. Perhap's it's time you answered some of your own question's. :D
Brad
I didn't even ask a question about the voltage source and the coil that I made reference to about EMJ. Work on your logical thought processes.
The last time you tried to back out of doing some circuit analysis I told you that you didn't need specific component values or if you wanted, just plug in your own values. You didn't say anything and you ran away.
You are trying to pull off the same stunt this time. It's obvious that you have no clue how the Joule Thief operates at very low voltages and why you would even claim that you do is almost unbelievable. You are not fooling anybody - you clearly do not understand the operating mode of the Joule Thief at low voltages. You are just being a clown.
There were no tricks with respect to EMJ. He could not answer a question about the operation of a circuit that consisted of a voltage source and a single coil. He threw everything he could at it and just about had a meltdown. He was a fraud preaching about coils when he didn't even understand how one worked. With respect to the Joule Thief at low voltages you are clearly in the same boat. You are bluffing when you ask for component specifics, it's a farce and you can't admit that you don't know how a Joule Thief works at low voltages. Why should anybody take you seriously when you spout this kind of nonsense?
MileHigh
-
Says the man that refuses to even have a go at decoding Mag's low voltage scope shot,and who laugh's at those who say LED's have an internal resistance that can effect the operating parameters of such a circuit. You dont even have a go at answering the question about the LED's internal resistance i asked you-even though i gave a graph for you to go by.
And you call me ignorant ::) .
It is funny that you want everyone to answer your question's,but you dodge all those ask of you.
Brad
Yes I refused to have a go at decoding the low voltage scope shot because I am not interested and it would take a lot of work on a bench probing the circuit and going back to reviewing how a transistor works at low voltages to figure out how the circuit actually operates. But you the faker claim you understand how it works and when you are asked how the operating frequency is determined you choke and say you can't do anything without component values and it's all ridiculous bluff - you don't have the slightest clue how the Joule Thief operates at low voltages. How can you actually make such a ridiculous dishonest bluff in front of your peers? You are a walking three-dollar bill.
The question about the LED's "internal resistance" is a complete farce considering how you know I have been around for years. It's a complete farce since a few postings before that in the thread I made a comment about the various ways to look at an LED in terms of resistance. It's just you being a poseur and a pretentious clown. You should be embarrassed by your ridiculous nonsensical behaviour.
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475033#msg475033 date=1456023956]
You are trying to pull off the same stunt this time. It's obvious that you have no clue how the Joule Thief operates at very low voltages and why you would even claim that you do is almost unbelievable. You are not fooling anybody - you clearly do not understand the operating mode of the Joule Thief at low voltages. You are just being a clown.
Says the man that has no idea him self-->but still can argue that my presented operation is wrong . That is truly laughable MH :D ;D
The last time you tried to back out of doing some circuit analysis I told you that you didn't need specific component values or if you wanted, just plug in your own values. You didn't say anything and you ran away.
Oh dear.
Tell us all here how the internal combustion engine works MH,and what RPM it will be capable of achieving. Im not going to give you any specifications about the parts used in that engine,nor will i tell you if it is a gasoline engine,or a diesel engine. Im also not going to tell you whether it is a piston engine ,or of a rotary design-->but i expect you to be able to tell us what will determine the RPM of the engine --much like you asking me what will determine the frequency of a JT circuit without any component specifications.
There were no tricks with respect to EMJ. He could not answer a question about the operation of a circuit that consisted of a voltage source and a single coil. He threw everything he could at it and just about had a meltdown. He was a fraud preaching about coils when he didn't even understand how one worked.
I see once again,you have failed to answer your own question.
Tell us all MH, what is the result when applying a DC voltage to a coil.
As that is all the information you gave EMJ,then i expect you to answer your own question with your given information.
With respect to the Joule Thief at low voltages you are clearly in the same boat. You are bluffing when you ask for component specifics, it's a farce and you can't admit that you don't know how a Joule Thief works at low voltages. Why should anybody take you seriously when you spout this kind of nonsense?
Here is a fact MH. I have done a lot of work on low voltage oscillators,and i do know how the transistor is working when the supply voltage is lower than the required voltage to switch on the transistor. This can vary with different types of circuits. You on the other hand,admit to not knowing how it work's,and yet believe you have the right to pass judgement on others theories.
I DONT KNOW HOW IT WORK'S-BUT IT DOSNT WORK LIKE THAT.
See how silly you have made your self look MH ;)
I didn't even ask a question about the voltage source and the coil that I made reference to about EMJ. Work on your logical thought processes
A clear admittance to not giving enough information to make a correct analysis.
You do this quite often,while insisting that others give accurate and correct information about there experiments--like dots on coils of well know circuit's--> saying one schematic is different from another because it has a 10k VR--although you have no idea as to what resistance value the VR is set at.
These are fact's about you MH,and they have all been displayed on this thread.
You are a true example of a hypocrite --expect everything from others,and yet not even willing to answer your own questions.
I once had respect for you,but that has all faded away now that i have seen your true colors.
Brad
-
Oh dear.
Tell us all here how the internal combustion engine works MH,and what RPM it will be capable of achieving. Im not going to give you any specifications about the parts used in that engine,nor will i tell you if it is a gasoline engine,or a diesel engine. Im also not going to tell you whether it is a piston engine ,or of a rotary design-->but i expect you to be able to tell us what will determine the RPM of the engine --much like you asking me what will determine the frequency of a JT circuit without any component specifications.
Indeed, your example backfires on you, pun intended. You can indeed describe how a gasoline engine or a diesel engine operates without any specifics. You can indeed discuss approximate top speeds for different engine designs without having to be specific.
And that's what I am asking you to do since you claim you can do it: Describe how a Joule Thief operates at a low voltage and explain what determines the frequency of operation. That's what I did for a standard Joule Thief at normal voltages and I did it without any component specifics. I did a complete annotation of the timing diagram. You should be able to do exactly the same thing for a standard Joule Thief operating at a low voltage.
But the reality is that it is pure BS coming from you and you will say anything to deflect away from this truth.
i am smart enough to say when I don't know something and you clearly aren't smart enough to do that. You are the poor guy that holds his breath and turns blue all the time.
Mistaking "voltage source" for "DC voltage" goes back to the same old language comprehension and thought process issue that you have.
If you want to prove that you are not lying about knowing how the Joule Thief operates at low voltages, just explain it right here. You cannot claim that you understand the process and then turn around and claim that you can't explain it, that's ridiculous. So put up or shut up.
-
Indeed, your example backfires on you, pun intended. You can indeed describe how a gasoline engine or a diesel engine operates without any specifics. You can indeed discuss approximate top speeds for different engine designs without having to be specific.
Well go ahead--do tell.
Lets just stick to a piston engine,as you wish to stick to the JT circuit.
Dont forget to list and account for everything that will determine it's RPM peak.
Lets see if you can put your money where your mouth is.
And that's what I am asking you to do since you claim you can do it: Describe how a Joule Thief operates at a low voltage and explain what determines the frequency of operation. That's what I did for a standard Joule Thief at normal voltages and I did it without any component specifics. I did a complete annotation of the timing diagram. You should be able to do exactly the same thing for a standard Joule Thief operating at a low voltage.
Once again--not reading all the thread.
I have already done this MH. If you have misses it,then go back and start reading.
But the reality is that it is pure BS coming from you and you will say anything to deflect away from this truth.
The truth is MH,i have already explained my working theory,and you shy'd away from trying--because you cant.
i am smart enough to say when I don't know something and you clearly aren't smart enough to do that. You are the poor guy that holds his breath and turns blue all the time.
I have to ask--if you dont know the answer to something,then how do you know my answer is wrong?. :o
Mistaking "voltage source" for "DC voltage" goes back to the same old language comprehension and thought process issue that you have.
There ya go--doing the old !switcharoony! again.
Due to the fact that you failed to provide enough information in your question,i used one of the most common voltage sources--that source being a DC source.
So the fail is on you,and once again,i see you cannot answer your own question-->another diversion.
If you want to prove that you are not lying about knowing how the Joule Thief operates at low voltages, just explain it right here. You cannot claim that you understand the process and then turn around and claim that you can't explain it, that's ridiculous. So put up or shut up.
Go back and find my well explained answer MH--it is there,and you know it.
Fail after fail on your behalf MH.
This thread will be a great read for all those here--> a character builder for your self MH.
And dont go deleting anything.
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg474965#msg474965 date=1455982986]
The term !blocking oscillator! is a bit of an incorrect description.The current flow isnt actually blocked,the current path is disconnected/becomes open--nothing is actually blocked.
Brad
I must interject here...
When operated outside of the linear mode of the transistor (digital switching), the circuit acts as a blocking oscillator.
it clips the waveform, the resultant peaks are represented by the inductor action, not the transistor, or a combination of the two.
The premise of the discussion I began with, took the transistor out of this digital mode of operation.
Thus, MH's perspective does not apply to the JT in resonance mode.
But is not necessarily untrue.
-
Focus: I never even asked you the question with respect to the EMJ story so it is impossible for me to "fail to provide enough information in my question."
I think somewhere in this thread there are about 10 words from you about how a Joule Thief supposedly operates at low voltages. Is that your "working theory?" If that is all you have, then copy and paste it here and add a lot more than that. For example, I am sure that if you wanted to describe how a gasoline engine works you could write up a full page of text description. But we are NOT talking about gasoline engines, we are talking about how a Joule Thief operates at low voltages.
Please explain to the readers how a Joule Thief operates at low voltages. Please see the attached annotated timing diagram and the linked YouTube clip as examples of how you can make an effective presentation.
How a Joule Thief works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg
Stop beating around the bush and put up or shut up.
-
Tried 3 different transformers, all with equal 1 to 1 turns on the primary and trigger coils. In all cases once I get them to be in the clean sine zone, there is very limited range in which I can get it to show before it cuts out completely. So maybe a different ratio of turns would be next.
I can see that when the circuit is running normal with say a 1k resistor, that there is more on time of the transistor than off/discharge. So I would like to change things to possibly get a near to equal on/off time when running normal mode, which would hopefully help in producing the sine, instead of the long on and short off time Im getting which would kill off any ringing of resonance if the on time is too long.
I suppose that more trigger turns would shorten the on time as it would increase the base voltage in a shorter time period than with a 1 to 1 ratio. So Ill go that route for now.
Mags
-
Tried 3 different transformers, all with equal 1 to 1 turns on the primary and trigger coils. In all cases once I get them to be in the clean sine zone, there is very limited range in which I can get it to show before it cuts out completely. So maybe a different ratio of turns would be next.
I can see that when the circuit is running normal with say a 1k resistor, that there is more on time of the transistor than off/discharge. So I would like to change things to possibly get a near to equal on/off time when running normal mode, which would hopefully help in producing the sine, instead of the long on and short off time Im getting which would kill off any ringing of resonance if the on time is too long.
I suppose that more trigger turns would shorten the on time as it would increase the base voltage in a shorter time period than with a 1 to 1 ratio. So Ill go that route for now.
Mags
there I likely only one or two nodes you can approach with your VR
it tends to be fairly exact.
you are either on it or you are not.
You can notice the "sineish" wave forming as you approach the freq, and dismantling as you leave it.
there is also and abrupt change before and after this range,
where the transistor switches sharply leaving a similar scope to what MH shows above
(of a non-MH JT, he obviously is using someone elses scope image here)
[if your VR can go low enough, you can get the transistor to not-switch, but at that point you could probably just power the led with the battery and coil.]
the more exact to the resonant freq you can get the better the results, but once you are there, further adjustment will only take you away from that point.
leaving it at this resistance value, we can then examine the other parameters.
for instance, if an impedance on one side of the coil were to be examined as "the same as"
a longer wire, to represent the same impedance.
we could then lengthen the wire on the other side to balance the two impedances.
however, changing the number of turns will significantly alter the inductance,
this will change the frequency, and require an additional adjustment of the VR. (<-- avoid this step backwards!)
[edit: avoid, when you are looking at a "standard JT", in your 1 to 1 coil test circuit, please continue experimenting as you feel fit]
-
Ok. Just played with the larger transformer I had made for a project way back. With it, I did a sloppy 3rd winding shorted. With a fairly low ohms on the resistor value, I can get from an almost normal waveform, stronger n longer downward curve from the top, to the ones below. Both are set to the same parameters but one with a weak battery and one with a fresher battery.. So I must be close as the freq shown on the scope is the exact same with different voltage levels. Where before when the voltage changed, if it went lower, the freq would be higher. But here it sticks. Man. Im glad I conjured up using those shorted windings. I havnt gotten what seem like Im getting here without it.
Will try to tune it with the 3rd winding by adding or deleting turns. Gotta tighten it up and solidify how and where it sits.
Farted around with the disk caps and there were points where the freq just jumped to another octave when adjusting the pot. And would jump back down when I turned it back. When it jumped down, the led was bright, and got brighter as the resistance was lowered. But on the way up, right at the jump area you can see an area of transition where the led is very dim, then as bright or more than below that point when in the higher freq jump. Also the batt voltage had shown down around 1.12v just below the transition and 1.33 above, led lit very well on both sides. Will do those things again with scope shots. I had just found this more interesting to show for now.
Mags
-
Also strange is the pk-pk, min and max are very similar in each shot yet the input is a pretty big difference. All why I thought this was more important to show. Like the circuit is regulating somewhat.
Mags
-
Here are 2 shots of different led placement. 1st is across transistor as in typical circuits and the 2nd across the coil.
Resistor is 22ohm. Will try my 1ohm resistor block for a power in measurement for each later. Gota work today.
Mags
-
The reason I did the led position test again was to see the difference in on/off time for each. Across the transistor shot shows closer to s 50% duty cycle than the across the coil shot. Possibly that is where my issue is with getting that sine to work out here. Like I was talking about earlier a few posts, wanting to try different winding ratios to fix that, and I think it might work in both cases to bring out a nice 50% duty. At the low frequencies, what in the 300hz min so far, the duty cycle could probably be very short off times. So I think the winding ratio changes are key there, if it helps, not sure yet.
Looking at the 2 shots, you can see the led across the transistor when conducting holds the battery down as the led dissipates, as I described it would days ago before building my first JT, and it looks like enough that the battery is lower at turn off than the led across the coil shot. So I am pretty interested in testing out the power in differences. I figure using a fresh 1,5v battery during the test will give a much better resolution of the differences than a very depleted battery. If it is possible to get an extra couple of hours by putting the led across the coil instead of the transistor(typical placement) then it is a winner to me. ;) ;D The wrong vs the right.
lol Also tried the led in reverse, both placements, and the led still lit. Not like it does when proper in polarity, but did light. I had at first did it by accident figuring it probably wouldnt light if reversed not bothering to check the led for polarity, and when it did light, I figured it was correct. But I wasnt getting the blinding brightness. Then I noticed the pk-pk was 84v. lol Hey. These are all experiences here. really getting to know this thing , backwards and forwards, literally. Anyway, having a good time with it.
Mags
Mags
-
Sorry to interupt but I just have to ask , what happens if you put say 50 volts in , will it run a load that needs 120?
I tried to build a JT ,could never get it working.
Can you up the output enough to run larger loads?
I'll understand if none answer.
artv
-
Sorry to interupt but I just have to ask , what happens if you put say 50 volts in , will it run a load that needs 120?
I tried to build a JT ,could never get it working.
Can you up the output enough to run larger loads?
I'll understand if none answer.
artv
I have many JT circuits that you put in 1 volt and get out 400. Another one will put out almost 900 on a single "dead" battery. (Jeanna Circuit) You do not need to input 50 volts.
Bill
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475054#msg475054 date=1456045528]
How a Joule Thief works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg
Stop beating around the bush and put up or shut up.
[/quote]
I never even asked you the question with respect to the EMJ story so it is impossible for me to "fail to provide enough information in my question."
I will take that as a no--i cannot answer my own question.
I think somewhere in this thread there are about 10 words from you about how a Joule Thief supposedly operates at low voltages. Is that your "working theory?" If that is all you have, then copy and paste it here and add a lot more than that.
Like i said MH--you do not read all of the thread's. I think you more !pick and choose! bit's and pieces that suit your need's. The post with my explanation is closer to 400 word's with scope shot's. Some how you managed to miss that ::) But you will look silly-!even to your self! when you find it--after your continual banter about me posting a description of how a JT works at low voltages--something you your self couldnt do.
For example, I am sure that if you wanted to describe how a gasoline engine works you could write up a full page of text description. But we are NOT talking about gasoline engines, we are talking about how a Joule Thief operates at low voltages.
It was you that said you can determine how a gasoline engine works,but you also asked what determines the frequency at which a JT would oscillate--so i asked you to show what determines the peak RPM of a gasoline engine,without me giving any specifications of the parts used--just like you refused to give me any specifications of the components in the JT circuit you wanted me to explain. Like i said MH--it cant be done without these specifications. For example-if i make up a circuit,and use a set length of wire for each coil, and use a ferrite toroid,then the JT will oscillate at a certain frequency. If i do nothing other than change the ferrite torroid out for a steel laminated torroid(while everything else remains the same) then the frequency would drop by over 1000 %.
So you see MH,there is no way of saying what the oscillating frequency would be for a JT circuit without the required specifications-just like you could never work out what the peak RPM of a gasoline engine would be without those specification's-nor that stupid and incomplete question you asked EMJ. You try and trap people like this all the time MH--but they are all waking up to you.
So as i !HAVE! answered your question in detail(although some how you missed it),you now answer your own question you gave EMJ,with only the information you provided
What happens when you apply a voltage source to a coil ?.
You cannot answer your own question MH--you know that,as there is not enough information to answer it.
Is the voltage source an alternating source,or a direct source.?
Will there be enough current available to maintain this voltage source when it is applied across the coil?.
What kind of coil?. E.G-dose it have a hole through the middle,or is it tightly wound from center-out,so there is no hole through the middle-->this will determine the magnetic field produced by the coil.
What kind and size of wire.
How many turns?
The list go's on MH.
Your question cannot be answered without further information-->your question was loaded--a bait for EMJ-->just like your question on what determines the frequency of oscillation in a JT circuit. That list is about a long as the required information needed to calculate the peak RPM of a gasoline engine.
Please explain to the readers how a Joule Thief operates at low voltages. Please see the attached annotated timing diagram and the linked YouTube clip as examples of how you can make an effective presentation.
As i have said a number of times now,i have done this already--but you have some how missed it.'
Im not doing it again MH,just because you lack the ability to read all parts of a thread.
Now,how about you answer your own question-what determines the frequency that a JT will oscillate,and i will add everything you failed to take into account.
Brad
-
Right so you are "fighting" with me and you are so immature that you refuse to link to what you are talking about. So you will get your jollies when I go look for it. Get yourself a box of Kleenex.
-
Right so you are "fighting" with me and you are so immature that you refuse to link to what you are talking about. So you will get your jollies when I go look for it. Get yourself a box of Kleenex.
As expected
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFM9fxfONVw
-
As expected
Was it good?
I found the posting and am looking at it. #337 right? Don't get too excited.
-
Brad's posting #337:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As can be seen in the scope shot below,all of the flyback energy in L1 is dissipated before the transistor once again switches on. This is because the flyback energy from L1 is what is pulling the base of the transistor down(keeping it off).
You continually ignore the junction capacitance of the transistor MH,and this is why you cannot understand as to how the circuit actually work's. Current flows through L2 before any current flows through L1, so L2 is the coil that starts to create the magnetic field within the toroid core first-not L1. Current can flow in L2 before the emitter/collector junction starts to open,due to the junction capacitance in the transistor. This in turn creates a voltage potential in L1 that is opposite that to L2,and add's to the voltage being supplied to the base of the transistor via the base/collector junction capacitor/capacitance. Although very small in capacity,it is enough to get the emitter/collector junction to start to open. Once this happen's,then a stronger magnetic field starts to build in the toroid. Now you start to get your transformer action between L1 and L2,and this then starts to pull the transistor on hard. The magnetic field builds to a point where the available current can no longer keep the magnetic field amplitude rising,or the core reaches a point of saturation,and the induced current in L2 stop's. The magnetic field begins to collapse due to the transistor no longer receiving enough current,and begins to switch off. As the magnetic field is now decreasing in strength,a reverse current flow is produced in L2,and this pulls the transistor hard off--as can be seen in the scope shot below.Some of this stored energy in L1 is used to drive the LED,and the rest is used to pull the transistor down/off. Once all the stored energy in L1 has been depleted,and no longer can hold the transistor off,the cycle starts all over again.
This is why your JT circuit is not very efficient MH,as most of the stored energy in the magnetic field that we want to use to drive the LED, is fighting against the energy being supplied by the battery ,to keep the transistor switched off. So the battery is trying to switch the transistor on,and the flyback energy is trying to keep the transistor switch off. This is why i like to use circuit's that disconnect the battery during the flyback part of the cycle.
Brad.
-
In your original post #337, you don't actually identify it as "your" explanation of how the Joule Thief operates at low voltage, you just seamlessly transition into it. And I did read it.
I'm not sure if your scope shot is for the standard Joule Thief running at 500 mV with a 1K resistor, or, to get it to run you tweaked the base resistor down really low. Because for your comment about your scope captures in the next posting you made, #338, is the following comment:
Because MH,the pot was turned right down to it's lowest resistance,so it would make no difference to which side the scope probe was on.
I have no idea what the base resistance is for your original post #337 but I will push on. The ideal case is to have a standard Joule Thief circuit running at a normal frequency, and then observe as the frequency jumps up and the waveforms change at very low voltages - without changing the base resistor value or anything else about the Joule Thief.
You continually ignore the junction capacitance of the transistor MH,and this is why you cannot understand as to how the circuit actually work's. Current flows through L2 before any current flows through L1, so L2 is the coil that starts to create the magnetic field within the toroid core first-not L1. Current can flow in L2 before the emitter/collector junction starts to open,due to the junction capacitance in the transistor. This in turn creates a voltage potential in L1 that is opposite that to L2,and add's to the voltage being supplied to the base of the transistor via the base/collector junction capacitor/capacitance. Although very small in capacity,it is enough to get the emitter/collector junction to start to open. Once this happen's,then a stronger magnetic field starts to build in the toroid. Now you start to get your transformer action between L1 and L2,and this then starts to pull the transistor on hard. The magnetic field builds to a point where the available current can no longer keep the magnetic field amplitude rising,or the core reaches a point of saturation,and the induced current in L2 stop's. The magnetic field begins to collapse due to the transistor no longer receiving enough current,and begins to switch off. As the magnetic field is now decreasing in strength,a reverse current flow is produced in L2,and this pulls the transistor hard off--as can be seen in the scope shot below.Some of this stored energy in L1 is used to drive the LED,and the rest is used to pull the transistor down/off. Once all the stored energy in L1 has been depleted,and no longer can hold the transistor off,the cycle starts all over again.
This sounds plausible but it didn't come from you. You have probably been hunting around a long time for information on Joule Thieves, and in one of your links you found a good technical article that described how a Joule Thief operates at low voltages and basically copied that information and wrote it into your posting. Is that a fair assessment?
What you did not tie into all of this is the explanation for the high frequencies but it is probably there in the article. If the very short transistor on and off times and short discharge pulses of the coil are because of small amounts of charge stored in the internal capacitors of the transistor, then I suppose the roughly one microsecond transistor-off-time/coil-discharge-times may make sense.
Without that article, you would be lost for a description and lost on the bench. Without that article I would have to be on the bench for a very long time while I simultaneously reviewed transistor small signal and low voltage and transient behaviour. I would have had to work on it myself, and if I found the same article that you found it would have helped me out tremendously. Even without the article this would probably be child's play for people like Verpies and Picowatt.
So I missed your copy/paste because you didn't identify it outright. I simply told you I wasn't going to discuss it because I was talking about a Joule Thief in normal operating mode at that point.
In the scope capture there appears to be an issue with the causality that I can't explain. I think the transistor should still switch off before we see the voltage spike but I am not sure. The scope probe placement issue may be a factor there.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
just like you refused to give me any specifications of the components in the JT circuit you wanted me to explain. Like i said MH--it cant be done without these specifications. For example-if i make up a circuit,and use a set length of wire for each coil, and use a ferrite toroid,then the JT will oscillate at a certain frequency. If i do nothing other than change the ferrite torroid out for a steel laminated torroid(while everything else remains the same) then the frequency would drop by over 1000 %.
nor that stupid and incomplete question you asked EMJ. You try and trap people like this all the time MH--but they are all waking up to you.
As you could see in your no-link hidden copy/paste about the operation of a Joule Thief circuit at lower voltages, you can indeed fully describe the operation of a circuit without having to have component values. This concept is freaking you out because it is outside your realm of experience and your way of thinking or capacity of thinking with respect to electronics. The reality is that it's done all the time and it's the normal way that people describe the operation of a circuit.
You are really hung up on the EMJ question and accusing me of it being incomplete which of course is ridiculous again because I never even said what the question was.
Do you want to get the question so you can try to answer it? You seem to be chomping at the bit so I can give it to you if you want it.
MileHigh
-
In your original post #337, you don't actually identify it as "your" explanation of how the Joule Thief operates at low voltage, you just seamlessly transition into it. And I did read it.
I'm not sure if your scope shot is for the standard Joule Thief running at 500 mV with a 1K resistor, or, to get it to run you tweaked the base resistor down really low. Because for your comment about your scope captures in the next posting you made, #338, is the following comment:
I have no idea what the base resistance is for your original post #337 but I will push on. The ideal case is to have a standard Joule Thief circuit running at a normal frequency, and then observe as the frequency jumps up and the waveforms change at very low voltages - without changing the base resistor value or anything else about the Joule Thief.
What you did not tie into all of this is the explanation for the high frequencies but it is probably there in the article. If the very short transistor on and off times and short discharge pulses of the coil are because of small amounts of charge stored in the internal capacitors of the transistor, then I suppose the roughly one microsecond transistor-off-time/coil-discharge-times may make sense.
Without that article, you would be lost for a description and lost on the bench. Without that article I would have to be on the bench for a very long time while I simultaneously reviewed transistor small signal and low voltage and transient behaviour. I would have had to work on it myself, and if I found the same article that you found it would have helped me out tremendously. Even without the article this would probably be child's play for people like Verpies and Picowatt.
So I missed your copy/paste because you didn't identify it outright. I simply told you I wasn't going to discuss it because I was talking about a Joule Thief in normal operating mode at that point.
In the scope capture there appears to be an issue with the causality that I can't explain. I think the transistor should still switch off before we see the voltage spike but I am not sure. The scope probe placement issue may be a factor there.
MileHigh
This sounds plausible but it didn't come from you. You have probably been hunting around a long time for information on Joule Thieves, and in one of your links you found a good technical article that described how a Joule Thief operates at low voltages and basically copied that information and wrote it into your posting. Is that a fair assessment?
This most certainly dose come from me MH,and is !!!NOT!!! a copy or paste,or re-edit from any other article.
Now that you can see that i do have an amount of sound knowledge ,and know what im talking about,you revert to your next tactic--trying to discredit the experimenter.
I have told you time and time again--i have had good teacher's,like Vortex1,Poynt-etc. I then take what i have learned,and apply it to devices that !do! work based around what i have been taught.
So dont try your crap with me MH. I had the balls to post what i knew,while you just say--im not even going to try and work it out.
I have put you in your place once again MH,and you need to suck it up princess.
And your welcome.
Brad
-
Brad:
Do you want to get the question so you can try to answer it? You seem to be chomping at the bit so I can give it to you if you want it.
MileHigh
As you could see in your no-link hidden copy/paste about the operation of a Joule Thief circuit at lower voltages, you can indeed fully describe the operation of a circuit without having to have component values. This concept is freaking you out because it is outside your realm of experience and your way of thinking or capacity of thinking with respect to electronics. The reality is that it's done all the time and it's the normal way that people describe the operation of a circuit.
Go find that copy and paste article MH--you wont,because it came from me.
You are a sore looser-and that's is very evident here.
I wipped your ass,and you did not think i could, But now you know i can,you resort to some other type of discrediting tactic's.
EPIC fail MH--and here for everyone to see.
I bet you had it planed all along--the backup plan just in case i came good on the explanation--which you did not expect.
You didnt even have the balls to have a go your self,and the reason for that is--you just do not understand your self how it works-->facts MH,fact's.
You only have the ability to go by the book's,and when things are outside that realm,you fail--and fail badly-->as you have done on this thread.
You are really hung up on the EMJ question and accusing me of it being incomplete which of course is ridiculous again because I never even said what the question was.
Bullshit
It;s posted on this thread--another fail MH
A question even your self cannot anser. You know you have fell in your own hole,and now it's that deep,you cant get out.
Facts MH,facts
Brad
-
I'm not sure if your scope shot is for the standard Joule Thief running at 500 mV with a 1K resistor, or,...
MileHigh
when this started, we used 100 Ohm (standard), at what point did this become 1k Ohms?
JT's can be used with virtually any range of base resistor (depending upon the transistor used)
This is the problem with trying to claim a "standard" circuit.
Once you define this you eliminate all other Joule Thief circuits created before or after the one you specifically reference.
You are still missing the point that Armstrong's equations still hold true , REGARDLESS of what components you choose!!
-
Not a chance. It's more like you were too immature to just tell me which posting and likewise you are too immature to admit that it's just a paste from somewhere else. It's just like when you are challenged about Joule Thief operating voltages and your fake response is to say "Everybody is only interested in Joule Thieves operating at lower voltages." It's a pattern. It's Brad's continuous BS on the fly to make it look like you are never wrong - which is extremely immature.
-
You are still missing the point that Armstrong's equations still hold true
What's the dance floor about? That's what I want to know.
-
What's the dance floor about? That's what I want to know.
Well, you see....
when you are out on the dance floor, surrounded by Trons and Hoes...
It doesn't really matter what your theory is,
the fact that you bothered to participate Is all that is necessary to get laid...
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475158#msg475158 date=1456117360]
Brad:
MileHigh
You are really hung up on the EMJ question and accusing me of it being incomplete which of course is ridiculous again because I never even said what the question was.
Post 389 Quote MH: I called his bluff and asked him how a circuit worked that consisted of only two components, a voltage source and a coil, and was unable to answer the question after he was talking about coils for months.
Brad
-
Not a chance. It's more like you were too immature to just tell me which posting and likewise you are too immature to admit that it's just a paste from somewhere else. It's just like when you are challenged about Joule Thief operating voltages and your fake response is to say "Everybody is only interested in Joule Thieves operating at lower voltages." It's a pattern. It's Brad's continuous BS on the fly to make it look like you are never wrong - which is extremely immature.
Face it MH--you got smoked.
I did what you were no expecting me to be able to do--something you yourself couldnt explain.
My info and teachings come from all sorts of source MH--not just the book's.
Now we see you trying to save face,and say i just did a copy and paste job lol.
Trying to divert your losses by way if trying to discredit the experimenter. We all know you will not find any papers or links that show i did that,and all the evidence will indeed point toward my learnings from real EE guy's here and at OUR.
You see MH,i post the truth,and you post garbage. I have freely admited that i had no idea as to how the cool joule circuit was running without that inductive coupling between L1 and L2. But after some great debate on the OUR thread nearly 3 years ago,Vortex1 came up with the answer,and from that answer i have learned. Along with additional information found in many places,we can put all this knowledge together,and get circuits to work based around that information--we learn MH ;)
You were not even going to give it a go--and i did-and i got it right-->much to your shock.
Always expect the unexpected MH,as you have seen here-it can bite you on the ass.
You made the mistake MH, that i could not possibly learn that fast,and now you know different. Now you go to plan B,because you do not like to be out done by some amateur benchtop experimenter. Now your next angle is to try and discredit the experimenter,as loosing to him is not on your acceptable list. Your angle here on this thread alone,has become quite evident.
Thank's-but no thank's MH
Brad
-
Here is a circuit from Lasersaber that seems to use the 'capacitance' between the 2 windings to complete the base trigger circuit. lrC anyone? ;)
Mags
-
Brad:
My objective on here was to discuss how a Joule Thief normally operates because a lot of incorrect information was being given. That has been successfully done. During the battle over that subject you talked a lot of whackadoo nonsense at times. You said all of the online references were wrong. You even were parroting the transistor junction capacitance stuff over into the discussion about the Joule Thief in normal operating mode because at first you were failing to distinguish between the two modes. The use of language in that paragraph is totally different from the style and cadence of how you normally compose text.
In post #157 you said this:
Set up a bifilar coil with a steel laminated core,where the core is two separate halves -1 half will see the flow of charge into the magnetic center,and the other half will see the flow of charge out from the magnetic center. Set up a simple self oscillating circuit,and run the LED off the two core halves,where you two core halves act like capacitor plates,and are charged every pulse. this way you can bring your frequency up to a resonant state,where the amplitude is at maximum,and power draw at a minimum.
That's a typical "Brad from Planet Bizarro" posting. So you can't just go from your typical puzzling and awkward technical prose to a decent discussion of transistor modeling at low voltages with internal capacitance coupling like some magical Mr. Hyde to Dr. Jekyll transformation.
That discussion from somewhere else that you posted sounded quite credible but you never "wrapped it up and made it whole" and discussed a full oscillation cycle from start to end. You never made reference to how the operating frequency was determined. So my instincts are telling me the parroting got you close, but not quite all the way there.
Your post #430 is another one of those "shaking my head" moments and that would apply equally to all of the readers of the thread also. Just another jaw-dropping moment.
Finally, Magluvin posted another Joule Thief schematic that was taken from a posted pdf from the early days in this very thread and I am reposting it here. What a shocker eh? They list the battery voltage as having a range of 0.3 volts to 1.5 volts. It makes all of your whining and pleading that "Everybody wants to use a Joule Thief at low voltages only!" to justify your bullshit to try to make yourself infallible look laughable.
Your low-voltage discussion that came from who knows where might be credible, I am not sure. I wasn't here for that, I just wanted to go over how a Joule Thief normally operates. And what a slog that was with all of the battling and baiting and switching, most of it simply ridiculous stuff to keep the imaginary halo over your head. In the end you stopped challenging me and you agree with the basic pulse circuit operation with the positive-feedback regenerative switching that makes the thing oscillate at an operating frequency, not a resonant frequency.
MileHigh
-
Here is a circuit from Lasersaber that seems to use the 'capacitance' between the 2 windings to complete the base trigger circuit. lrC anyone? ;)
Mags
No kidding, it looks like a circuit that may have been purpose-designed-and-built to use "capacitance."
You can claim that cars have four wheels and I can "get you" by posting pictures of cars that have been purpose-designed-and-built with three wheels. ;)
-
Well, you see....
when you are out on the dance floor, surrounded by Trons and Hoes...
It doesn't really matter what your theory is,
the fact that you bothered to participate Is all that is necessary to get laid...
You will recall this posting #390 from you with your little treatise on diodes for me: http://overunity.com/8341/joule-thief-101/msg474966/#msg474966 (http://overunity.com/8341/joule-thief-101/msg474966/#msg474966)
once you learn this, we can move on to the concept of capacitance, within the diode.
maybe tomorrow I can teach you how a WIRE works....
Later I said this:
Depending on which tune is playing the trons and the hoes might eye each other across the dance floor on opposite sides of the room like so many wallflowers. Then the DJ puts on a new tune and the trons and the hoes race towards each other in the center of the dance floor in a frenzy and make contact and seemingly leave this plane of existence.
The DJ is really good, and as the Millenniums say these days, "He is dope."
Well, you see....
when you are out on the dance floor, surrounded by Trons and Hoes...
Smoky2, they just flooded the dance floor with smoke....
I was describing a diode to you with my dance floor story. Looks like you slipped on the smoke oil trying to do your best John Travolta.
MileHigh
-
Here is a circuit from Lasersaber that seems to use the 'capacitance' between the 2 windings to complete the base trigger circuit. lrC anyone? ;)
Mags
Maybe use the negative resistance effect of certain transistors to make an oscillator? ;)
Brad
-
Played with different turns ratios. Seems to work best near 1 to 1. Found a wound core from a pc supply that has 4 separate windings. Nice n tight and evenly wound. Going to try 2 windings in series bifi to increase capacitance and possibly lower the resonant freq and use a 3rd for trigger. And try putting led across 4th.
Mags
-
Played with different turns ratios. Seems to work best near 1 to 1. Found a wound core from a pc supply that has 4 separate windings. Nice n tight and evenly wound. Going to try 2 windings in series bifi to increase capacitance and possibly lower the resonant freq and use a 3rd for trigger. And try putting led across 4th.
Mags
Have you ever tried the "Jeanna" circuit? I would have to check my video but I think it was like 400 turns, 13 turns and 4 turns (3 windings) and used a TIP3055 transistor with a 22 ohm resistor. Outputs about 700 volts. Lidmotor has a great video on how to make one.
Bill
-
Here is 'Jeanna's Light'. It was very popular back in those days but we ran out of a good source for that big old ferrite toroid. Jeanna found them at a surplus outlet and they soon ran out of them. I only got one. This light ended up 'boxed' and is on my shelf still today. It runs better on a little higher voltage. Bill--I think that is what you did on your build. Here is that 1/2 million hit video I did that got so many people excited: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAakZTR_4LE
I have been working on a blend of Tinman's circuit and my Penny oscillator and I have had great success so far. Slider is working on it also. This Joule Thief topic is very interesting to some of us old tinker types who let the technical discussion guide us. Thanks.
---Rusty
-
Thanks Rusty, I was going to search for your video and post a link, now I don't have to. I know you explained the circuit much better than I did and I believe I copied your schematic in my vid, ha ha. My light still works and I use it. I did remove the VR's as they were not rated for enough power and I burned them out pretty fast. I think you used a rheostat right? My pots were only rated at like 1/4 amp.
Bill
-
Have you ever tried the "Jeanna" circuit? I would have to check my video but I think it was like 400 turns, 13 turns and 4 turns (3 windings) and used a TIP3055 transistor with a 22 ohm resistor. Outputs about 700 volts. Lidmotor has a great video on how to make one.
Bill
Hey Bill
Its totally possible that with only 2 individual windings that Im missing out on something. My last try was with very few turns on the base control winding compared to the secondary drive winding. It just didnt seem to have the range of operation as the 1 to 1, or even not work at all with 1 or 2 turns compared to say 40 on the drive winding. Too little base biasing? This has been my first experience with this circuit the past week or more it has been. Ive tried a lot of things, some that probably had never been tried before, like using a shorted winding and finding that it can still work well and the freq of operation was raised to very high multiples than without the shorted winding. That there was a little bit of an eye opener for me in the fact that the shorted winding didnt kill the circuit operation or cause excessive input draw, but nearly the same draw with similar brightness as without the shorted winding. In a normal situation it would be disastrous to have a shorted winding in a transformer. But in the normal situations that we may encounter, say a simple 60hz transformer, dont really have the option of self adjusting freq to the conditions of the circuit. That alone has brought me to a new level of understanding. And I hope it does others. As a shorted winding isnt 'always' a terribly bad thing. ;D In a way, im using it as a freq of operation multiplier, all in hopes of it helping me get the thing into the realm of resonant freq of the transformer. Havnt been able to get up there without it. I think Im getting close. Seems to be upwards near 2 to 3mhz that I need to be. Next purchase would be a sig gen to identify these resonant freq without all the guess work.
So far Im just fiddling to get used to changing things and getting a deep feel for what does what... and trying some whacky things that may come to mind. Like last night I had 3 leds in 3 different places in the circuit and all three lit of near equal brightness at the same time. Even 2 leds in parallel without resistors on each would light. Not really the case for 2 leds in direct parallel connection, from what I know. If one conducts first because the other has a very slight difference in conducting range, the other will not. In most all cases i have seen there is either a resistor in series with each led in parallel circuit. But it may be that the input pulse is high enough that the led's leads are enough resistance so each is biased enough to conduct and light up seemingly equal to each other. I dunno. Maybe Im just a nut bag. :o ;D
Havnt tried it lately but have in the past where if 2 leds are in parallel, only one would light, the one with the lowest turn on bias ability. Maybe thats just with old stone age leds of my past.
For now Im still playing to get the feel for what changes in the circuit does what. Once I get a real hang of it and know it down pat, then when I want to make changes to the circuit, I can make educated guesses as to what the outcome will be by knowing what affects what in the circuit.
Ok. I feel I am babbling. Tired. Was up all night, no sleep, working on a sound system in a vw gti. Sometimes I just cant quit. So if anything I just wrote doesnt make sense, or seems nutty, well, then Im just a tired old nut at this moment. :o :o :o :D
Mags
-
@ mags
looking forward to your results
I never experimented with anything as low as a 1:1.
I started with 22 windings, which I guess would be an 11:11, considering the center tap?
many replicators carelessly wound these "bifilar",
while I myself preferred to wind them, each wire at a time, in the same fashion.
This decreased the imperfections in the coils that may lead off the "true slope"
greater perfection resulted in a cleaner signal.
once I got the sine as clean as I could, within the primary coil:
all other advancements were done using a secondary winding on top of the JT primary, on the same ferrite torroid.
even my experiments that daisy-chained multiple torroids, were all driven by a secondary in this manner.
the secondary was not electrically connected to the JT, and only driven by the inductive coupling through the ferrite.
The signal on the secondary was usually "cleaner" than the primary, as it was a function of the inductors resonance,
not including the destructive feedback from the primary circuit.
everything I did was built upon this baseline.
It is nice to see someone going beyond that to make it simpler, one to one winding and observe the limitations of induction.
-
people get lost in a cloud of dreams when they look at a Joule Thief.
it is not magic, it is not overunity
what a "JT" does best, is something of great economic impact, but it has nothing to do with free energy research.
It can be used as a tool for assessing economic value of portable energy.
most people look at it and see something special because ooh wow, a light is working with not enough voltage!
oh my...
lets look at a comparable novelty that toys with current, rather than voltage
a man whos car battery died, he cranked and cranked and it will crank no more...
I walk up with what looks to him to be a "bunch of wires"
and start his car using his "dead" battery.
now, me - understanding that the battery in his car, while charged up around 11-13v can provide several hundred amps of current,
but when depleted to around 8-9v, it cannot compete with the resistance of the starter circuit, and thus there is not enough current to perform the task.
by lowering the resistance, through multiple paths, I am able to provide enough current to start the engine.
to the man with the broke down car - I did something magical, in starting his engine with a "dead" battery.
all I did was verify Ohm's law.
The Joule Thief is no different.
change battery types and you will find that some batteries have "more energy" available below the 1.0v range, than others.
This can be measured directly, or estimated by "run times" etc.
the "best" batteries are made by Energizer
These provide more available current in the range that most devices operate.
thus, when used in a JT, they have the least available energy for a "dead" battery.
This is important, because we BUY energy based on an economic standard.
even in batteries.
Cheaper batteries that "die" faster in modern devices (despite their MaHr rating),
have more low-voltage current left in them after they are "dead".
Thus, they will work better in Joule Thief applications.
- This is why the same batteries should be used for testing any type of circuit like this.
not only the same type/brand, but similar voltage levels, when testing.
-
@ mags
looking forward to your results
I never experimented with anything as low as a 1:1.
I started with 22 windings, which I guess would be an 11:11, considering the center tap?
many replicators carelessly wound these "bifilar",
while I myself preferred to wind them, each wire at a time, in the same fashion.
This decreased the imperfections in the coils that may lead off the "true slope"
greater perfection resulted in a cleaner signal.
once I got the sine as clean as I could, within the primary coil:
all other advancements were done using a secondary winding on top of the JT primary, on the same ferrite torroid.
even my experiments that daisy-chained multiple torroids, were all driven by a secondary in this manner.
the secondary was not electrically connected to the JT, and only driven by the inductive coupling through the ferrite.
The signal on the secondary was usually "cleaner" than the primary, as it was a function of the inductors resonance,
not including the destructive feedback from the primary circuit.
everything I did was built upon this baseline.
It is nice to see someone going beyond that to make it simpler, one to one winding and observe the limitations of induction.
1:1 is the turn ratio of the two windings smoky2--not the number of turns.
Brad
-
Smoky2:
lets look at a comparable novelty that toys with current, rather than voltage
a man whos car battery died, he cranked and cranked and it will crank no more...
I walk up with what looks to him to be a "bunch of wires"
and start his car using his "dead" battery.
now, me - understanding that the battery in his car, while charged up around 11-13v can provide several hundred amps of current,
but when depleted to around 8-9v, it cannot compete with the resistance of the starter circuit, and thus there is not enough current to perform the task.
by lowering the resistance, through multiple paths, I am able to provide enough current to start the engine.
to the man with the broke down car - I did something magical, in starting his engine with a "dead" battery.
all I did was verify Ohm's law.
What did you do? Usually you have a very thick wire connection from the battery to the starter motor to support the high cranking amps. So from your description it's hard to imagine what you really did.
MileHigh
-
Smoky2:
What did you do? Usually you have a very thick wire connection from the battery to the starter motor to support the high cranking amps. So from your description it's hard to imagine what you really did.
MileHigh
What would you do with a joule thief?
(perhaps in some fantasy world where you actually do the things you talk about, rather than just imagine them)
maybe light up an LED, stand around in a circle watching it glow, imagining some genie in a bottle sucking the last
of the battery power for your bidding?
If you imagine the act, in terms of the purpose for which it is used, you can never understand what is really going on.
-
I asked you a straight question so how about a straight answer?
You have been playing the "guru" game and I am not convinced at all. You thought that you were "toying" with me with respect to diodes and I then described a diode to you and it flew right over your head.
So can you just give me a straight answer about how you got a car with a dead battery to start with a "bunch of wires?"
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjgemF5zpeE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHI7LnVWBlY
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al0zX8V6q-U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al0zX8V6q-U)
-
Double facepalm?
I can't speak for TK but let me give you my take on this.
Is the "double facepalm" because TK showed a solar cell powering his Joule Thief and you linked to a Lidmotor Joule Thief clip also powered by a solar cell? "So there!"
If so, then really? Lidmotor did not make a single claim at all about his clip so what the heck? I would call that a "double facepalm FAIL" on your part.
Still waiting on your comments about the starting of the car and if you say nothing that would be another FAIL.
Just keeping it real.
-
Bill:
Two questions for you about Joule Thieves.
1. I am under the impression that for all these years you were believing that when a Joule Thief was up and running and driving a LED that it was in resonance. Is this correct? I thought I saw a comment from you about that.
If that's the case then I am assuming that now you have a much better understanding about how one works. Is this true?
2. I am also pretty sure that when you started stringing 10 or 20 LEDs together in series, that you have stated many times that each individual LED was the same apparent brightness as when you had just a single LED in the circuit. It was only when you got to something like 40-plus LEDs in series that you started to notice that the individual LEDs were starting to get dimmer.
Is the above statement true?
MileHigh
-
Well I am going to plow ahead and assume that for a typical Joule Thief that each of the 10 LEDs in series as the load is just as bright as a single LED as the load.
Well, that suggests that you are putting way too much power into the LED. With a string of 10 LEDs as the example, then you should be able to reduce your LED power requirements for a single LED by 90%.
So how do you get there?
For starters, you need to measure the average power-in for the Joule Thief and compare it to to the LED power-out only to get the base level of efficiency for your Joule Thief. And of course we know one important fact: The average power consumption of a single LED will be approximately the same as the average power consumption of 10 LEDs in series. We also know that the operating frequency will be approximately the same for the two configurations.
Supposing for the sake of argument you measure that the power consumption of the Joule Thief is 100 milliwatts. Then you measure the power consumption of the LED alone and supposing it is 60 milliwatts.
That means that the LED power is 60 milliwatts, and the overhead for everything else is 40 miliwatts.
So that presents you with a design challenge: Drop the LED power by a factor of 10 to six milliwatts and still have the same apparent brightness and have a total power consumption of 46 milliwatts.
Again, if your Joule Thief will light a string of 10 LEDs in series with the same apparent brightness for each LED as when it drives just a single LED, then that implies you can reduce the LED power consumption for a single LED by 90%. So that means you reduce the power consumption of your Joule Thief from 100 milliwatts to 46 milliwatts. That should give you more than twice the running time.
So that's an interesting design challenge to give yourself.
And for all you wankers that give me shit for not being a "doer" on the bench, bring on the stony silence and the blank stares. I state that from past experience.
MileHigh
-
Here is a totally radical Joule Thief "concept car" that I designed "paper napkin style" in my head today. The chances of it outperforming a regular Joule Thief are almost zero but that's not the point. The point is to think outside of the box and try something new. If I had a bench and I was genuinely interested in this stuff I would build it myself.
There are three switches, and they are all programmed by a 555 timers or perhaps a super low power microcontrller. The premise is that the power for the switching would be provided by an external fresh battery and you assume that that battery would last long enough to drain up to 100 batteries that actually power the Joule Thief. Thus it is perfectly valid to have an external battery to power the timing system.
The basic principle of operation is that current is always flowing through the coil. The current is occasionally given a boost (like boosting the International Space station in its orbit) by connecting the battery with S1. The LED is occasionally lit by opening the bypass switch S3. S2 is there to complete the current loop, and the diode is there to give the current a bypass when S2 switches.
It's radical, but it does give you 100% full control over how much current is flowing in the loop and thus the brightness of the LED when it is switched ON. It also gives you full control over the ON/OFF duty cycle of the LED.
Note that the issue of the sloping voltage/current waveform for a regular Joule Thief is eliminated. The assumption is that the inductance is quite large and the current through the LED when it is ON is nearly flat and unchanging.
Think outside of the bloody box.
MileHigh
-
@ mags
looking forward to your results
I never experimented with anything as low as a 1:1.
I started with 22 windings, which I guess would be an 11:11, considering the center tap?
many replicators carelessly wound these "bifilar",
while I myself preferred to wind them, each wire at a time, in the same fashion.
This decreased the imperfections in the coils that may lead off the "true slope"
greater perfection resulted in a cleaner signal.
once I got the sine as clean as I could, within the primary coil:
all other advancements were done using a secondary winding on top of the JT primary, on the same ferrite torroid.
even my experiments that daisy-chained multiple torroids, were all driven by a secondary in this manner.
the secondary was not electrically connected to the JT, and only driven by the inductive coupling through the ferrite.
The signal on the secondary was usually "cleaner" than the primary, as it was a function of the inductors resonance,
not including the destructive feedback from the primary circuit.
everything I did was built upon this baseline.
It is nice to see someone going beyond that to make it simpler, one to one winding and observe the limitations of induction.
Yeah, the 1 to 1 was turn ratios. I will try separate windings like you said and wind them neat. My last pic with the larger toroid was separate windings, but not neat anymore as it was in a box with some stuff for a while and was a lil banged up. And many more turns. Ill try the 11 and 11 and see what we get. ;D
Finishing up this gti sound system this week, as I do it on the side at my shop, but work at another shop during the day. So will have more time to fiddle.
Thanks for the help. ;)
Mags
-
Just a few comments on the switches. Assume that they are all semiconductor-based switches and here is where I am pretty much out of my element because I have not done this type of discrete electronics stuff in more than 20 years. I am sure a lot of new stuff has come out since then.
S3 is probably the easiest, perhaps just a few FETs in parallel or MOSFETS. Naturally you are trying to get the ON resistance to be as low as possible.
S2 is there because there would be too much power lost in the diode alone. You need to normally bypass that diode to prevent the power loss.
More or less the same thing applies to S1 you need a semiconductor switche with the lowest resistance possible. The whole premise for the design is that you have a big coil with current flowing through it where you occasionally "top off the current" with a battery and occasionally draw some energy from the coil when you light the LED. So resistance is the enemy and it probably is not a practical circuit because of this fact.
MileHigh
-
I have been looking into ways to get energy to power low energy devices for years. The video I posted showing the loop antenna tuner was done to see if perhaps ambient RF could enhance a Joule Thief. The tiny solar panel supplied the input energy. The crude experiment was interesting but inconclusive. I did find this today about a company in the UK that has a patent on a device called the 'Freevolt' that does harvest enough room RF to run tiny loads.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/30/freevolt-free-energy/
MH:
Your 'outside the box' JT is interesting but I really don't understand it. It did remind me of one design that was shown years ago where the oscillator had a second button cell power source that was dedicated strictly for transistor switching. The drain on the button cell was tiny and the cell could run a long time. I never built one but it looked interesting. Maybe Bill remembers it and can link to it. To me that was a good example of 'outside the box thinking' that most experimenters don't do. I know a guy who built a JT using dollar store green steel twist tie wire. How weird is that? I think he called it 'Penny'.
---Rusty
-
Bill:
Two questions for you about Joule Thieves.
1. I am under the impression that for all these years you were believing that when a Joule Thief was up and running and driving a LED that it was in resonance. Is this correct? I thought I saw a comment from you about that.
If that's the case then I am assuming that now you have a much better understanding about how one works. Is this true?
2. I am also pretty sure that when you started stringing 10 or 20 LEDs together in series, that you have stated many times that each individual LED was the same apparent brightness as when you had just a single LED in the circuit. It was only when you got to something like 40-plus LEDs in series that you started to notice that the individual LEDs were starting to get dimmer.
Is the above statement true?
MileHigh
1. Not exactly correct. At first, I thought that when you "tuned" (using a vr to the base) and the led got a lot brighter, that it was a type of resonance. I was told this back then and, it seemed to fit because you could adjust the resistance and get the led to be very bright...move the vr a tiny bit up, or down and the led dimmed. Later, we just called this the sweet spot. What I am saying is that we found that you could go past the sweet spot and have to adjust back to it. Also, about this time I learned how to properly measure the amp draw (mA draw, ha ha) in these circuits and found that you could tune the base vr to achieve a very low mA draw. You could watch the led while doing this and tune so you got a decent brightness with as low an amp draw as was possible given that circuit's parameters. Thus, you could tune for max brightness, or tune for max running time with still usable light. So, I don't think we still called it resonance, but it is possible that we did after that time.
2. Close. It was those led Christmas lights (man, what a bargain for $3/ string of 100 leds) I found that I could light 100 of them with the Fuji AA battery JT and they were very bright. Using the same circuit, I added another 100 and could not see any difference in the light output. (This is where a light meter would have been very useful back then) Stefan told me that those lights must have been in series as that is the most efficient way to hook them up like that with many leds. 300 leds made it noticeably dimmer and 400 leds brought it down to about 1/2 brightness of what the 100/200 leds were.
I know this is going back a few years (7) and my memory is not 100%. Before I did the 100 leds strings I think the most leds I lit from a JT had been 4 or 5 and that was using a "standard" JT circuit. Once I learned how to mod the Fuji, I was off to the races, ha ha. That was also the time I learned how to zap myself many times even if I was being careful. Some of those really hurt, ha ha.
Bill
-
Here is a totally radical Joule Thief "concept car" that I designed "paper napkin style" in my head today. The chances of it outperforming a regular Joule Thief are almost zero but that's not the point. The point is to think outside of the box and try something new. If I had a bench and I was genuinely interested in this stuff I would build it myself.
There are three switches, and they are all programmed by a 555 timers or perhaps a super low power microcontrller. The premise is that the power for the switching would be provided by an external fresh battery and you assume that that battery would last long enough to drain up to 100 batteries that actually power the Joule Thief. Thus it is perfectly valid to have an external battery to power the timing system.
The basic principle of operation is that current is always flowing through the coil. The current is occasionally given a boost (like boosting the International Space station in its orbit) by connecting the battery with S1. The LED is occasionally lit by opening the bypass switch S3. S2 is there to complete the current loop, and the diode is there to give the current a bypass when S2 switches.
It's radical, but it does give you 100% full control over how much current is flowing in the loop and thus the brightness of the LED when it is switched ON. It also gives you full control over the ON/OFF duty cycle of the LED.
Note that the issue of the sloping voltage/current waveform for a regular Joule Thief is eliminated. The assumption is that the inductance is quite large and the current through the LED when it is ON is nearly flat and unchanging.
Think outside of the bloody box.
MileHigh
You are so funny some times MH.
Throughout this thread,you have been stuck on one circuit that you deem to be !the! JT circuit.
Now your posting different circuit's,and telling everyone to !think outside the bloody box! lol
Fact is MH,most of us here have been doing that all along,while !you! where stuck in the box.
Brad.
-
I have been looking into ways to get energy to power low energy devices for years. The video I posted showing the loop antenna tuner was done to see if perhaps ambient RF could enhance a Joule Thief. The tiny solar panel supplied the input energy. The crude experiment was interesting but inconclusive. I did find this today about a company in the UK that has a patent on a device called the 'Freevolt' that does harvest enough room RF to run tiny loads.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/30/freevolt-free-energy/
MH:
Your 'outside the box' JT is interesting but I really don't understand it. It did remind me of one design that was shown years ago where the oscillator had a second button cell power source that was dedicated strictly for transistor switching. The drain on the button cell was tiny and the cell could run a long time. I never built one but it looked interesting. Maybe Bill remembers it and can link to it. To me that was a good example of 'outside the box thinking' that most experimenters don't do. I know a guy who built a JT using dollar store green steel twist tie wire. How weird is that? I think he called it 'Penny'.
---Rusty
;)
-
Also another good old Lidmotor video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSpVuxD1hY4
-
Rusty:
MH:
Your 'outside the box' JT is interesting but I really don't understand it. It did remind me of one design that was shown years ago where the oscillator had a second button cell power source that was dedicated strictly for transistor switching. The drain on the button cell was tiny and the cell could run a long time. I never built one but it looked interesting. Maybe Bill remembers it and can link to it. To me that was a good example of 'outside the box thinking' that most experimenters don't do. I know a guy who built a JT using dollar store green steel twist tie wire. How weird is that? I think he called it 'Penny'.
---Rusty
It's all based on the inertia of the current flowing through the coil. Please see the attached stripped down version of the design. Let's assume that the normal current rating for the LED is 20 milliamperes. I will assume that you have a variable bench power supply so you could adjust the voltage so that you get the desired 20 miliamps of current flow.
There are coil design issues to consider. There is not too much current flow so there is a concern about how much energy you can store in the toroidal core. But you also don't want too many turns wrapped around the toroid because that will mean too much wire resistance. For the sake of argument suppose you settle on five turns of thick wire around the toroidal core.
When you manually make contact and connect the positive of the power supply to the coil/diode junction, the LED lights fully say after a half second of contact, and when you disconnect the power supply the LED remains lit for say half a second.
That means that by making intermittent contact with an alligator clip in your hand, you will see the LED remains permanently lit. So then you are just a short step away from using a signal generator and a transistor in an emitter-follower configuration to control the switching of the power supply in and out of the circuit.
The net result is this: Let's say you connect the battery into the circuit with a 10 Hz pulse train that has a 15% duty cycle. That's the "gate" that controls the "pushing" of the inductor. This will give you near-DC through the LED.
MileHigh
-
MH:
That make a lot more sense to me. Thanks. I could probably lash up something using a CMOS 555 and give it a go. I think you are right about it not beating a JT but it is something very new and different to try. The guys with the good testing tools could have some fun testing it.
Hoptoad:
Thanks for posting that old video of the two Penny oscillators having a little chat. I actually had forgotten about that one. Here is the video that has the circuit diagram and build description of the device if anyone is interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLeC9bHMeiY
-
Rusty:
I did a proto-schematic this time, see attached. I show the potentials in the loop in red when the LED is illuminated and S1 is OFF, and the potentials in brackets are for when S1 is ON and the LED is illuminated.
Note you could use one CMOS 555 to drive S1 and S2, I would suggest it be running off 4.5 or 5 volt battery source. You would drive S1 with a low-duty-cycle pulse and connect the complimentary output to S2. So when S1 is ON then S2 is OFF and vice-versa. You could use a second CMOS 555 to drive S3. S3 is your "LED flasher" that allows you to take advantage of the persistence of human vision. The two timers would be completely independent of each other. More importantly, you want S2 and S3 to be ON (CLOSED) most of the time to reduce the power drain on the main coil when the LED is not lit.
Note I show this with NPN transistors. Since they are switching only about 20 miliamperes, the base resistors can be quite high in value. However, presumably most of the time S2 and S3 will be ON, which represents a power drain to the battery powering the timing circuit. If you assume that one or more FETs or MOSFETs in parallel will give you as good or better an ON resistance, then that would probably be the better choice because there is no power drain on the timing circuit to keep a FET ON.
Note that with a big coil when the LED is flashing ON with a low duty cycle and a 30 Hz or greater repetition rate, the current through the LED will be essentially flat. By adjusting the pulse with of the CMOS 555 controlling S1 you can set the current through the LED to an optimized value. Contrast that with the attached scope shot showing the potential inefficiencies with a typical Joule Thief LED waveform.
In essence, you can play with the perceived brightness of the LED by setting the current level with the S1 duty cycle, and by playing with the S3 duty cycle and frequency.
MileHigh
-
1. Not exactly correct. At first, I thought that when you "tuned" (using a vr to the base) and the led got a lot brighter, that it was a type of resonance. I was told this back then and, it seemed to fit because you could adjust the resistance and get the led to be very bright...move the vr a tiny bit up, or down and the led dimmed. Later, we just called this the sweet spot. What I am saying is that we found that you could go past the sweet spot and have to adjust back to it. Also, about this time I learned how to properly measure the amp draw (mA draw, ha ha) in these circuits and found that you could tune the base vr to achieve a very low mA draw. You could watch the led while doing this and tune so you got a decent brightness with as low an amp draw as was possible given that circuit's parameters. Thus, you could tune for max brightness, or tune for max running time with still usable light. So, I don't think we still called it resonance, but it is possible that we did after that time.
2. Close. It was those led Christmas lights (man, what a bargain for $3/ string of 100 leds) I found that I could light 100 of them with the Fuji AA battery JT and they were very bright. Using the same circuit, I added another 100 and could not see any difference in the light output. (This is where a light meter would have been very useful back then) Stefan told me that those lights must have been in series as that is the most efficient way to hook them up like that with many leds. 300 leds made it noticeably dimmer and 400 leds brought it down to about 1/2 brightness of what the 100/200 leds were.
I know this is going back a few years (7) and my memory is not 100%. Before I did the 100 leds strings I think the most leds I lit from a JT had been 4 or 5 and that was using a "standard" JT circuit. Once I learned how to mod the Fuji, I was off to the races, ha ha. That was also the time I learned how to zap myself many times even if I was being careful. Some of those really hurt, ha ha.
Bill
Well, like I stated before, the base resistor in a Joule Thief is not supposed to be varied at all. Rather, it is supposed to be based on the EMF coming from the feedback coil and the amount of base current required to switch the transistor hard ON, which is based on the maximum current that will flow through the main coil. The real way to change the way the Joule Thief operates is to play with the size of the core, and the number of turns in the primary and the secondary. The value of the base resistor "falls out" from those and related parameters. Any astute electronics experimenter should be able to show exactly how the value of the base resistor is determined for a given standard Joule Thief configuration.
For the issue of the LEDs in series, I am close enough. If you build a Joule Thief and you are driving a single LED, and you like the illumination level, and then you try 10 LEDs in series and get the same illumination level in each individual LED, then that is telling you that you can reduce the power going into the single LED by a factor of 10. So if you are a keener and you are up to it, you can challenge yourself to figure out how to do that.
MileHigh
-
Well, like I stated before, the base resistor in a Joule Thief is not supposed to be varied at all. Rather, it is supposed to be based on the EMF coming from the feedback coil and the amount of base current required to switch the transistor hard ON, which is based on the maximum current that will flow through the main coil. The real way to change the way the Joule Thief operates is to play with the size of the core, and the number of turns in the primary and the secondary. The value of the base resistor "falls out" from those and related parameters. Any astute electronics experimenter should be able to show exactly how the value of the base resistor is determined for a given standard Joule Thief configuration.
For the issue of the LEDs in series, I am close enough. If you build a Joule Thief and you are driving a single LED, and you like the illumination level, and then you try 10 LEDs in series and get the same illumination level in each individual LED, then that is telling you that you can reduce the power going into the single LED by a factor of 10. So if you are a keener and you are up to it, you can challenge yourself to figure out how to do that.
MileHigh
But, as we all found out early on, as the voltage in the battery drops, everything that you had balanced perfectly in the JT circuit starts to drift away...so, if you tuned the base resistor for the brightest light at a battery voltage of 1 volt, as the battery drains down to say, .7 volts, your led will no longer be as bright so, you dial in the base resistance with your vr and, now you are back to having a bright led. You can do this down to where the battery is too low to switch the transistor on. This gives you the maximum light you are ever going to get from that battery using those components.
If you built the optimum JT circuit using the perfect windings and components, and I had one of my "regular" JT circuits and we both started out with a battery of 1 volt, I'll bet that when we got to .7 volts or so, I could make my led much brighter than yours by a simple tune of the base resistor...your circuit was perfect for 1 volt, .7 volts and below...not so much.
Does this make any sense?
We were seeing out nice little circuits drift all over the place as the battery was depleted so being able to adjust the base resistance really helped. Also, adding a decent size cap in series with the led helped a lot too.
Now, with the circuit you have proposed, having "constant" power to the coil would nearly eliminate this issue, or at least make it where you didn't even notice any difference in the led operation as that battery would not be allowed to go down to say .4 volts or so.
I guess what I am saying is that we learned, or think we learned, that the "best" set-up for a simple JT was a moving target that you could only "hit" in a certain range unless you could adjust your circuit along the way as the battery drained.
Bill
PS I look forward to seeing what Lidmotor does with your circuit.
-
You are so funny some times MH.
Throughout this thread,you have been stuck on one circuit that you deem to be !the! JT circuit.
Now your posting different circuit's,and telling everyone to !think outside the bloody box! lol
Fact is MH,most of us here have been doing that all along,while !you! where stuck in the box.
Brad.
Well you are wrong again Brad. A Joule Thief circuit is a blocking oscillator, and the heart of a blocking oscillator is based on energizing an inductor and then "blocking" the the inductor discharge. This is done using digital switching so that the discharge gets rerouted through an LED. The circuit that I posted has the fundamental trait of having an inductor energized and then the discharge goes through an LED and it also uses digital switching. It will not outperform a Joule Thief with respect to LED illumination time or how low a battery voltage it can work at, but it does have an architecture based around the fundamental concepts of energizing and discharging an inductor, and digital switching. That's in contrast to some kind of feedback oscillator that can also drain a battery but it has nothing to do with a blocking oscillator, energizing and then discharging an inductor, or digital switching.
You talk about being "stuck in the box," take a look at the attached image. I am willing to bet you that the issue of the potential inefficiencies in the decaying voltage/current waveform through the LED when driven by a standard Joule Thief have never been discussed by a lot of people on the forums. It's possible that I am the first person to ever raise this issue. Yet many experimenters, probably you included, have stared at this waveform blankly and never even mentioned it. Talk about being "stuck in a box" when something is staring you in the face.
So for you and others who know who they are, don't give me this bullshit that I am "stuck in a box" or "I don't do experiments" or, "I only know what is in books." I have posted several times that I estimated once that I have about 3500 hours of bench work under my belt and I assume that you are aware of that. The whining about me is just a cop-out.
The simple truth is that the kind of basic electronics stuff that you do around here, I haven't done in more than 30 years, and yet I can still whip most of your asses with one hand tied behind my back. Even now, I could literally spin circles around you on a bench and I don't even really like electronics. And to put everything in a proper context, people like Verpies and Picowatt and Poynt99 can easily spin circles around me on a bench. I am no hard-core low-level-details electronics or electromagnetics guy at all, I don't even like it particularly and I was glad that I walked away from working on a bench. I threw all my TTL and CMOS chips and components and power supplies away more than 20 years ago.
So stop your "you only know books" or "you're stuck in a box" or "you don't do real experiments" nonsense. It's just used as a fake talking point "weapon" or as a diversionary tactic when things aren't going the way you thought they were supposed to be going or you or others want to try to hurt my credibility because I am talking straight.
This would be a typical example: "Show me how you started a car with a dead battery." Response: "You don't do experiments." It's pure nonsense.
MileHigh
-
Bill:
In the whole discussion below I am talking about a normally operating Joule Thief. I am not talking about what happens at very low voltages where the Joule Thief goes into some kind of high frequency oscillation mode.
But, as we all found out early on, as the voltage in the battery drops, everything that you had balanced perfectly in the JT circuit starts to drift away...so, if you tuned the base resistor for the brightest light at a battery voltage of 1 volt, as the battery drains down to say, .7 volts, your led will no longer be as bright so, you dial in the base resistance with your vr and, now you are back to having a bright led. You can do this down to where the battery is too low to switch the transistor on. This gives you the maximum light you are ever going to get from that battery using those components.
If you built the optimum JT circuit using the perfect windings and components, and I had one of my "regular" JT circuits and we both started out with a battery of 1 volt, I'll bet that when we got to .7 volts or so, I could make my led much brighter than yours by a simple tune of the base resistor...your circuit was perfect for 1 volt, .7 volts and below...not so much.
Does this make any sense?
It makes perfect sense and there are two schools of thought here and a fundamental concept.
The fundamental concept is this: The base resistor is supposed to be a value that ensures that the digital switching operates normally. There may be a "best" base resistor value when the battery voltage is 1.5 volts and a "best" base resistor value when the battery is 0.4 volts. In both cases you have to have proper digital switching taking place and the real variable at play is how much power you burn off in the base resistor and what value helps you minimize this waste power.
However, suppose the battery is 1.5 volts and you get a very bright LED at say a low base resistor value. The Joule Thief may not be switching properly here, the whole mechanism is out of whack and it's also drawing a lot of battery current. You don't want to do that, you don't want to throw the whole circuit out of whack.
The first school of thought goes like this: Design a Joule Thief for mass production with a fixed base resistor. In that case you pick the right "compromise" base resistor value that will work well for a battery voltage range from 0.3 to 1.5 volts. The assumption is that the switching is always normal during the full battery voltage range. Yes, the LED gets dimmer as the battery voltage gets low, that's life.
The second school of thought is that you might indeed get better illumination performance if the base resistor is adjusted at low battery voltage. In theory you would be getting better timing where you energize the coil longer before the switching occurs. The caveat is that the Joule Thief circuit is still switching normally. I am purely speculating here though, and some testing would have to be done to confirm this. Can changing the base resistor value at low voltages change the timing so that the LED gets brighter but the circuit is still switching properly, or, are you getting a brighter LED because the whole circuit is out of whack and sucking power like crazy? I don't know the answer to this.
The way I think is the from the first school of thought. You can indeed make a wise choice for the value of the base resistor such that the Joule Thief switches normally during the full battery voltage range of 0.3 to 1.5 volts. The fact that the LED gets dimmer as the battery voltage drops is fully expected and it is just a fact of life for a simple Joule Thief circuit.
MileHigh
-
Well you are wrong again Brad. A Joule Thief circuit is a blocking oscillator, and the heart of a blocking oscillator is based on energizing an inductor and then "blocking" the the inductor discharge. This is done using digital switching so that the discharge gets rerouted through an LED. The circuit that I posted has the fundamental trait of having an inductor energized and then the discharge goes through an LED and it also uses digital switching. It will not outperform a Joule Thief with respect to LED illumination time or how low a battery voltage it can work at, but it does have an architecture based around the fundamental concepts of energizing and discharging an inductor, and digital switching. That's in contrast to some kind of feedback oscillator that can also drain a battery but it has nothing to do with a blocking oscillator, energizing and then discharging an inductor, or digital switching.
You talk about being "stuck in the box," take a look at the attached image. I am willing to bet you that the issue of the potential inefficiencies in the decaying voltage/current waveform through the LED when driven by a standard Joule Thief have never been discussed by a lot of people on the forums. It's possible that I am the first person to ever raise this issue. Yet many experimenters, probably you included, have stared at this waveform blankly and never even mentioned it. Talk about being "stuck in a box" when something is staring you in the face.
So for you and others who know who they are, don't give me this bullshit that I am "stuck in a box" or "I don't do experiments" or, "I only know what is in books." I have posted several times that I estimated once that I have about 3500 hours of bench work under my belt and I assume that you are aware of that. The whining about me is just a cop-out.
The simple truth is that the kind of basic electronics stuff that you do around here, I haven't done in more than 30 years, and yet I can still whip most of your asses with one hand tied behind my back. Even now, I could literally spin circles around you on a bench and I don't even really like electronics. And to put everything in a proper context, people like Verpies and Picowatt and Poynt99 can easily spin circles around me on a bench. I am no hard-core low-level-details electronics or electromagnetics guy at all, I don't even like it particularly and I was glad that I walked away from working on a bench. I threw all my TTL and CMOS chips and components and power supplies away more than 20 years ago.
So stop your "you only know books" or "you're stuck in a box" or "you don't do real experiments" nonsense. It's just used as a fake talking point "weapon" or as a diversionary tactic when things aren't going the way you thought they were supposed to be going or you or others want to try to hurt my credibility because I am talking straight.
This would be a typical example: "Show me how you started a car with a dead battery." Response: "You don't do experiments." It's pure nonsense.
MileHigh
And yet the diamond needle dosnt destroy the soft vinyl record like science says it should.
How is it that the hardest substance on earth dosnt just cut straight through those smale plastic bumps in the vinyl tracks?. Over and over you can play your record's without damage from a material that cuts the hardest of steels.--?one for the books MH.
So many things that good old science has the answers for,and yet never produced. 9 times out of 10,it comes from people that are no ruled by book's. For example-the plane. We all know that it is scientifically possible ,but the science guru's never came up with the plane--powered flight. It cam from a couple of brothers that owned a bicycle shop,that said--yes we can. They were the guys that did the job through experiments,and trial and error--not from book's.
In fact,most great discoveries came from trial and error,and the science to explain it came after.
The good old bumble bee was flying long before science worked out how it could do it--this was after some decided that it was an aerodynamic impossibility-now they know better.
There are many thing's left that science and books are yet to explain,and many of those discoveries will be made by those not ruled by book's,or some one elses science and law's.
Funny thing about scientific laws MH,is that they really are not laws at all--there a !best guess! based around only what we have observed so far. These are man's law's im talking about,not those set by nature it self.
If we are to stick with the book's MH,then there is no stone left unturned. But we here,and on other forums,choose to turn over the stones that are still face down. In the next ten years,i feel that you will see first hand how obsolete your books are,and the new discoveries will once again,be made by those that follow no such rules.
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475491#msg475491 date=1456418556]
Bill:
The way I think is the from the first school of thought. You can indeed make a wise choice for the value of the base resistor such that the Joule Thief switches normally during the full battery voltage range of 0.3 to 1.5 volts. The fact that the LED gets dimmer as the battery voltage drops is fully expected and it is just a fact of life for a simple Joule Thief circuit.
MileHigh
So show us your smart's MH--design a simple circuit that lowers the base resistance as the voltage in the battery drop's. You pride your self on bench time and knowledge,so show us some of that smarts. You draw up the circuit,and i'll spend the time and money putting it together,and testing it. I'll post the results and video's here.
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475491#msg475491 date=1456418556]
Bill:
MileHigh
So show us your smart's MH--design a simple circuit that lowers the base resistance as the voltage in the battery drop's. You pride your self on bench time and knowledge,so show us some of that smarts. You draw up the circuit,and i'll spend the time and money putting it together,and testing it. I'll post the results and video's here.
Brad
While im at work, a lot of the time my mind is on this stuff. You and I are on the same plane it seems. I had thought of the 'exact' same thing. ;) To have the base control adjust as the batt voltage goes down. Not sure of a self adjusting resistor but using another transistor(circuit) configured to do the job.
Good thought bud. ;D
Mags
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475491#msg475491 date=1456418556]
Bill:
MileHigh
So show us your smart's MH--design a simple circuit that lowers the base resistance as the voltage in the battery drop's. You pride your self on bench time and knowledge,so show us some of that smarts. You draw up the circuit,and i'll spend the time and money putting it together,and testing it. I'll post the results and video's here.
Brad
I had thought about this as well but dismissed it as I "assumed" the resistance adjusting circuit would waste more energy than it was worth. Maybe I was wrong?
Bill
-
MileHigh
So show us your smart's MH--design a simple circuit that lowers the base resistance as the voltage in the battery drop's. You pride your self on bench time and knowledge,so show us some of that smarts. You draw up the circuit,and i'll spend the time and money putting it together,and testing it. I'll post the results and video's here.
Brad
it is a difference in thinking. or perspective, point of view, etc.
in one side, you can preserve the AC wave properties of the inductor.
on the other, you can simply switch digitally, and the whole circuit acts similar to a simple boost converter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter)
while, yes you can test this and it will give some results, (ooh, the LED lights up!!)
it will only give insight on one way of thinking.
to understand how a battery voltage can be increased to light up an LED, you can look for those properties that do so.
To understand what goes on inside a Joule Thief,...
throw the LED out the window..... it causes more problems with analysis than it benefits from the light it produces.
the Joule Thief "does" a lot more things than just boost the voltage from a DC source, to turn on a light emitting diode.
now,- MH may provide us with a circuit to "test".
But let us "test" a JT circuit, with no diode.
and let us test it using a single inductive loop, wrapped around the ferrite (preferably opposite the JT primary coil).
one turn, to the scope.
This gives us a representation of the magnetic waveform through the ferrite.
In this manner, the circuit can be viewed from the perspective of the inductor, while resistance is changed at the base.
This can be expanded by multiple turns on the secondary winding, to further boost the voltage, and impedance in the load-side of the circuit.
This separates any load, to the output side of the transformer. So only the inductive properties affect the operating frequency.
-
there is only one effective "school of thought".
it is that which is taught in schools
transistors "switching properly"
inductors in the "normal range of operation"
we all have gone over the mathematics of recent days,
we know the circumstances where this "school of thought" explicitly instructs us NOT to go.
Why? What happens when we go there?
capacitors explode, wires burn up, resistors, diodes and transistors fail.
all this happens in circuits that were designed to be well within the tolerances of the components involved.
There are reasons we are taught NOT to do these things.
I will not ignorantly claim these energies to be "overunity" by any definition of the term.
by the contrary, all of the energy involved, we ourselves put into the circuit.
the difference in this "school of thought", is that the normal operation of a circuit,
we throw it all away.
it is our practice to dump everything to circuit ground.
not to loop it back around through itself.
here is one example of a different "school of thought".
this circuit as
proposed by one of our peers, for analysis of the feedback loop.
was presented to me recently.
the effects of this are most prominently demonstrated
as the timing through the feedback loop approaches a phase balance with the input frequency.
the results are quite interesting
[note that this is half-wave AC rectification, and behaves quite differently than its Pulsed DC square wave digital counterpart]
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475491#msg475491 date=1456418556]
MileHigh
So show us your smart's MH--design a simple circuit that lowers the base resistance as the voltage in the battery drop's. You pride your self on bench time and knowledge,so show us some of that smarts. You draw up the circuit,and i'll spend the time and money putting it together,and testing it. I'll post the results and video's here.
Brad
You have to back up first. Who says that you need a variable resistor for a Joule Thief? I am not aware of that requirement. The only thing that I am aware of is that it was done all the time in the old days of this thread, presumably without any serious circuit analysis or scope work done to see what was happening. It was just an anecdotal observation that the LED changed in intensity when you changed the base resistance.
You are suggesting it so it suggests a question for you: Why do you want to have a variable base resistor in a standard Joule Thief?
With respect to a voltage-controlled resistor, I did what anybody would do. I did a Google search. I saw techniques that used an FET in its linear range which seems reasonable. I saw more sophisticated techniques using operational amplifiers and others using opto-isolators. However, there are going to be constraints and limitations with each one of these techniques, and it's undetermined if one of these methods would plug into a standard Joule Thief. What about power consumption issues?
So for starters, how about backing up. Why do you want to have a variable base resistor in a standard Joule Thief?
MileHigh
-
I had thought about this as well but dismissed it as I "assumed" the resistance adjusting circuit would waste more energy than it was worth. Maybe I was wrong?
Bill
if the inductance and impedance factors are "just right" within the oscillator,
it does not need to be adjusted very often. (depending on the load).
superbrights seem to give the best light -to- energy ratios, which lead to longer run times.
it seems as though the older LED technology uses a lot more energy to produce the same amount of "light".
if it takes say 6 older LEDs to equal one superbright of the same lumens. then you compare the current draw through all 6 in series, or parallel.
compare to the current draw through the superbright, we get more "light" for our $
I speak of light , lightly.,.. as I am currently experimenting along theories that state there is no quanity of a photon.
since a single photon can diverge, each photon can be represented as an infinite number of photons?
as well as that an electron can emit an infinite number of photons during its' existence.
-
And yet the diamond needle dosnt destroy the soft vinyl record like science says it should.
How is it that the hardest substance on earth dosnt just cut straight through those smale plastic bumps in the vinyl tracks?. Over and over you can play your record's without damage from a material that cuts the hardest of steels.--?one for the books MH.
So many things that good old science has the answers for,and yet never produced. 9 times out of 10,it comes from people that are no ruled by book's. For example-the plane. We all know that it is scientifically possible ,but the science guru's never came up with the plane--powered flight. It cam from a couple of brothers that owned a bicycle shop,that said--yes we can. They were the guys that did the job through experiments,and trial and error--not from book's.
In fact,most great discoveries came from trial and error,and the science to explain it came after.
The good old bumble bee was flying long before science worked out how it could do it--this was after some decided that it was an aerodynamic impossibility-now they know better.
There are many thing's left that science and books are yet to explain,and many of those discoveries will be made by those not ruled by book's,or some one elses science and law's.
Funny thing about scientific laws MH,is that they really are not laws at all--there a !best guess! based around only what we have observed so far. These are man's law's im talking about,not those set by nature it self.
If we are to stick with the book's MH,then there is no stone left unturned. But we here,and on other forums,choose to turn over the stones that are still face down. In the next ten years,i feel that you will see first hand how obsolete your books are,and the new discoveries will once again,be made by those that follow no such rules.
Brad
These are just a bunch of tired old cliches that aren't true Brad. The needle and the record player? A materials scientist or a mechanical engineer could explain that to you in intimate detail. The most basic fact is that the needle is not sharp and doesn't cut into the vinyl. Clearly the vinyl is strong enough to sustain the typically one gram force of the needle that rides on two tiny spots of vinyl as the groove moves past. You can look it all up in books. The Wright brothers were science gurus and used the scientific method to successfully engineer their airplane. They did serious research and experiments, you are grossly underestimating how they achieved their goal. The bumblebee is just another cliche, and I think that somebody even ran the computational fluid dynamics on a supercomputer to "prove" that the bumblebee could fly. The algorithms and the number crunching simply weren't around to do that decades ago.
Most of the laws really are laws, and they are Nature's laws. The laws that govern how circuits work are basically the same laws of physics that people are familiar with in the physical world. I am just talking basic stuff, not relativistic stuff.
There are also new books being written all the time about new stuff. That's why you can go out and buy an 8-terrabyte hard drive and turn your vast collection of 6000 Blu-Rays and DVDs into files and put them on your hard drive.
Tons of new stuff will be discovered in the future, and new laws may get written and even old laws may be overthrown or tweaked. However, when I spin up a flywheel the laws that govern/describe its operation are not ever going to change. Same thing applies to a coil.
MileHigh
-
Smoky1:
in one side, you can preserve the AC wave properties of the inductor.
on the other, you can simply switch digitally, and the whole circuit acts similar to a simple boost converter.
Look at the basic Joule Thief schematic again. If it's not switching then you are suggesting that a certain value of base resistance will keep the transistor partially conducting in some kind of meta-stable oscillation. It would be like when you lean back in your chair and you find yourself at that balance point where you don't know if you are going to fall backwards or not. Your arms and legs start to wiggle around as you struggle in your own uncomfortable state of meta-stability hoping that you fall forward and recover equilibrium and all goes back to normal.
Look at the L1 coil. What's going to happen? The L1 coil is going to be "yanked down" (to ground) by a meta-stable twitching transistor with what looks like a twitching resistance to ground. L1 is going to see what effectively looks like a meta-stable AC "yank down" superimposed on some DC "yank down."
Big deal, the L1 has one side tied to +1.5 volts and the other side of L1 is connected to a twitching transistor. So it will respond to that stimulation like any coil will respond to some kind of signal applied to it. It's not quite a conventional AC impedance response, it's more of a response to a meta-stable wobbling DC with another meta-stable wobbling AC superimposed on it. Or more accurately you can say there is a DC voltage source on one side of the coil and a funky skittish meta-stable variable resistance to ground on the other side of the coil. SO WHAT? A crazy skittish meta-stable resistor is trying to induce current to flow through the L1 coil. Are you expecting the parting of the Red Sea or something?
In your scenario the L2 signal that drives the base resistor is just the inverse of the skittish meta-stable voltage seen at the bottom of the L1 coil. That is effectively the "French tickler feedback" that keeps the transistor in some kind of spastic meta-stability.
The whole "meta-stable transistor in a quivering Joule Thief like some spastic guy permanently balanced on a backward leaning chair" really means nothing. Basic circuit analysis can explain it all. There is no mystery to uncover, no mystique, no "hidden knowledge that 'they don't want to teach you.'"
It's just a spastic Joule Thief tweaked into a meta-stable elliptic seizure because it is being tickled that does nothing special at all. Will the meta-stability get stable and settle down into a "resonance" oscillation frequency. It might do that you never know. But SO WHAT? What's so special about a transistor that is varying at a stable oscillation frequency because of feedback to the base such that it that it effectively energizes an inductor with a regular "yank down" and when the effective resistance of the transistor "oscillates high" some of the energy in the L1 coil gets dumped into the LED to light it up?
Some current will get induced into the L1 coil, and when the spastic transistor is at a temporary high resistance, some of the current from the coil will flow through the LED and light it up. Then the spastic transistor will start to conduct again, the LED will shut off, and more current will be induced into the coil. The process will repeat itself over and over which will effectively pulse the LED ON and OFF at a high frequency. Is there something profound happening here? The answer is no.
MileHigh
-
But let us "test" a JT circuit, with no diode.
I will just repeat what I said before: With no diode the L1 coil will simply slam a short pulse of current through the collector-emitter junction of the transistor. There will be a very short high-voltage pulse of current. L1 will force current through the presumably switched-off transistor.
Now, this will presumably mess up the normal timing of the Joule Thief where there is an orderly feedback signal back to L2 during the normal discharge of L1 through the LED. Will it still undergo a normal switching cycle when you remove the LED? I think the switching will stop completely therefore what I said in the first paragraph is probably more academic than real.
-
Smoky1:
Now I am going to play devil's advocate:
It's just a spastic Joule Thief tweaked into a meta-stable elliptic seizure because it is being tickled that does nothing special at all. Will the meta-stability get stable and settle down into a "resonance" oscillation frequency. It might do that you never know. But SO WHAT? What's so special about a transistor that is varying at a stable oscillation frequency because of feedback to the base such that it that it effectively energizes an inductor with a regular "yank down" and when the effective resistance of the transistor "oscillates high" some of the energy in the L1 coil gets dumped into the LED to light it up?
So let's assume for the sake of argument that you get better run times for the LED in this stable resonance/oscillation mode. It's a definite possibility, you never know.
So let's go back to something I said: The transistor briefly "oscillates down in resistance" and conducts and when that happens the LED goes off and the coil starts to energize. Then the transistor briefly "oscillates up in resistance" and the coil dumps some energy into the LED to light it up.
So you energize the coil in "small sips" and then the coil dumps those small sips of energy into the LED through "resonance."
When you strip that down to the bare bones, it's just like a DC-to-DC converter that pulses a coil for a very short time at a fairly high frequency and then dumps that energy into an output capacitor. I think a typical pulsing frequency is around 60 kHz and they only pulse the coil for a fraction of a time constant for the maximum efficiency (reducing i-squared-R losses.)
So just like you can buy a small very high efficiency DC-to-DC converter that switches at 60 kHz, you can buy a small very high efficiency DC-to-current converter that switches at a high frequency and the current output can be set to drive an LED.
So perhaps behind all the smoke and mirrors about a "resonant Joule Thief" the basic operating principle is essentially very similar to how a DC-to-DC converter operates. The fundamental principle is better efficiency through very small sips of energy that are then sent to the LED. This reduces resistive losses in the main L1 coil.
MileHigh
-
Smoky1:
Now I am going to play devil's advocate:
So let's assume for the sake of argument that you get better run times for the LED in this stable resonance/oscillation mode. It's a definite possibility, you never know.
So let's go back to something I said: The transistor briefly "oscillates down in resistance" and conducts and when that happens the LED goes off and the coil starts to energize. Then the transistor briefly "oscillates up in resistance" and the coil dumps some energy into the LED to light it up.
So you energize the coil in "small sips" and then the coil dumps those small sips of energy into the LED through "resonance."
When you strip that down to the bare bones, it's just like a DC-to-DC converter that pulses a coil for a very short time at a fairly high frequency and then dumps that energy into an output capacitor. I think a typical pulsing frequency is around 60 kHz and they only pulse the coil for a fraction of a time constant for the maximum efficiency (reducing i-squared-R losses.)
So just like you can buy a small very high efficiency DC-to-DC converter that switches at 60 kHz, you can buy a small very high efficiency DC-to-current converter that switches at a high frequency and the current output can be set to drive an LED.
So perhaps behind all the smoke and mirrors about a "resonant Joule Thief" the basic operating principle is essentially very similar to how a DC-to-DC converter operates. The fundamental principle is better efficiency through very small sips of energy that are then sent to the LED. This reduces resistive losses in the main L1 coil.
MileHigh
MH:
Now you are talking. You see, back in the "old days" us JT experimenters were told that this circuit is nothing new and does nothing unknown...or words to that effect. My response was always something like....OK, then if this is known, why do we not see this used commercially then? Because, at that time, members were really lighting some leds up for a very long time on a single AA battery.
Well, it was not too long after that when we began to see led garden lights that were solar powered. Remember when those first appeared? Of course, we could not help but take a few apart to see what was happening there and, low and behold, there was a chip that when we looked at the specs, was basically a solid state JT circuit. Then, some companies (China, of course) began to hide this chip under a blob of gray epoxy.
Now, I am not making any claims that our researching and playing with the JT circuit led to their commercial use but, the timing was interesting in that it removed my argument I used with you expert electronics guys.
So, I began to research some chip JT's and bought about 40 of them, along with some others and, they do work quite well. I also have a few dc to dc converters that perform well as a JT circuit.
I was corresponding with MarkE about the direction my interests had taken and he said he was working on something that was very efficient using a new chip. Well, about 3 weeks prior to his death, he pm'd me with the info on that chip and I am going to get a few to play with. I still have his pm saved here.
I know that you have always liked the good old 555 timer but now, as far as I can tell, we have some new technology that is better and more efficient (for this application) and will do everything we were doing in a much smaller package without winding any wire, ha ha.
So, I think it is a good idea to research what is now available and we can test these new chips. I do not know this for a fact but, I suspect that somewhere in that silicon there is something that adjusts the base voltage as the input voltage drops..... The tech for those garden lights is now getting a bit older but really, I have to say that for what they do, they do it very, very well. Also, I love how the prices have dropped since their introduction. Now, you can get an led garden light, complete with solar cell and charging circuitry and JT chip...including battery, and led, and an attractive case for less than $3.00. It was not that long ago we were paying more than that for a single led, ha ha.
So, we shall see what happens.
Bill
-
Self charging JT ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx3bpSKRuF0
Brad
-
Self charging JT ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx3bpSKRuF0
Brad
hmm,.. I wonder what would happen if you had a couple thousand of these....
-
@ Bill
the "timing" was also interesting with the LED lightbulbs, and several other places JT's are now found :)
it could make a fairly convincing argument that these did not exist before the JouleThief fad occurred.
-
@ Bill
the "timing" was also interesting with the LED lightbulbs, and several other places JT's are now found :)
it could make a fairly convincing argument that these did not exist before the JouleThief fad occurred.
Blocking oscillators have been around since the 70's.
The great John Bedini was not the first to build/design a transistor switched pulse motor either--he just tried to lay claim to that.
Brad
-
Self charging JT ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx3bpSKRuF0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx3bpSKRuF0)
Brad
Are you sure about that? The signal you show is 300 millivolts peak-to-peak. That's lower than a diode threshold. Have you traced a rectified version of the signal to the battery if that is indeed possible? Is it possible that your supercapacitor is self-charging?
-
Are you sure about that? The signal you show is 300 millivolts peak-to-peak. That's lower than a diode threshold. Have you traced a rectified version of the signal to the battery if that is indeed possible? Is it possible that your supercapacitor is self-charging?
Well MH,im going to say im a bit !er yea ???! on this one.
First up-and im not sure on this,or why-->the EM wave form from the radio station is all above the ) volt line-all DC,as can be seen on the scope shot below. I have dropped the 0v line by 2 divisions.
Second-i have ran it through 12+ cycles now,and it still keeps charging.
Third-i has placed a clip lead across the cap,and drained it completely. When the shorting lead is disconnected,the cap only recovers to around 12mV. But once i hook the circuit back up,it starts charging again,and will keep rising to about 220mV,and then the circuit starts to self oscillate again--and the cycle continue's.
The circuit is as below,and the scope placement that is showing the waveform on the scope.
Are AM radio waves a modulated DC wave,or are they a modulated AC wave? If the wave is DC modulated,and we have a change in amplitude(change in time),then we need no rectification,as it is already a DC wave form--an AC wave form with a DC offset?.
Other than that,im not sure. The only thing left to rectify the wave form is the transistor-some how?.
Brad
P.S
In regards to your question-have i traced a rectified version to the battery(cap in this case).
As you can see in the schematic,the scope is across the cap/coils series.
Oh,and the scope is inverted.
-
Maybe take the antenna off your electronics kit and throw the circuit in the microwave.
-
Brad:
This is what I have been trying to do for years with zero success. I don't have a strong enough AM station near me. Congratulations on doing it. Please make sure that you are not getting any energy from the scope ground lead A ways back a bunch of us tried to replicate Dr. Stiffler's PSEC only to find out the power came from the scope ground he had hooked up. :( To really convince people what you say is actually happening you will probably have to take the whole setup outside. I hate to say that but I see it coming. If you are getting that much energy into the system without a big/long antenna then you have stumbled onto something wonderful. Frankly even if the energy is coming from somewhere else I would like to know about it anyway.
MH:
I have been looking at that 'out of the box' circuit you presented and backed away from it. Too much work and not enough fun factor for a hobby guy like me with poor test equipment. I did try something a little different based on it though. I built a simple flip flop circuit and drove two separate NPN transistors off that. The NPNs pulsed two 1mH chokes with leds across them backwards to make the light. I powered the flip flop with a 3v coin cell and the inductor circuit with AA. I made an interesting experiment but was horribly inefficient.
Here it is and what it looked like on the scope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X_g52LsVnU
-
Brad:
This is what I have been trying to do for years with zero success. I don't have a strong enough AM station near me. Congratulations on doing it. Please make sure that you are not getting any energy from the scope ground lead A ways back a bunch of us tried to replicate Dr. Stiffler's PSEC only to find out the power came from the scope ground he had hooked up. :( To really convince people what you say is actually happening you will probably have to take the whole setup outside. I hate to say that but I see it coming. If you are getting that much energy into the system without a big/long antenna then you have stumbled onto something wonderful. Frankly even if the energy is coming from somewhere else I would like to know about it anyway.
MH:
I have been looking at that 'out of the box' circuit you presented and backed away from it. Too much work and not enough fun factor for a hobby guy like me with poor test equipment. I did try something a little different based on it though. I built a simple flip flop circuit and drove two separate NPN transistors off that. The NPNs pulsed two 100 mH chokes with leds across them backwards to make the light. I powered the flip flop with a 3v coin cell and the inductor circuit with AA. I made an interesting experiment but was horribly inefficient.
Here it is and what it looked like on the scope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X_g52LsVnU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X_g52LsVnU)
Rusty:
Yes, that was my concern. Maybe there is a "better way" to do this but it is beyond anything I would know how to do.
Bill
-
http://www.ktvn.com/story/31260413/13-year-old-creates-energy-harvesting-device
Watch the video.
Comments?
The harvester conducts radio waves, thermal, and static energy, and turns it into electricity.
"This wire takes energy from the air."
And the inside the coffee can,
"We turn it from AC to DC."
-
Brad:
First up-and im not sure on this,or why-->the EM wave form from the radio station is all above the ) volt line-all DC,as can be seen on the scope shot below. I have dropped the 0v line by 2 divisions.
It's quite obvious why there is a DC offset on the waveform, you should look for it.
Second-i have ran it through 12+ cycles now,and it still keeps charging.
Third-i has placed a clip lead across the cap,and drained it completely. When the shorting lead is disconnected,the cap only recovers to around 12mV. But once i hook the circuit back up,it starts charging again,and will keep rising to about 220mV,and then the circuit starts to self oscillate again--and the cycle continue's.
I am not sure that you can rule out self-charging yet. I am not sure how it works, I read about it once but I forget. If it is related to ionized air molecules both dropping off electrons on one terminal and picking up electrons on another terminal then perhaps you need to have the cap terminals connected to two 12-inch lengths of bare wire that run parallel to each other to facilitate the self charging. That might emulate the amount of wire in the setup. I am taking a guess here.
Are AM radio waves a modulated DC wave,or are they a modulated AC wave?
There is no such thing as a "DC wave." It's an amplitude modulated AC wave and what is really cool is that you can see the amplitude modulation right on your scope waveform. I am assuming that you are fairly close to the transmitter, perhaps less than 10 kilometers? Just a wild guess.
In regards to your question-have i traced a rectified version to the battery(cap in this case).
That would be interesting to see. If you replace the cap with a 100K resistor I am assuming that you will see something across the resistor.
MileHigh
-
Bill:
What I have learned with this 'hobby' is that you have to be very honest with yourself. What is possible at my level of understanding and ability is perhaps not what can be done by someone else with better understanding and equipment. In order to keep the hobby fun and interesting I can't take on projects that are over my head that may or may not work.
I'm sure that there will be better JT type LED drivers developed but probably not off some guy's kitchen table using a Harbor Freight multi meter.
--Rusty
-
Rusty:
I have been looking at that 'out of the box' circuit you presented and backed away from it. Too much work and not enough fun factor for a hobby guy like me with poor test equipment. I did try something a little different based on it though. I built a simple flip flop circuit and drove two separate NPN transistors off that. The NPNs pulsed two 1mH chokes with leds across them backwards to make the light. I powered the flip flop with a 3v coin cell and the inductor circuit with AA. I made an interesting experiment but was horribly inefficient.
Here it is and what it looked like on the scope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X_g52LsVnU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X_g52LsVnU)
No problem. For what it's worth, I thought of the perfect "big fat low resistance toroidal coil" to do the experiment in one's head. Think of a surplus store big step-down transformer, a biggie the size of two fists. It could be 120 to 12 volts or even preferably 120 to 6 volts. The low-voltage coil would potentially make for a viable coil. You can't forget that regular laminated transformers are the same as toroidal transformers.
Even with a big fat transformer as the big fat inductor, there are no guarantees that it would even work as a kind of "concept car." Now, if next month commercially available high-temperature super-conducting wire becomes available, then we might really have something to talk about.
MileHigh
-
I like this one https://vimeo.com/57142186
-
http://www.ktvn.com/story/31260413/13-year-old-creates-energy-harvesting-device (http://www.ktvn.com/story/31260413/13-year-old-creates-energy-harvesting-device)
Watch the video.
Comments?
Thats and impressive demo lighting those 12v led strips, of which I have 3 rolls of here. The strips have current limiting resistors between every few leds, like say 3 for blue or white in series with a resistor.
if it is radio freq he is absorbing, looks maybe am. Or possibly 60hz? Fm wouldnt have coils like that I think.
Thanks for posting.
Mags
-
Thats and impressive demo lighting those 12v led strips, of which I have 3 rolls of here. The strips have current limiting resistors between every few leds, like say 3 for blue or white in series with a resistor.
if it is radio freq he is absorbing, looks maybe am. Or possibly 60hz? Fm wouldnt have coils like that I think.
Thanks for posting.
Mags
In fact, that looks like enough to power a cell phone, according to the strip around his brother there. Might not be 2A like many newer chargers, but could charge probably slow charge one from what I know.
Mags
-
In fact, that looks like enough to power a cell phone, according to the strip around his brother there. Might not be 2A like many newer chargers, but could charge probably slow charge one from what I know.
Mags
They did not say what was in the coffee can in addition to the rectifier. My guess is a capacitor that was charged over an extended period of time and then discharged in order to power the LED's. A little bit of a party trick but not exactly a lie the LED's were being powered by harvested energy.
-
He should go beat up Clock Boy and then sail off in a balloon.
-
Self charging JT ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx3bpSKRuF0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx3bpSKRuF0)
Brad
Hi Brad,
From your video it seems the variable capacitor is not used for tuning the main coil on the ferrite rod antenna: I think you would pick-up more power from the AM radio station by resonating that coil at the 963 kHz (or so) AM broadcast frequency.
Also, the direction or orientation of the ferrite rod with respect to the location of the AM transmitter also counts in the amplitude of the received signal, you surely know this. You may wish to connect the variable capacitor in parallel with the coil and find the maximum sinewave peak to peak amplitude at 963 kHz, watching the amplitude on your scope, while turning the board with the ferrite rod on it also for maximum amplitude. Sorry if you have done this or are aware of all this, you have not mentioned or showed these yet.
Gyula
-
He should go beat up Clock Boy and then sail off in a balloon.
I get how the Radio Shack clock shoved in a case works but what does the spoon stuck in a tripod do ?
-
I get how the Radio Shack clock shoved in a case works but what does the spoon stuck in a tripod do ?
That is the remote detonation device reflector. It is not on the original schematic.
Bill
-
Brad:
This is what I have been trying to do for years with zero success. I don't have a strong enough AM station near me. Congratulations on doing it. Please make sure that you are not getting any energy from the scope ground lead A ways back a bunch of us tried to replicate Dr. Stiffler's PSEC only to find out the power came from the scope ground he had hooked up. :( To really convince people what you say is actually happening you will probably have to take the whole setup outside. I hate to say that but I see it coming. If you are getting that much energy into the system without a big/long antenna then you have stumbled onto something wonderful. Frankly even if the energy is coming from somewhere else I would like to know about it anyway.
MH:
I have been looking at that 'out of the box' circuit you presented and backed away from it. Too much work and not enough fun factor for a hobby guy like me with poor test equipment. I did try something a little different based on it though. I built a simple flip flop circuit and drove two separate NPN transistors off that. The NPNs pulsed two 1mH chokes with leds across them backwards to make the light. I powered the flip flop with a 3v coin cell and the inductor circuit with AA. I made an interesting experiment but was horribly inefficient.
Here it is and what it looked like on the scope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X_g52LsVnU
Hi Rusty.
I will look into it further for sure. I did think about the scope ground,but it is just a common ground,and i also have it hooked to the positive side of the cap,with the scope channel inverted.
That particular radio station is only about 4km away from me,and the reason it is the strongest signal in my area. That little electronics kit allows you to build a fox hole type radio receiver,and it works very well. Going to go down to my local electronics store today,and see if i can buy one of these ferrit core aerials today,and build it on a plexiglass board--just for clarity.
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475491#msg475491 date=1456418556]
MileHigh
So show us your smart's MH--design a simple circuit that lowers the base resistance as the voltage in the battery drop's. You pride your self on bench time and knowledge,so show us some of that smarts. You draw up the circuit,and i'll spend the time and money putting it together,and testing it. I'll post the results and video's here.
Brad
You have to back up first. Who says that you need a variable resistor for a Joule Thief? I am not aware of that requirement. The only thing that I am aware of is that it was done all the time in the old days of this thread, presumably without any serious circuit analysis or scope work done to see what was happening. It was just an anecdotal observation that the LED changed in intensity when you changed the base resistance.
You are suggesting it so it suggests a question for you: Why do you want to have a variable base resistor in a standard Joule Thief?
No response on this and I am not surprised. This is an example of leading yourselves down a garden path. You talk about varying the base resistor "just because" and you can't actually explain why you want to do it.
Likewise, I will predict with high confidence that nothing will come from a "resonant Joule thief." It's another idea where you can't actually say why you want to do it. I speculated that you might get better performance because you may be emulating how a standard DC-to-DC converter works, which means that "resonance" has absolutely nothing to do with it at all. The silence was deafening.
There is no point in approaching electronics like this, sort of like alchemists. You need to approach electronics like chemists.
-
No response on this and I am not surprised. This is an example of leading yourselves down a garden path. You talk about varying the base resistor "just because" and you can't actually explain why you want to do it.
Likewise, I will predict with high confidence that nothing will come from a "resonant Joule thief." It's another idea where you can't actually say why you want to do it. I speculated that you might get better performance because you may be emulating how a standard DC-to-DC converter works, which means that "resonance" has absolutely nothing to do with it at all. The silence was deafening.
There is no point in approaching electronics like this, sort of like alchemists. You need to approach electronics like chemists.
Do you need an answer to understand the need for a variable base resistor MH?-or will your batteries simply remain at the rated voltage of 1.5 volt's?.
That was a bit of a silly statement by your self MH.
Asking why the need for resonance is also a silly question.
Try pushing a child on a swing both in and out of resonance,and see which uses more energy for less motion. Why can you jump higher on a trampoline with less effort,than you can on the ground with more effort?.
MH-are you board again?.
Brad
-
Do you need an answer to understand the need for a variable base resistor MH?-or will your batteries simply remain at the rated voltage of 1.5 volt's?.
That was a bit of a silly statement by your self MH.
Asking why the need for resonance is also a silly question.
Try pushing a child on a swing both in and out of resonance,and see which uses more energy for less motion. Why can you jump higher on a trampoline with less effort,than you can on the ground with more effort?.
MH-are you board again?.
Brad
For example. If a person of say 100lb is on a particular playground swing, and say it takes 2 seconds to swing a full 'resonant' cycle, then measure how much energy it takes to keep that cycle going. Now try to apply input energy to make that same person on the same swing complete that same cycle in .5 seconds. It will definitely take more energy in to run that swing at .5 second cycles because there would need to be a constant control from the input, of which in my mind would be a tremendous amount of energy to accomplish compared to the input of the 'resonant' 2 second cycle. Or even a 5 second cycle. The input would have to apply some kind of 'constant control over the course of the cycle, including 2 places in the cycle of braking and 2 places in the cycle of pushing up from the low position, once for each direction.
It is very clear that the input energy at 2 seconds per cycle would be minimal compared to forcing a .5 second or a 5 second cycle
To repeatedly hear that operating anything at resonance has no advantages over operating everything out of resonance, sounds a bit out of fiction instead of reality.
Like how many ways can it be described. Can an am radio pull in music from 910khz while tuned to 1200khz? How about when the radio is right next to the transmitter of the 910khz station? It takes a lot more input to do such a thing. When I was a kid with my radioshack electronics kits, if I had made an am radio with an audio amp circuit to hear it better, and tuned into a very local station, the audio was loud and clear. But even if I just put an ant on the input of the amp alone, I could hear the same radio station, but it wasnt nearly as loud as with the am tuner connected.
Mags
-
Do you need an answer to understand the need for a variable base resistor MH?-or will your batteries simply remain at the rated voltage of 1.5 volt's?.
That was a bit of a silly statement by your self MH.
Asking why the need for resonance is also a silly question.
Try pushing a child on a swing both in and out of resonance,and see which uses more energy for less motion. Why can you jump higher on a trampoline with less effort,than you can on the ground with more effort?.
Brad
No, that won't cut it Brad. Don't try to play the "It's so obvious that I don't have to explain it" game. Right now you are the one making the silly statements. The Joule Thief is an electronic circuit and if you are stating that you need a variable base resistor for it then you must have an explanation and one or more reasons for saying that. I would like to hear why you need a variable base resistor.
Requesting the requirement for resonance is a perfectly sensible question. I will remind you that nobody here can even explain how a Joule Thief operates "in resonance." That is a fact. At this point nobody even knows what they are talking about or can explain what it even means. The best we have so far is that Smoky2 said "tweak the base resistor and look for a sine wave." Seeing a sine wave doesn't necessarily mean you are in resonance. Plus like I already said, if you are looking at high frequency signals in a circuit, they all eventually become sine waves.
The child on a swing is a failed analogy and I will cover that in my next posting.
The whole point of this is to deal with real electronics and to stop repeating cliches that don't mean anything and to stop going down garden paths and blind alleys.
I would like to hear your explanation for the Joule Thief.
MileHigh
-
For example. If a person of say 100lb is on a particular playground swing, and say it takes 2 seconds to swing a full 'resonant' cycle, then measure how much energy it takes to keep that cycle going. Now try to apply input energy to make that same person on the same swing complete that same cycle in .5 seconds. It will definitely take more energy in to run that swing at .5 second cycles because there would need to be a constant control from the input, of which in my mind would be a tremendous amount of energy to accomplish compared to the input of the 'resonant' 2 second cycle. Or even a 5 second cycle. The input would have to apply some kind of 'constant control over the course of the cycle, including 2 places in the cycle of braking and 2 places in the cycle of pushing up from the low position, once for each direction.
It is very clear that the input energy at 2 seconds per cycle would be minimal compared to forcing a .5 second or a 5 second cycle
To repeatedly hear that operating anything at resonance has no advantages over operating everything out of resonance, sounds a bit out of fiction instead of reality.
Sure, let's take the swing as an example but let's get real about it and also talk about a real output. Without having a real output you are just spinning your wheels and going nowhere.
For starters, resonance is simply a method for storing energy. So you have to put energy into the resonant system, and by definition take energy out of the resonant system if you are going to accomplish something.
What you can't do is not keep your eye on the energy ball, and I don't think either of you are doing that properly.
The child is at rest on the swing. You give him regular pushes of 20 joules. The swinging gets higher. The child's swing energy goes something like 20 joules, 40 joules, 60, 80... 180, and then finally there is 200 joules of energy stored in the swinging. Energy that you put there by pushing on the child. So far the output is zero.
Now that the child is swinging high, let's factor in the air resistance. Let's say the child loses 5 joules per swing. So that means you only have to push with 5 joules of energy per swing to maintain the high swinging, and the output is still zero.
So, now let's talk about an output - you have to have an output. So let's say that next to the swing there is a hanging rope that loops down and the child is wearing a leather work glove in one hand and he grabs the rope during each down swing to slow himself down and burn off some energy. Let's say he burns off 30 joules every time he grabs the rope.
So, you push on the child with 5 joules, and he is one the way down with 200 joules of energy in the swing. But this time he grabs the rope and when he comes back to you on the reverse swing there is only 165 joules in the swing. So that means that this time you can't get away with pushing with 5 joules because of "swing resonance magic," you will have to push back with 35 joules of energy to maintain the swinging.
Where is the "resonance magic" there?
When the child is swinging to output 30 joules you have to input 35 joules.
If there is no swinging and you just grab the rope and pull on it, to output 30 joules you have to input 30 joules.
Exactly the same thing will happen in an LC resonant circuit. The friction looses when swinging will be substituted for the i-squared-R losses in the wires.
So forget about your trampolines and your resonant frequency stuff, it means nothing. Look at the energy and you will find nothing special. It's just another wild goose chase down a garden path.
MileHigh
-
I will remind you that nobody here can even explain how a Joule Thief operates "in resonance." That is a fact. At this point nobody even knows what they are talking about or can explain what it even means.
Well I wouldnt say that. So far I just have not gotten up to the resonant freq of the transformers Ive tried. That is so far. So that deafening silence you are speaking of is not me backing off because of your statements. As I did post that I will be back on it after the weekend when I finish this car audio system.
This week Im winding several different winding configs and doing some 1 shot power disconnects of the windings, where the scope will catch and display as a single shot, then spread the ring wave across the screen so the scope will show the freq. Did this with a pulse motor coil, and it will work here. This will give me the target freq I need to get the circuit to operate.
Now that I have the scope I want to revisit multi core transformers. If we wind a primary on a core, then wind a secondary through the primary core and a secondary core, if the primary is in resonance, loading the secondary wont disturb the primary resonance. I still have a few of those projects in a box.
Mags
-
Is it possible that your supercapacitor is self-charging?
this is always a possibility, with certain types of capacitors in certain situations.
Tantalum capacitors can be exploited in this manner.
I have not had a chance to play with these new "supercaps"
but it is indeed possible that they may under the right circumstances, display this phenomenon.
Some electrolytic capacitors are designed NOT to do this, for stability purposes.
-
MileHigh
Sure, let's take the swing as an example but let's get real about it and also talk about a real output. Without having a real output you are just spinning your wheels and going nowhere.For starters, resonance is simply a method for storing energy. So you have to put energy into the resonant system, and by definition take energy out of the resonant system if you are going to accomplish something.
What you can't do is not keep your eye on the energy ball, and I don't think either of you are doing that properly.
I dont think you grasp the reasoning behind resonance. The reasoning being much the same to that of having the timing correct in an ICE engine-done for best performance.
The child is at rest on the swing. You give him regular pushes of 20 joules. The swinging gets higher. The child's swing energy goes something like 20 joules, 40 joules, 60, 80... 180, and then finally there is 200 joules of energy stored in the swinging. Energy that you put there by pushing on the child. So far the output is zero.
Now that the child is swinging high, let's factor in the air resistance. Let's say the child loses 5 joules per swing. So that means you only have to push with 5 joules of energy per swing to maintain the high swinging, and the output is still zero.
So, now let's talk about an output - you have to have an output. So let's say that next to the swing there is a hanging rope that loops down and the child is wearing a leather work glove in one hand and he grabs the rope during each down swing to slow himself down and burn off some energy. Let's say he burns off 30 joules every time he grabs the rope.
So, you push on the child with 5 joules, and he is one the way down with 200 joules of energy in the swing. But this time he grabs the rope and when he comes back to you on the reverse swing there is only 165 joules in the swing. So that means that this time you can't get away with pushing with 5 joules because of "swing resonance magic," you will have to push back with 35 joules of energy to maintain the swinging.
Where is the "resonance magic" there?
When the child is swinging to output 30 joules you have to input 35 joules.
If there is no swinging and you just grab the rope and pull on it, to output 30 joules you have to input 30 joules.
Exactly the same thing will happen in an LC resonant circuit. The friction looses when swinging will be substituted for the i-squared-R losses in the wires.
So forget about your trampolines and your resonant frequency stuff, it means nothing. Look at the energy and you will find nothing special. It's just another wild goose chase down a garden path.
What has all this got to do with increasing the electrical efficiency of a JT type circuit by way of resonance?. I have not once mentioned that resonance will enable us to draw more out of such a system than we put in. You last lot of junk paragraphs seem to indicate that i was saying such a thing. There are a few types of resonance MH,and you seem to be stuck on one of them. JT switching is force MH,it is not resonant switching.
Brad
-
this is always a possibility, with certain types of capacitors in certain situations.
Tantalum capacitors can be exploited in this manner.
I have not had a chance to play with these new "supercaps"
but it is indeed possible that they may under the right circumstances, display this phenomenon.
Some electrolytic capacitors are designed NOT to do this, for stability purposes.
Well if it is the cap that is some how self charging at this rate,then we had better look further into it,as the circuit has been cycling for two days now,without any meters or the scope hooked up to it-->to eliminate any chance that either may have been charging the cap. But as the cap dose not charge up with the circuit disconnected,then it's a sure thing it is not the cap that is self charging.
I connected a 10 meter length of wire as an antenna,and it made no difference at all to the charging rate???.
Brad
-
Brad:
I dont think you grasp the reasoning behind resonance. The reasoning being much the same to that of having the timing correct in an ICE engine-done for best performance.
You have got to be kidding. For starters you are not explaining the "reasoning," you are just throwing the word around like spaghetti hoping it will stick to the wall. It's meaningless to say "reasoning" and then not actually state any reasoning.
Adjusting the timing of an ICE has absolutely nothing to do with resonance and there is no connection at all.
What has all this got to do with increasing the electrical efficiency of a JT type circuit by way of resonance?
That is a meaningless statement based on blind belief with no substance. You can't even define "resonance" for a Joule Thief. If you claim that you can, then go ahead and define and explain it. Go ahead and define and explain the alleged increased electrical efficiency.
You last lot of junk paragraphs seem to indicate that i was saying such a thing. There are a few types of resonance MH,and you seem to be stuck on one of them. JT switching is force MH,it is not resonant switching.
The paragraphs were not "junk," they clearly show that resonance has to actually mean something with respect to energy. You can't just throw the term around without it meaning anything. I made no reference to you whatsoever in my breakdown of a swing in resonance, it was purely a generic analysis.
Please go ahead and define the "few types of resonance" and state which "type" applies to a Joule Thief. How and why is it beneficial?
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475892#msg475892 date=1456756824]
Brad:
MileHigh
You have got to be kidding. For starters you are not explaining the "reasoning," you are just throwing the word around like spaghetti hoping it will stick to the wall. It's meaningless to say "reasoning" and then not actually state any reasoning.
Not spoon feeding you any more MH.
Adjusting the timing of an ICE has absolutely nothing to do with resonance and there is no connection at all.
Bullshit-it's the very same.
If the timing is out on either,then in both cases you turn your fuel(energy)into heat,in sted of doing what it should be doing in each case.
That is a meaningless statement based on blind belief with no substance. You can't even define "resonance" for a Joule Thief. If you claim that you can, then go ahead and define and explain it. Go ahead and define and explain the alleged increased electrical efficiency.
About time you did some thinking of your own MH,but that seems to be fading fast for you.
The paragraphs were not "junk," they clearly show that resonance has to actually mean something with respect to energy. You can't just throw the term around without it meaning anything. I made no reference to you whatsoever in my breakdown of a swing in resonance, it was purely a generic analysis.
The paragraphs were not "junk," they clearly show that resonance has to actually mean something with respect to energy. You can't just throw the term around without it meaning anything. I made no reference to you whatsoever in my breakdown of a swing in resonance, it was purely a generic analysis.
Like i said,you just dont get it MH.
When will the wine glass break using sound waves to break it?
Oh thats right,when the wine glass vibrates at resonance with the sound waves-->but will not break either side of said resonant frequency.
If this dose not explain the importance and increase of efficiency due to resonance MH,then your a lost cause.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE827gwnnk4
Brad
-
Brad:
Not spoon feeding you any more MH.
Don't even try to play a silly game like that. You like to talk the talk with a lot of meaningless statements that are cliches but apparently you can't walk the walk.
I asked you to explain the "reasoning behind resonance," which was your statement. So I said this: For starters you are not explaining the "reasoning," you are just throwing the word around like spaghetti hoping it will stick to the wall. It's meaningless to say "reasoning" and then not actually state any reasoning.
If you refuse to answer and state the "reasoning" in the "reasoning behind resonance" then you are just bluffing and have nothing to say. This statement from you to me, "I don't think you grasp the reasoning behind resonance" with respect to a Joule Thief is complete and total BS unless you explain the reasoning. Put up or admit that you can't back up your statement.
Bullshit-it's the very same.
If the timing is out on either,then in both cases you turn your fuel(energy)into heat,in sted of doing what it should be doing in each case.
No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever. It's not "the very same" there is no relation at all. If you talk about proper timing, then there is more of a connection between an ICE and a Joule Thief in normal operation. i.e.; the valves close at the right time just like the Joule Thief switches at the "right time."
About time you did some thinking of your own MH,but that seems to be fading fast for you.
That's anther poor attempt as distraction and deflection. Another attempt to feign that I am the one that doesn't know what I an talking about instead of you backing yourself up and talking real substance about your silly claims.
I will repeat what I said: That is a meaningless statement based on blind belief with no substance. You can't even define "resonance" for a Joule Thief. If you claim that you can, then go ahead and define and explain it. Go ahead and define and explain the alleged increased electrical efficiency.
So go ahead and define "resonance for a Joule Thief." I don't think you can at all. Instead it's all bluster and blarney and BS. You are back to holding your breath and turning blue. So put up or say nothing and FAIL.
Like i said,you just dont get it MH.
When will the wine glass break using sound waves to break it?
Oh thats right,when the wine glass vibrates at resonance with the sound waves-->but will not break either side of said resonant frequency.
If this dose not explain the importance and increase of efficiency due to resonance MH,then your a lost cause.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE827gwnnk4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE827gwnnk4)
I get it perfectly and so far you can't say a single thing to back up your statements. You are playing the same BS game that a typical "free energy magnet motor" guy plays.
Oh thats right,when the wine glass vibrates at resonance with the sound waves-->but will not break either side of said resonant frequency.
If this dose not explain the importance and increase of efficiency due to resonance MH,then your a lost cause.
Big deal that the wine glass breaks at the resonant frequency. That has zero to do with a Joule Thief. What "increased efficiency" are you talking about? Define it please and relate it to a wine glass and a Joule Thief. If you can't do that then your statement is more BS. So far you are the lost cause because all you can say are meaningless cliches, nothing more than a word salad with no substance to it at all.
The wine glass in resonance has nothing to do with your meaningless statements (unless you change that) about a "Joule Thief in resonance."
Since you are playing the "MileHigh you just don't get it" game, let's see your smarts with respect to the clip. Please Describe the resonance process in simple terms for the wine glass and describe how the resonant frequency is determined for the wine glass in a generic sense. In other words, how and why is the wine glass resonating, and you should not talk about the external speaker at all in your discussion. I am not interested in the external speaker at all, I am just asking you how the wine glass resonates. If you flick your finger at a wine glass it will resonate, what is happening?
So, we will see if your talk about a "resonant Joule Thief" has any substance to it at all, or if it is all just meaningless bluff and useless cliches.
MileHigh
-
Just because a mechanical device like an ICE or a sewing machine has all sorts of adjustments that are related to the cycle timing, it does not necessarily mean that said device "resonates."
Look, an ICE runs over a wide range of speeds does it not? Meanwhile resonance happens at a single frequency. When a sewing machine is sewing a seam is it resonating or is it simply sewing stitches at a certain operating frequency? Note the sewing machine runs at variable speeds also.
The whole idea is simply wrong.
-
Well if it is the cap that is some how self charging at this rate,then we had better look further into it,as the circuit has been cycling for two days now,without any meters or the scope hooked up to it-->to eliminate any chance that either may have been charging the cap. But as the cap dose not charge up with the circuit disconnected,then it's a sure thing it is not the cap that is self charging.
I connected a 10 meter length of wire as an antenna,and it made no difference at all to the charging rate???.
Brad
Brad:
This is really good news. My tests with super capacitors are similar to what you said about them not rebounding after being shorted for a long period of time. They do bounce back some but not near enough to drive a circuit. You are getting energy into that thing from somewhere. After you disconnected all the test gear then the only way the energy can be getting into the system is through the air. That is ambient energy coming from somewhere. If you gather up the experiment and put it in your backyard and it doesn't recharge that is still OK by me. Something in that room then is recharging the circuit. I hope that you have a good handle on exactly how your setup is configured so that perhaps it can be replicated.
---Rusty
-
It does not mean it MUST,, but there are resonances that an ICE uses to its advantage,, maybe you could look up volumetric efficiency and how to improve it.
Your statement and comparison to a sewing machine indicates you do not have a lot of experience with ICE's,, I do.
Most people do not even know that the stroke is not symmetrical,, nor that in high performance engines the crank to wrist can have an offset angle and that the charges have mass and pressure that creates a resonance, this is where the peak power is made,, the length of the rod is also chosen carefully.
The parts may not when viewed as independent parts,, even if they are balanced to use the motions,, but the system as a whole does,, or can.
P.S. the next time you use a sewing machine why don't you play with the bobbin and or spool tension :)
I did not compare an ICE to a sewing machine, you are making an inference that isn't there. It makes no sense to then say that it indicates I don't have a lot of experience with ICEs. Nonetheless the fact is you are right, I only have a lay person's knowledge of ICEs and I don't service or repair or maintain then. It's all moot because we are not talking about ICEs except to state that they have nothing to do with resonance.
nor that in high performance engines the crank to wrist can have an offset angle and that the charges have mass and pressure that creates a resonance
What's resonating? If you can't answer it, then what?
For sure you can tune hundreds of parameters for an ICE including the engine computer ROM, but it's not resonance. Resonance really means something, it's not a word that you can just throw around. The same thing applies to the simple Joule Thief. The backdrop to all of this is this has been going on for years on the forums, the blind belief that all sorts of different circuits will be "more efficient" if they "resonate." The problem is that people don't define what "efficiency" means and they don't define "resonance." Ultimately it's a form of willful ignorance and fantasy talk. That's what's happening with Brad right now. He is taking it all as a given, and it's just the same old thing with the revolving door of resonance, and goes right back to an Einstein quote that I recently posted.
intake runners and scavenge waves and all sorts of things are "tuned".
Is there anything to do with resonance in that statement? If so, what is resonating and how is it resonating?
I think part of the problem is that people simply ignore what resonance is and really means, or, they don't even know what it really is and what it really means. I have already gone over that many times so I won't discuss it again. Let's see if Brad can put any substance behind his meaningless resonance buzz word talk.
Ultimately this is a simple exercise in finding the truth and learning to stop deceiving yourselves.
MileHigh
-
Webby is correct about ICEs. Some Ferrari( and possibly other high end cars) engines have actuators on sliding intake ports that change the length of the tubes to adjust to the rpm/freq of the engine.
Longer tubes provide better low end and shorter tubes provide better upper end. It is called tuning. Like a radio in a sense. Tuning for a proper freq.
Mags
-
It does not mean it MUST,, but there are resonances that an ICE uses to its advantage,, maybe you could look up volumetric efficiency and how to improve it.
Your statement and comparison to a sewing machine indicates you do not have a lot of experience with ICE's,, I do.
Most people do not even know that the stroke is not symmetrical,, nor that in high performance engines the crank to wrist can have an offset angle and that the charges have mass and pressure that creates a resonance, this is where the peak power is made,, the length of the rod is also chosen carefully.
The parts may not when viewed as independent parts,, even if they are balanced to use the motions,, but the system as a whole does,, or can.
P.S. the next time you use a sewing machine why don't you play with the bobbin and or spool tension :)
I would not think that MH could even grasp the fact that ICEs !do! operate best at resonant frequencies. If you ask him the reason for the large double cone shaped expansion chamber on a high performance two stroke engine,and what that has to do with the power band of the engine,he would be lost. He would not be able to explain as to how that !resonant! relationship between the expansion chamber of the exhaust and the engine actually sucks the exhaust gasses out of the cylinder at the right time,insuring that the cylinder is evacuated of all burnt fuels and gasses,and at the same time,draws in the next charge of fuel/air mix from the crankcase--there is a reason it is called the loop charge system. ;)
The two stroke ICE and the JT are so much the same it's not funny,but MH cannot connect the dot's.
The timing on both is critical,where the source of energy has to be introduced into the system at a very precise time-with the ICE,that is the time you ignite the fuel,and with a JT,that is the time you switch on the transistor. In both cases,the desired outcome is to obtain maximum conversion of that energy source into a power output. If you get the timing wrong on either,then more of that energy source is converted into waste heat.
There is so many resonant factors in a two stroke engine that can increase it's performance, it's not funny. The fact that MH seems to think there is only one resonant frequency, just go's to show how little he knows. Even an inductor has multiple resonant frequencies--something i thought he would know.
Brad
-
Brad:
I would not think that MH could even grasp the fact that ICEs !do! operate best at resonant frequencies.
Well that's extremely curious considering that ICEs operate through a whole range of frequencies. Just that fact renders your discussion moot.
Let's not get into a pants peeing contest. We are talking about electrical resonance. When you talk about a two-stroke engine you are talking about matching chamber sizes and proper timing and stuff along those lines. One more time, that is more akin to how a conventional Joule Thief operates as a switching device that does not have a resonant frequency, it has an operating frequency.
I will repeat, we are talking about electrical resonance, and there is indeed a 100% equivalent to that in the form of mechanical resonance, and that mechanical resonance has nothing whatsoever to do with an engine moving gasses around - nothing.
Do you get that? There is true mechanical resonance and it has nothing whatsoever to do with tuning a gas engine and the operating parameters of an engine. Nor are you going to change the definition of resonance to suit your fancy. There will be no bait and switch when it comes to resonance.
So I discussed a whole slew of issues related to the alleged resonance in a Joule Thief and I look forward to reading your responses.
Even an inductor has multiple resonant frequencies--something i thought he would know.
Stop peeing your pants and I look forward to your responses.
MileHigh
-
.
Ultimately this is a simple exercise in finding the truth and learning to stop deceiving yourselves.
MileHigh
It's all moot because we are not talking about ICEs except to state that they have nothing to do with resonance.
Absolute rubbish.
What's resonating? If you can't answer it, then what?
Go do some research on how the expansion chamber on the exhaust of a high performance two stroke ICE is designed to work,and how it increases the efficiency of said engine.
That is one example of an existing resonant factor in an ICE-there are many others.
Resonance really means something, it's not a word that you can just throw around. The same thing applies to the simple Joule Thief.
Thats correct.
Resonance is two components of a system that work in harmony.
With a JT,those two components would be between the induced current into the inductor,and the rise and fall time of the magnetic field. When the timing and duration of the induced current is in harmony with the rise and fall time of the magnetic field,then you have resonance.Current is the man pushing the child on the swing,and the child is the rising and falling magnetic field.
And like i said before,there is no point trying to push the child in a forward direction,when he is only half way through the back swing. You would simply be wasting energy -also in the form of heat.
The backdrop to all of this is this has been going on for years on the forums, the blind belief that all sorts of different circuits will be "more efficient" if they "resonate." The problem is that people don't define what "efficiency" means and they don't define "resonance." Ultimately it's a form of willful ignorance and fantasy talk. That's what's happening with Brad right now. He is taking it all as a given, and it's just the same old thing with the revolving door of resonance, and goes right back to an Einstein quote that I recently posted.
More rubbish.
Many times it has been said that efficiency (in the case of the JT) would be the maximum conversion of electrical power,where we take a low voltage,high current,and convert that into a higher voltage,lower !overall! current that we can use to drive our LED. Resonance increases the efficiency of this conversion,as it reduces the overall waste heat,due to the system components working in harmony--as explained above. Like the ICE,if you get the timing right,then the system will work in harmony(resonance).
The only thing happening to me right now MH,is me wasting my time trying to explain as to how resonance can increase efficiency's in many different type's of systems. This is something you should already know,being the almighty you claim to be.
I think part of the problem is that people simply ignore what resonance is and really means, or, they don't even know what it really is and what it really means. I have already gone over that many times so I won't discuss it again. Let's see if Brad can put any substance behind his meaningless resonance buzz word talk
I think that it is you that dose not know the complete meaning of resonance MH.
The fact that you believe that operational timings between various parts of an ICE has nothing to do with resonance is proof of that.
I will give you one very clear example of two components of an ICE engine working in harmony(resonance),and the how and why this resonant relationship increases both the power and efficiency of that ICE. For this example,we will use the two stroke engine,and it's resonant relationship with the exhaust expansion chamber. The expansion chamber is shaped like two funnels that are joined together at the two larger ends,so as you have a small inlet opening,and a small outlet opening.
The fuel air mix has just be ignited,and the piston is forced down.
The piston starts to pass the exhaust port,and gas begins to flow out into the expansion chamber.
Due to the shape of the expansion chamber,a vacuum is produced at the exhaust port.
This vacuum not only draws all the expended fuel/air mix out of the cylinder,but also draws in a portion of the new fuel/air mix from the crankcase,via way of the transfer port's.
At the precise time the piston has reached BDC,the gas that is flowing through the expansion chamber is starting to be compressed,due to the shape of the rear wall of the expansion chamber.
At the very same time the piston starts it's return to TDC,the portion of the new charge of air/fuel mix that was stored in the inlet portion of the expansion chamber,is pushed back into the cylinder due to the pressure that now exist in the expansion chamber.
At a given RPM,this action between the pistons position,and the back and forth motion of the gas flow in the expansion chamber reach a point of resonance(harmony)-->this is the point the engine reaches !what is know as! it's power band--point of resonance between piston motion,and the flow motion of the gases.
The increase in efficiency is due to the fact that in stead of that portion of new charge simply flowing out of the exhaust (as it did with earlier two strokes),it is now stored in the expansion chamber,and forced back into the cylinder due to the pressure build up in the expansion chamber itself. This also increases the pressure in the cylinder(much like a turbo dose),and thus resulting in a more powerful explosion on the next power part of the cycle.
So now tell me that an ICE has no resonant operations taking place that increase not only the power,but also the efficiency.
If you want to take me on in this subject,be my guest.
At the age of 17,i modified a 500cc single cylinder,naturally aspirated,carbureted engine that developed 72rwhp based around these principles. In those day's,that was a lot of HP for a bike that weighed only 220lb.
Resonance= operational harmony between system components.
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475934#msg475934 date=1456792363]
Brad:
MileHigh
Well that's extremely curious considering that ICEs operate through a whole range of frequencies. Just that fact renders your discussion moot.
Let's not get into a pants peeing contest. We are talking about electrical resonance. When you talk about a two-stroke engine you are talking about matching chamber sizes and proper timing and stuff along those lines. One more time, that is more akin to how a conventional Joule Thief operates as a switching device that does not have a resonant frequency, it has an operating frequency.
I will repeat, we are talking about electrical resonance, and there is indeed a 100% equivalent to that in the form of mechanical resonance, and that mechanical resonance has nothing whatsoever to do with an engine moving gasses around - nothing.
Do you get that? There is true mechanical resonance and it has nothing whatsoever to do with tuning a gas engine and the operating parameters of an engine. Nor are you going to change the definition of resonance to suit your fancy. There will be no bait and switch when it comes to resonance.
More complete bullshit--as i explained in my last post.
You clearly have no idea about obtaining maximum efficiency's from ICEs,or where resonating factors come into play.
Your out of your league on this one MH,as i have been building and tuning engines since i was 13 years old. I was taught by the best of the best,and i am qualified in this area.
[/b]So I discussed a whole slew of issues related to the alleged resonance in a Joule Thief and I look forward to reading your responses.
I have given my response in my last post.
Stop peeing your pants and I look forward to your responses.
The only one peeing there pant's MH,is you-now that i have !once again! put you and your rubbish back in your box.
Brad
-
If you have ever ridden a dirt bike with a 2 stroke engine, there is an area in the rpm range we used to call the power band. And when you experience it for the first time, it can scare the boogers out of you.. This area of the rpm range is very powerful and for reasons brad speaks of. Changing the exhaust pipes/muffler, intake changes effect where this power band is in the rpm range. Usually the factory has it right, but you can tweak for more. It usually happens in the upper rpm, so it builds on you in each gear. It is where the engine has everything going for it as in, the intake and the exhaust are tuned for that particular audio freq and intake and exhaust have enhanced ability to give the engine more in and easy out and not have to work really hard to get it, as in creating suction for intake and having to push out high pressures of combustion. So the engine has more power out due to very little losses from the intake/out take cycles. Plus a 2 cycle is a full cycle per revolution, and a 4 cycle is a single cycle per every 2 revolutions. So the 2 cycle can produce more of a pure wave rather than a reduced duty cycle of a 4 stroke.
2 strokes are amazing machines and very simplistic with the least amount of moving parts.
Mags
-
Some examples of resonance in ICE engines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_resonance
Quote from link : Helmholtz resonance finds application in internal combustion engines
How expansion chambers work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_chamber
quote from link : On a two-stroke engine, an expansion chamber or tuned pipe is a tuned exhaust system used to enhance its power output by improving its volumetric efficiency.
Two stroke engines using tuned exhausts produced far more power than if running with a normal silencer.
The high pressure gas exiting the cylinder initially flows in the form of a "wavefront" as all disturbances in fluids do. The exhaust gas pushes its way into the pipe which is already occupied by gas from previous cycles, pushing that gas ahead and causing a wave front. Once the gas flow stops, the wave continues, passing the energy to the next gas down stream and so on to the end of the pipe. If this wave encounters any change in cross section or temperature it will reflect a portion of its strength in the opposite direction to its travel. For example, a strong acoustic wave encountering an increase in area will reflect a weaker acoustic wave in the opposite direction. A strong acoustic wave encountering a decrease in area will reflect a strong acoustic wave in the opposite direction. The basic principle is described in wave dynamics. An expansion chamber makes use of this phenomenon by varying its diameter (cross section) and length to cause these reflections to arrive back at the cylinder at the desired time in the cycle.<-- the resonant frequency factor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_efficiency
Quote from link ; Many high performance cars use carefully arranged air intakes and tuned exhaust systems that use pressure waves to push air into and out of the cylinders, making use of the resonance of the system. Two-stroke engines are very sensitive to this concept and can use expansion chambers that return the escaping air-fuel mixture back to the cylinder. A more modern technique for 4 stroke engines, variable valve timing, attempts to address changes in volumetric efficiency with changes in speed of the engine: at higher speeds the engine needs the valves open for a greater percentage of the cycle time to move the charge in and out of the engine.
Volumetric efficiencies above 100% can be reached by using forced induction such as supercharging or turbocharging. With proper tuning, volumetric efficiencies above 100% can also be reached by naturally aspirated engines. The limit for naturally aspirated engines is about 100%;[1] these engines are typically of a DOHC layout with four valves per cylinder. This process is called Inertial Supercharging and uses the resonance of the intake manifold and the mass of the air to achieve pressures greater than atmospheric at the intake valve. With proper tuning (and dependent on the need for sound level control), VE's of up to 130% have been reported in various experimental studies.[2]
I highlighted the resonant part MH-so as you dont miss it.
So now we already have two resonant factors being utilized in an ICE--the exaust resonant system,and the intake manifold resonant system.
But let me guess--they all have it wrong,and there are no resonant factors being utilized in ICE's to increase efficiency and performance ::)
Should i go on MH,and post another 100 links explaining resonant systems in ICE's ?.
Brad
-
Off topic.
I have a ship n shore battery charger. Switching supply type.
I pulled the plug out of the wall and got seriously buzzed by touching the plug ends, after it was out of the socket. It has a digital disiplay and a fan which stays on for say 4 to 5 seconds without a battery connected.
The input, 120v ac is bridge rectified to a cap and switching supply, etc etc.
The shock was more like a buzz. I could tell the difference between dc and pulsed current. So im just wondering. If it wasnt dc from the cap leaking through the bridge, if that could even be for how bad I was shmacked, could it have been that the input was say trying to pull pulsed currents into the circuit, through me? Hard to explain the idea. Like as the input cap discharges because the circuit will try to operate as long as possible, is it possible that the circuit is trying to pull more than what the cap has, if it can. Lol I dunno. Ill have to run some tests on that thing.
Mags
-
Below is a scope shot of a JT type circuit in resonance.
I used a center tapped transformer,and have two LED's on each half of the center tap.
The circuit frequency was raised and lowered until maximum amplitude was had across the LED's,and minimum current draw on the P/in. When out of this resonant frequency range,the LED's would dim,and the I/in would increase. From this simple test,we can easily see why resonance is important in a JT circuit.
The second scope shot is across the 100ohm P/in CVR on the ground side of the circuit.
Brad
-
Brad:
Resonance is two components of a system that work in harmony.
With a JT,those two components would be between the induced current into the inductor,and the rise and fall time of the magnetic field. When the timing and duration of the induced current is in harmony with the rise and fall time of the magnetic field,then you have resonance.Current is the man pushing the child on the swing,and the child is the rising and falling magnetic field.
"Two components of a system that work in harmony" is pretty much meaningless, and it's wrong.
I said no bait and switch on the definition of resonance. We are talking about electrical resonance or it's mechanical equivalent.
"Induced current into the inductor" and the "rise of the magnetic field" are the same thing. ???
Current is the man pushing the child on the swing,and the child is the rising and falling magnetic field.
If you are trying to explain how a child on a swing is a resonant system then you are off by a country mile. Not even close.
Many times it has been said that efficiency (in the case of the JT) would be the maximum conversion of electrical power,where we take a low voltage,high current,and convert that into a higher voltage,lower !overall! current that we can use to drive our LED.
Your description of how a Joule Thief operates isn't even close, it isn't even in the ballpark.
Resonance increases the efficiency of this conversion,as it reduces the overall waste heat,due to the system components working in harmony
Meaningless.
The only thing happening to me right now MH,is me wasting my time trying to explain as to how resonance can increase efficiency's in many different type's of systems.
Looking at what you are saying above, you are not explaining, rather you are just exposing how far you have to go to get where you want to be with respect to electronics.
So now tell me that an ICE has no resonant operations taking place that increase not only the power,but also the efficiency.
Your description has nothing to do with electrical resonance or it's mechanical equivalent. A wine glass is a mechanical resonator and I asked you to show your smarts and explain how it works and how the resonant frequency is determined.
Resonance= operational harmony between system components.
I an sure the term "resonance" is thrown around a lot in the automotive trade, but this is not a discussion about the automotive trade. It's a discussion about electrical circuits and the Joule Thief and the way resonance is defined as an engineer would define it for electrical circuits and mechanical systems. Resonance is a word that really means something and you are not going to change the definition of it.
MileHigh
-
If you have ever ridden a dirt bike with a 2 stroke engine, there is an area in the rpm range we used to call the power band. And when you experience it for the first time, it can scare the boogers out of you.. This area of the rpm range is very powerful and for reasons brad speaks of. Changing the exhaust pipes/muffler, intake changes effect where this power band is in the rpm range. Usually the factory has it right, but you can tweak for more. It usually happens in the upper rpm, so it builds on you in each gear. It is where the engine has everything going for it as in, the intake and the exhaust are tuned for that particular audio freq and intake and exhaust have enhanced ability to give the engine more in and easy out and not have to work really hard to get it, as in creating suction for intake and having to push out high pressures of combustion. So the engine has more power out due to very little losses from the intake/out take cycles. Plus a 2 cycle is a full cycle per revolution, and a 4 cycle is a single cycle per every 2 revolutions. So the 2 cycle can produce more of a pure wave rather than a reduced duty cycle of a 4 stroke.
2 strokes are amazing machines and very simplistic with the least amount of moving parts.
Mags
Indeed, for just about any gas engine there is a power band. Don't racing car drivers shift gears and try to stay in the power band to maximize their acceleration as they increase in speed if that's what the want to do? It's maximum horsepower out vs. engine RPM.
However, in the language that we use on the forums the power band is akin to a sweet spot that is quite wide as opposed to being a narrow sweet spot. The point being that it is a sweet spot and not "resonance" in the engineering mechanical or electrical sense.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
"Two components of a system that work in harmony" is pretty much meaningless, and it's wrong.
I said no bait and switch on the definition of resonance. We are talking about electrical resonance or it's mechanical equivalent.
"Induced current into the inductor" and the "rise of the magnetic field" are the same thing. ???
If you are trying to explain how a child on a swing is a resonant system then you are off by a country mile. Not even close.
Your description of how a Joule Thief operates isn't even close, it isn't even in the ballpark.
Meaningless.
Looking at what you are saying above, you are not explaining, rather you are just exposing how far you have to go to get where you want to be with respect to electronics.
Your description has nothing to do with electrical resonance or it's mechanical equivalent. A wine glass is a mechanical resonator and I asked you to show your smarts and explain how it works and how the resonant frequency is determined.
I an sure the term "resonance" is thrown around a lot in the automotive trade, but this is not a discussion about the automotive trade. It's a discussion about electrical circuits and the Joule Thief and the way resonance is defined as an engineer would define it for electrical circuits and mechanical systems. Resonance is a word that really means something and you are not going to change the definition of it.
MileHigh
MH,your an idiot,and im done with you and your bullshit.
You bring nothing to this forum,other than negativity,and dismiss everything anyone says about resonance.
Tell us all again how there is no resonant features used in ICEs to make them more efficient and powerful -->proved you wrong there without a shadow of a doubt.
The induced current into an inductor and the rise of a magnetic field are not the same thing at all. They are two different thing's,and one results from the other.
When the current flow into the inductor is interupted(shut off),the magnetic field still exist,and now the current flows from the inductor,in stead of into the inductor.
Face it MH,you dont belong here with your negative and incorrect attitude.
Your way out of your league when it comes to resonant systems in an ICE,and i have shown you just how far behind the 8 ball you are.
Out of the two of us,i was the only one to correctly explain as to how the JT circuit was working at low voltages,while you were to scared to even have a go at explaining it.
There is one of us here that is way behind MH-thats for sure,but im afraid it is you,and the proof is plastered all over this thread.
No resonant factors in an ICEs performance ::)
Laughable ;D
Brad
-
Brad:
I have given my response in my last post.
Go back to posting #514 and answer the questions. Be a man and go for it.
Below is a scope shot of a JT type circuit in resonance.
I used a center tapped transformer,and have two LED's on each half of the center tap.
The circuit frequency was raised and lowered until maximum amplitude was had across the LED's,and minimum current draw on the P/in. When out of this resonant frequency range,the LED's would dim,and the I/in would increase. From this simple test,we can easily see why resonance is important in a JT circuit.
The second scope shot is across the 100ohm P/in CVR on the ground side of the circuit.
Brad
It's nothing more than a pulse circuit running at an operating frequency and you found a sweet spot. Presumably you changed the operating frequency by varying the base resistance. It's not operating like a regular Joule Thief. No schematic, no surprise there. No resonance.
MileHigh
-
MH:
I think I just figured out where I got the term resonance when tuning my early JT circuits. It was from a video made by our own host, Stefan, showing an early Dr. Stiffler replication. Stefan demonstrates how you can tune the circuit to hit resonance and shows the scope shot as well as how bright the leds were when this happened. (I also learned how to make my first Avromenko Plug after I watched this)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRw_sCzhFnk&index=436&list=FL0bTBCRogMzrYTQT3pbhxwg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRw_sCzhFnk&index=436&list=FL0bTBCRogMzrYTQT3pbhxwg)
Now, I realize that Dr. Stiffler's circuit is different from a JT but I "assumed" that when I was tuning my base resistor that I was hitting resonance when the leds got their brightest. It was easy to go past the "sweet spot" as we later called it, and you would have to turn the pot the other way to hit the spot again.
Anyway, I finally remembered why and where I got the idea about resonance in our JT circuits and this is where it started with me.
I'll bet I watched Stefan's video over 10 times. It is a nice blast from the past as they say.
Bill
-
Bill:
I watched the clip. Wow, nine years ago in the old days of YouTube when the video quality was so inferior sometimes. Let's assume it's an oscillator that goes into some kind of LC tank circuit. If fact Stefan says "LC tank" in the clip. Thee is no schematic but I am going to assume that the pot he is adjusting is purpose designed to change the frequency of the oscillator. That's in contrast to changing the base resistance of a Joule Thief with a pot which just fries the normal operation of the Joule Thief.
So it certainly looks like the oscillator is fed into some kind of resonant LC tank circuit - a real resonator - real resonance. That's why the amplitude of the sine wave goes so high. It also looks almost certain that it is not related to a regular Joule Thief at all.
MileHigh
-
Indeed, for just about any gas engine there is a power band. Don't racing car drivers shift gears and try to stay in the power band to maximize their acceleration as they increase in speed if that's what the want to do? It's maximum horsepower out vs. engine RPM.
However, in the language that we use on the forums the power band is akin to a sweet spot that is quite wide as opposed to being a narrow sweet spot. The point being that it is a sweet spot and not "resonance" in the engineering mechanical or electrical sense.
MileHigh
But what is it that happens that there ends up being a 'sweet spot'? Why not as good above or below that spot? ;)
Mags
-
Bill:
I watched the clip. Wow, nine years ago in the old days of YouTube when the video quality was so inferior sometimes. Let's assume it's an oscillator that goes into some kind of LC tank circuit. If fact Stefan says "LC tank" in the clip. Thee is no schematic but I am going to assume that the pot he is adjusting is purpose designed to change the frequency of the oscillator. That's in contrast to changing the base resistance of a Joule Thief with a pot which just fries the normal operation of the Joule Thief.
So it certainly looks like the oscillator is fed into some kind of resonant LC tank circuit - a real resonator - real resonance. That's why the amplitude of the sine wave goes so high. It also looks almost certain that it is not related to a regular Joule Thief at all.
MileHigh
Yes, exactly. But, this is where I got it in my head about resonance and the JT circuits back then. I knew I got it somewhere, just could not remember until now.
Bill
-
Brad:
MH,your an idiot,and im done with you and your bullshit.
You bring nothing to this forum,other than negativity,and dismiss everything anyone says about resonance.
Well I am not BSing and you are BSing yourself. You talk a lot of BS about resonance when you talk about electrical circuits and that gets you nowhere. If you talked straight talk about electrical resonance then I would agree with you.
Tell us all again how there is no resonant features used in ICEs to make them more efficient and powerful -->proved you wrong there without a shadow of a doubt.
I am going to repeat to you again one more time and let's see if it sinks in this time: We are talking about resonance like a wine glass resonates, that's a true example of the scientific and engineering definition of resonance. We are not talking "motor shop talk" about "resonance."
Now is that going to sink into your head or are you going to bury your head in the sand?
Face it MH,you dont belong here with your negative and incorrect attitude.
Your way out of your league when it comes to resonant systems in an ICE,and i have shown you just how far behind the 8 ball you are.
Don't sulk in the corner. We are not talking about internal combustion engines, and I never claimed to be an expert on internal combustion engines. So your comment above is one of the sleaziest and most pathetic bait and switches you have tried to pull off on me.
Out of the two of us,i was the only one to correctly explain as to how the JT circuit was working at low voltages,while you were to scared to even have a go at explaining it.
Check your pants.
MileHigh
-
But what is it that happens that there ends up being a 'sweet spot'? Why not as good above or below that spot? ;)
Mags
Presumably the engine operates better, the timing is better, the gasses move in and out of the cylinders more efficiently - but that is NOT RESONANCE like a wine glass resonates by a long shot.
We are talking about electric circuits and the scientific and engineering definition of resonance.
-
Presumably the engine operates better, the timing is better, the gasses move in and out of the cylinders more efficiently - but that is NOT RESONANCE like a wine glass resonates by a long shot.
We are talking about electric circuits and the scientific and engineering definition of resonance.
Well what about Brads JT that has this sweet spot? My JT didnt have a sweet spot yet. What do you think is happening in Brads circuit that would cause the 'sweet spot' where it runs with less light output above and below the 'sweet' spot? With my JT it is either up is up or down is down. What is it other than he hit some resonant freq of the transformer? How do you explain that?
Mags
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475960#msg475960 date=1456812119]
Brad:
MileHigh
Well I am not BSing and you are BSing yourself. You talk a lot of BS about resonance when you talk about electrical circuits and that gets you nowhere. If you talked straight talk about electrical resonance then I would agree with you.
I am going to repeat to you again one more time and let's see if it sinks in this time: We are talking about resonance like a wine glass resonates, that's a true example of the scientific and engineering definition of resonance. We are not talking "motor shop talk" about "resonance."
MH
You clearly stated that there is no resonant activities in an ICE,and i proved you wrong.
Man up,and except the fact that you were wrong,as that is a fact.
Now is that going to sink into your head or are you going to bury your head in the sand?
It is you that has there head buried in the sand,with your one track mind.-,and that is quite evident in this thread.
Don't sulk in the corner. We are not talking about internal combustion engines, and I never claimed to be an expert on internal combustion engines. So your comment above is one of the sleaziest and most pathetic bait and switches you have tried to pull off on me.
Oh please.
Why do you continue to bullshit--or try to bullshit your way out of your own screwup's?.
Post 514 Quote : No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever.
A bold statement from some one now claiming to be no ex-spurt on ICEs--also incorrect,and proven to be so on multiple occasions.
Check your pants.
Check your memory,as it seems to be fading fast.
If so,just go back,and re read what you have stated beforehand.
Some facts you need to learn before you go making a bigger fool of your self
1- MH dose NOT get to decide what a JT circuit is.
2- MH dose not determine how many different types of resonance there are.
These are facts MH--so suck em up princes.
Brad
-
Well what about Brads JT that has this sweet spot? My JT didnt have a sweet spot yet. What do you think is happening in Brads circuit that would cause the 'sweet spot' where it runs with less light output above and below the 'sweet' spot? With my JT it is either up is up or down is down. What is it other than he hit some resonant freq of the transformer? How do you explain that?
Mags
All that I can do is take his verbal description and look at the waveforms. How can you possibly say that he "hit some resonant frequency of the transformer?" "What is it other than" is the big clue. You are making an assumption because you think that "has to fit." My instincts are telling me that a serious bench analysis will not uncover any resonance. Finally, if the transformer was resonating then we would see a sine wave signature and there is no sine wave signature in sight.
And I will repeat again, why should a "resonant transformer" give you better results when by definition you have high currents and increased i-squared-R losses at resonance? A serious bench analysis would uncover the reason or reasons for the sweet spot but it is highly unlikely you will uncover any true resonance. Like I stated before, it is a circuit in oscillation at an operating frequency, not at a resonant frequency.
MileHigh
-
Post 514 Quote : No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever.
I will tell you why I said that. The first of several statements said something like "An ICE is in resonance."
What do you think I am going to do - I am going to take that at FACE VALUE and assume that you are saying that a whole gasoline engine operates in resonance.
And for what you are saying now, it's like talking about a bicycle and saying it is a resonant system and when somebody challenges you, you then post a picture of a bell on the handlebars and say, "See, a bicycle operates in resonance - look at the bell!" That's retarded.
Your lack of use of language or your abuse of language is ridiculous sometimes. And the fact still remains that we are not talking about an ICE and none of what you are saying about an ICE meets the scientific definition of resonance.
How does a wine glass resonate? How is the resonant frequency determined? Explain that and show that you know what you are talking about.
-
I will tell you why I said that. The first of several statements said something like "An ICE is in resonance."
What do you think I am going to do - I am going to take that at FACE VALUE and assume that you are saying that a whole gasoline engine operates in resonance.
And for what you are saying now, it's like talking about a bicycle and saying it is a resonant system and when somebody challenges you, you then post a picture of a bell on the handlebars and say, "See, a bicycle operates in resonance - look at the bell!" That's retarded.
Your lack of use of language or your abuse of language is ridiculous sometimes. And the fact still remains that we are not talking about an ICE and none of what you are saying about an ICE meets the scientific definition of resonance.
How does a wine glass resonate? How is the resonant frequency determined? Explain that and show that you know what you are talking about.
Why would Honda inject water in the Expansion-Exhaust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ousgsIbW7WY
Wayne Gardner, Doohan, we miss them!
-
Why would Honda inject water in the Expansion-Exhaust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ousgsIbW7WY
Wayne Gardner, Doohan, we miss them!
BULL SHIT ! Resonance is to Oscillate a petrol engine is an explosive device ! nothing to do with resonance !
-
snip...
How does a wine glass resonate? How is the resonant frequency determined? Explain that and show that you know what you are talking about.
Here's a great little video to explain it (resonance in a wine glass) to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urYWaHfel6g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urYWaHfel6g)
@MH Also you stated " And I will repeat again, why should a "resonant transformer" give you better results when by definition you have high currents and increased i-squared-R losses at resonance? "
If that's series resonance, then yes, there will be higher current. Parallel resonance, then no, impedance will be at it's maximum and current at its minimum. A transformer/inductor cannot achieve resonance by induction alone, but in conjunction with both external and/or internal capacitance, the combined circuit conditions can.
Cheers
-
BULL SHIT ! Resonance is to Oscillate a petrol engine is an explosive device ! nothing to do with resonance !
With a preset spring load on a movable core, you can change ............... resonance where you want to have it, adjusting and time, like RV and C, or QEG!
Same with some water in a Hot Exhaust, to affect the bouncing speed, sound speed is master in engine's and so intake and exhausts resonance.
Study: Dutch Jan Thiel, 54Pk from 1 cilinder 125cc 2-Stroke.
Sister from mh or trump?
-
Brad:
You clearly stated that there is no resonant activities in an ICE,and i proved you wrong.
Man up,and except the fact that you were wrong,as that is a fact.
It's completely retarded to go for specific definitions about "resonance" for an ICE after the fact when before that all you did was make a generic statement with no specifics. You man up and start communicating effectively and with purpose - like a man. The whole time I have been talking about true resonance and not "motor shop talk" "resonance." We are talking about electrical circuits. Man up to that.
Stop this ridiculous "stream of consciousness" nonsense. LC resonator -> Joule Thief -> ICE -> ICE intake manifold -> Two-stroke engines -> Inertial supercharging -> Rainbows -> Schumann resonance -> Ping-pong balls -> Beach balls -> Sandy beach -> Gong chanting on the beach, and on and on and on. It's RIDICULOUS, stay on topic.
Some facts you need to learn before you go making a bigger fool of your self
1- MH dose NOT get to decide what a JT circuit is.
2- MH dose not determine how many different types of resonance there are.
These are facts MH--so suck em up princes.
It's universally understood what a Joule Thief is. From the very beginning I have been talking about the scientific and engineering definition of resonance. We are not taking any stream-of-consciousness walks with you, you suck up to that, biatch.
Be real.
MileHigh
-
Here's a great little video to explain it (resonance in a wine glass) to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urYWaHfel6g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urYWaHfel6g)
@MH Also you stated " And I will repeat again, why should a "resonant transformer" give you better results when by definition you have high currents and increased i-squared-R losses at resonance? "
If that's series resonance, then yes, there will be higher current. Parallel resonance, then no, impedance will be at it's maximum and current at its minimum. A transformer/inductor cannot achieve resonance by induction alone, but in conjunction with both external and/or internal capacitance, the combined circuit conditions can.
Cheers
In fact the video doesn't explain the mechanism for how a wine glass resonates. Now does it explain how the resonant frequency is determined. Now if Brad could show some smarts and explain the process by himself, he would have done that already. It's probably not an easy Google search, so I think it's almost a foregone conclusion at this point. He couldn't explain the resonance mechanism for a child on a swing so he is shooting blanks at this point.
Yes about the series vs. parallel resonance. If it is indeed parallel resonance, then something is acting like an AC open circuit at resonance. It's even harder to imagine how something acting like an open circuit can "improve efficiency."
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475967#msg475967 date=1456817946]
I will tell you why I said that. The first of several statements said something like "An ICE is in resonance."
My actual first mention of an ICE
Quote post 510 :I dont think you grasp the reasoning behind resonance. The reasoning being much the same to that of having the timing correct in an ICE engine-done for best performance.
No where did i mention resonant systems in ICEs at this time.
Your next post- quote post 512:
Adjusting the timing of an ICE has absolutely nothing to do with resonance and there is no connection at all.
Like i clearly said, having the timing correct is !!like!! achieving resonance--both systems must be timed correctly in order to gain the maximum amplitude of power. Take the simple LC tank circuit,where you apply small pulses at the right time in order to gain maximum current and voltage amplitude through that tank circuit. That pulse of energy must be injected into that tank at the correct time in order to gain the maximum amplitudes.The same applies to the ignition timing of an ICE. That energy must be released at the correct time in order to gain the maximum power from the ICE,and that is done by igniting the fuel/air mix at the correct time.
You then said in post 513-quote:
No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever.
So here you converted my description of how the ignition timing being correct being much the same as having the correct timing of the input energy pulse into an inductor in order to give rise to a resonant state-->into an ICE dose not resonate in any way,shape or form.
I then went on to show you the various resonant systems that exist in an ICE engine,so as you could learn from your mistake.
Re Quote: The first of several statements said something like "An ICE is in resonance
So no-once again you have tried to misdirect in order to save your ass,as it was you that made the statement about ICE's and resonance first--not me. But because you insisted on there being no resonance what so ever in an ICE,i had to set you straight on that--and i did. ;)
What do you think I am going to do - I am going to take that at FACE VALUE and assume that you are saying that a whole gasoline engine operates in resonance.
Well you bought that ICE and resonance thing on your self,so i gave you several examples of resonant systems in an ICE that both increase the power output,and also the efficiency of the ICE.
And for what you are saying now, it's like talking about a bicycle and saying it is a resonant system and when somebody challenges you, you then post a picture of a bell on the handlebars and say, "See, a bicycle operates in resonance - look at the bell!" That's retarded.
Whats retarded is the fact that you are now trying to justify your mistake,and incorrect statement.
It is very funny that you your self are the one that bought up the resonant thing with ICE's,and in the above quote,you are now trying to say that it was me,when we can clearly see in the thread history that it was you lol. There is also the fact that your above statement is stupid,as a bell has nothing to do with the performance of the bike,where as the resonant systems that exist in ICE's are there to increase the overall performance of the ICE.
By the way,the bell would add drag,and decrease the overall efficiency of the bike ;)
Your lack of use of language or your abuse of language is ridiculous sometimes.
It's funny you should say that MH,as if we go back and read what actually was said,it turns out that you have an uncanny knack for changing things around to suit your need's. And when that fails,you then try to say it was some one else that said such thing's--even though it's all written in this thread lol. I said that the ignition timing being correct on an ICE,is much the same as a system in resonance--where the energy pulse timing is critical in both to achieve the best result's. Then you decided to switch that to--there is no resonance in an ICE :o
So once again,by showing several resonant systems in an ICE that increases the engines performance,and proving you wrong,you then do the old switcharoony,and try and say it was all my fault you got it wrong--and it's all on this thread lol.
And the fact still remains that we are not talking about an ICE and none of what you are saying about an ICE meets the scientific definition of resonance.
Lol-here we go again.
MH,everything i showed in regards to resonant systems in an ICE meets every scientific definition of resonant systems described. But be my guest at showing everyone here that im wrong--along with everyone else that provided the science behind those resonant systems in the links i provided.
How does a wine glass resonate?
By receiving pulses of energy at the correct !time!<--time MH) at it's natural resonant frequency.
These pulses of energy can be either pressure waves,or physical contact taps on the glass it self.When enough energy is stored in the glass,and the molecules of the glass are agitated,the glass then go's into resonance.
Whats your point?.
How is the resonant frequency determined? Explain that and show that you know what you are talking about.
Of what?
Mechanical,acoustic,or electrical resonance?.
And you say i am no good at explaining things.
Brad
-
Webby:
How stupid are you going to get MH,, the pistons motions as well as the gas charges are what transfer the resonant forces,, that is a force interaction,, I guess you would say a pulse jet is not resonant because the metal body of the engine does not change,,
We are talking about electrical resonance in the scientific and engineering sense. We are talking about the real definition of resonance, not "the transfer of resonant forces" as in your quote above which is possibly "shop talk" and does not apply. If you disagree, explain exactly what you mean by the "transfer of resonant forces" and what is resonating and the particular resonance mechanism. Put some substance behind your words.
There are also many true mechanical examples of resonance. You know like what Napoleon said about soldiers breaking step when crossing a bridge?
So MH,, How does a wine glass resonate? what you can not answer the question??
Let's see if Brad can answer the question and show some smarts, show that he actually understands what resonance is for real. After all, he is the all-over-the-map resonance man.
MileHigh
-
BULL SHIT ! Resonance is to Oscillate a petrol engine is an explosive device ! nothing to do with resonance !
Oh dear.
Wonder if MH will set you straight on this--Mmm
Probably not,as you are disagreeing with me,he would see you as an ally.
So right or wrong,he wont set you straight.
But your way out to lunch.
Brad
-
Brad:
Here is your first "ICE" reference:
I dont think you grasp the reasoning behind resonance. The reasoning being much the same to that of having the timing correct in an ICE engine-done for best performance.
The correct timing in an ICE engine is not "resonance" and it has absolutely zero to do with the resonance we are discussing.
My post #514 is still there asking you to explain some of your statements:
- explain your so-called "reasoning" behind resonance.
- define "resonance" in a Joule Thief
You finally explained how a wine glass resonates:
By receiving pulses of energy at the correct !time!<--time MH) at it's natural resonant frequency.
These pulses of energy can be either pressure waves,or physical contact taps on the glass it self.When enough energy is stored in the glass,and the molecules of the glass are agitated,the glass then go's into resonance.
Whats your point?.
There, finally. You clearly can't explain how a wine glass resonates, and so that means ultimately you don't even know what resonance is. You have been bluffing your way through this whole time.
Here is my question in full:
How does a wine glass resonate? How is the resonant frequency determined? Explain that and show that you know what you are talking about.
Here is your reply about how the resonant frequency is determined:
Of what?
Mechanical,acoustic,or electrical resonance?.
And you say i am no good at explaining things.
So you bluff and pretend that you don't know what I am referring to in a totally ridiculous vain attempt to say that I am not explaining myself properly. We all can see the truth, you have no clue whatsoever and can't explain how the resonance frequency of a wine glass is determined.
So the whole discussion has been in vain because you don't even know what resonance is.
MileHigh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzxrKO-yVV8
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475986#msg475986 date=1456843862]
MileHigh
The whole time I have been talking about true resonance and not "motor shop talk" "resonance.
You asked for some examples of different types of resonance.
I provide them(as well as proving you wrong at the same time),and now you have a tanty.
No-you have been talking only of electrical/magnetic resonance. All the other examples(that you asked for)that i provided are true resonant example's.
Like i said MH--you dont get to determine what true resonance is--science has already done that,and you are only interested in one type.
It's completely retarded to go for specific definitions about "resonance" for an ICE after the fact when before that all you did was make a generic statement with no specifics. You man up and start communicating effectively and with purpose - like a man.
All i did was to say how the ignition timing in an ICE was similar to that of the required timing of the energy pulse to create a resonant system,where as both need that timing to be correct in order to achieve the desired results.
We are talking about electrical circuits. Man up to that.
No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever.
Sorry MH,but i had to put an end to that bullshit.
After all,it was you that made that statement--not me.
Stop this ridiculous "stream of consciousness" nonsense. LC resonator -> Joule Thief -> ICE -> ICE intake manifold -> Two-stroke engines -> Inertial supercharging -> Rainbows -> Schumann resonance -> Ping-pong balls -> Beach balls -> Sandy beach -> Gong chanting on the beach, and on and on and on. It's RIDICULOUS, stay on topic.
Well some one is being ridiculous ::)
It's universally understood what a Joule Thief is. From the very beginning I have been talking about the scientific and engineering definition of resonance. We are not taking any stream-of-consciousness walks with you, you suck up to that, biatch.
And everything i posted about the resonant systems in an ICE, are scientific and engineering definition of resonance.
I know you have a need to be correct all the time MH,and i can understand you doing your best to curve your mistakes away from you. But some times you just need to take it on the chin,and try and get it right next time--like i have done many times before.
Oh,by the way--i like rainbows and sandy beaches ;)
Brad
-
And everything i posted about the resonant systems in an ICE, are scientific and engineering definition of resonance.
Says the man that can't explain what resonance is in a wine glass. The discussion is over because it has all been in vain. Go get some books and read them and learn and understand what resonance actually is. You need to get to the point where you understand how a wine glass resonates. Also work on your personal integrity with that farce of a response from you about the resonant frequency of a wine glass.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg475995#msg475995 date=1456846978]
MileHigh
Here is your first "ICE" reference:
I dont think you grasp the reasoning behind resonance. The reasoning being much the same to that of having the timing correct in an ICE engine-done for best performance.
The correct timing in an ICE engine is not "resonance" and it has absolutely zero to do with the resonance we are discussing.
As can be clearly seen by your own posting of my statement,i never said the timing in an ICE is resonance. But it is a accurate description of how resonance is achieved in the electrical sense. As i have said,the timing of the input pulse of energy is critical in both cases to achieve maximum gains. How you dont see that is beyond me MH.
explain your so-called "reasoning" behind resonance.
This i have answered many times now MH,so you can understand as to why i refuse to answer every time you cant be bothered to look-just like you did with me explaining how the JT was working at low voltages. When you finally decided to go find the answer,you come back and say-thats plausible. Now we are doing it all over again ::) The reasoning being to gain maximum efficiency from the system-the very same way we do with the ICEs--resonance MH,resonance.
- define "resonance" in a Joule Thief
And over,and over,and over ::)
You finally explained how a wine glass resonates:
Do i have to be on here 24 hours a day to answer your questions as soon as you ask the MH.
Sorry dude,but i run on my time,not MHs time.
There, finally. You clearly can't explain how a wine glass resonates, and so that means ultimately you don't even know what resonance is. You have been bluffing your way through this whole time.
The explanation i gave is correct.
Lets see yours MH.
So you bluff and pretend that you don't know what I am referring to in a totally ridiculous vain attempt to say that I am not explaining myself properly. We all can see the truth, you have no clue whatsoever and can't explain how the resonance frequency of a wine glass is determined.
A great example of your inadequate supply of information.
You asked -what determines the resonant frequency--no mention of a wine glass in that question.
If you are referring to a wine glass,then there are a multitude of things that will determine the resonant frequency of that wine glass--there is no one simple MH equation that can be used to calculate that resonant frequency.
Can you list all those things that will determine the resonant frequency of a wine glass MH ?--no chance in hell. You are full of it. You ask questions you your self cannot even answer.
What grade of crystal is the wine glass made of MH ?.
What are the specifications on the physical size and parameters of the glass?.
How long is a piece of string?.
So the whole discussion has been in vain because you don't even know what resonance is.
And yet it has been me that has given you many proven examples of resonance !that you say dont even exist! lol You pick and choose what is correct on Wikipedia to suit your need's.
Face it MH,you have fallen of your perch in this thread--on multiple occasions.
We are all a wake up to your trick (unanswerable) questions--and they just done work any more MH.
Sorry for putting your fire out MH.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuUJfYcn3V4
Brad
-
A great example of your inadequate supply of information.
You asked -what determines the resonant frequency--no mention of a wine glass in that question.
You're challenged.
If you are referring to a wine glass,then there are a multitude of things that will determine the resonant frequency of that wine glass--there is no one simple MH equation that can be used to calculate that resonant frequency.
Can you list all those things that will determine the resonant frequency of a wine glass MH ?--no chance in hell. You are full of it. You ask questions you your self cannot even answer.
What grade of crystal is the wine glass made of MH ?.
What are the specifications on the physical size and parameters of the glass?.
You don't have the slightest clue.
-
Forget it, somebody already mentioned something about spoon feeding and I am not going there. Spoon feeding and knowledge retention are seemingly opposites.
Think about all of the threads and the thousands and thousands of postings about driving a stand-alone coil at its self-resonant frequency. I am not even talking about a Joule Thief here. How many times have you seen Tesla's patent posted? Think of all of the buzz and speculation about that, the thousands of hours devoted to that subject.
After all of that talk and energy expended and all of the experiments done, have you ever seen any tangible results with respect to that? I haven't myself.
So you have resonance and self-resonance being discussed for years, and from what I can see not a single tangle result except for those big resonant coils that give off the big electric arcs. There are even those entertainment companies that rent them out for parties and raves and they modulate them to play music. There are a ton of clips on YouTube. Lynyrd Skynyrd anyone?
Hey, take what is a pulse switching circuit and imagine that you can muck up the way it operates and hope for better results. Why imagine a pulse circuit can "resonate" when apparently you can't even define what that actually means for the pulse circuit, and to take it one step further, you don't even know what resonance actually is? It's the blind leading the blind.
Why not just design some kind of circuit built around a purpose-designed oscillator and then do the same old tired transistor modulation (instead of switching) of a coil to light an LED?
So forget it for me, this thread has reached a dead end, the bus driver doesn't know how to drive the bus. Go back to driving school. I will just sit on the sidelines and see if the bus actually goes anywhere or if the thread dies out with a host of unanswered questions about our favourite subject - good ol' resonance.
-
There is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box. But there is something seriously wrong with a mutual patting-each-other-on-the-back session when when the actual truth is it's all the just the same old stuff and that stuff is mostly wishful thinking and self-delusion. We can all just "agree" that resonance is something special and do experiments that prove nothing and still pat each other on the back as if we are accomplishing something.
That's how this thread was going and I just wanted to make it real and of course I got push-back. How dare I upset the normal order of a mutual agree-off?
Then there is something like the Cone of Silence. It's the Straitjacket of Agreement. When somebody says something that many people know is totally wrong those people won't say anything because they are wearing the Straitjacket. Hence, progress in getting up the learning curve is so stifled that it barely even happens and progress moves as fast as a glacier. And sometimes the glacier is actually melting and going backwards.
The "box" is also another crutch. It goes like this, "I don't have to try to learn anything beyond what I pick and choose because I am a bleeding-edge outside-the-box kind of guy." And often that translates into "I barley have a clue what I am doing and I don't want to listen to you and I don't want to try to learn." I am in a box of my own making and I am outside-the-box.
So be it. At least I tried to say something - and for sure it makes the thread more interesting to read because there is some drama mixed in with a technical discussion. It's not just the boring usual agree-off.
-
Threads like this really do give others the chance to see the caricature of fellow threaders.
I mean,the last couple of pages alone on this thread have been a hoot :D
Quote Webby :Tinman answered the wine glass question,, now it is your turn.
Now be specific, and put substance behind your words.
MHs reply: Forget it,
::) So predictable and expected.
Has anyone here seen MH answer even one of his own question's ? :D
Of course not,as he knows he cannot answer any of them with the provided information contained within his own questions.
MH ask: how do you determine the resonant frequency of a wine glass?
My reply-- there are a multitude of things that will determine the resonant frequency of that wine glass--there is no one simple MH equation that can be used to calculate that resonant frequency.
What grade of crystal is the wine glass made of MH ?.
What are the specifications on the physical size and parameters of the glass?.
MHs response -->You don't have the slightest clue.
Quote HowStuffWorks- Resonance, An object free to vibrate tends to do so at a specific rate called the object's natural, or resonant, frequency. (This frequency depends on the size, shape, and composition of the object.)
Conclusion--my questions were valid---MHs question was incomplete,and loaded.
Quote MH: Why imagine a pulse circuit can "resonate" when apparently you can't even define what that actually means for the pulse circuit, and to take it one step further, you don't even know what resonance actually is? It's the blind leading the blind.
Another question he cannot and has not answered him self.
Quote MH: So forget it for me, this thread has reached a dead end, the bus driver doesn't know how to drive the bus.
Seems the self appointed driving instructor dosnt even know what a bus is ::)
Quote MH: I will just sit on the sidelines and see if the bus actually goes anywhere or if the thread dies out with a host of unanswered questions about our favourite subject - good ol' resonance.
Yes,unanswered questions that the provider of those questions cannot even answer him self--hey MH.
Quote MH: Then there is something like the Cone of Silence.
Yes,one you stick to MH,when it comes time to answer your own question's.
Quote MH: When somebody says something that many people know is totally wrong those people won't say anything because they are wearing the Straitjacket.
Example of totally wrong-->No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever
My reply-->There is so many resonant factors in a two stroke engine that can increase it's performance, it's not funny
Good thing im not one that wears the good old straight jacket-hey MH ;)
Quote MH:"Induced current into the inductor" and the "rise of the magnetic field" are the same thing.
Oh dear :o
So MH--What dose determine the resonant frequency of a wine glass?
Time to put your money where your mouth is.<-- my guess is that you wont even try to answer your own question,as we have seen on every occasion so far.
The driving instructor that dosnt know what a bus is,but happy to ridicule those that cannot drive one.
By the way. Below is a pick of my old rig,taken just before i left for a long haul trip.
I dont think driving the bus is going to be a problem ;)
Brad
-
I always thought what determined the resonance of a wine glass was the tape that you recorded Ella Fitzgerald singing on...it had to be Memorex.
Actually, striking the wine glass will tell you what its natural resonance freq is. If you play that frequency at an amplitude high enough, the glass will shatter. If you place a little wine into the glass, this, of course, will change the frequency so it needs to be "rung" again to determine the new freq.
Placing the wine into the glass after it has shattered is not a good idea.
We learned in physics class that this deals with both constructive and destructive interference. I get them confused but I think constructive builds upon itself and destructive nulls itself and cancels out? I don't remember, it was a long time ago.
Bill
PS Tinman, that is one heck of a rig there. They don't allow those in the US anymore as far as I know. Doubles yes, triples no.
-
....gotta delurk and reply.
road trains in OZ are friggin mind blowing. theres the TV show outback truckers , 4 - 5 trailers and nothing but dirt , mud , rivers , hills and goat tracks!!
Ive made push pull with arcing FBT before using search coils . electrical resonance is input signal is equal to feed back signal , the coil and core finds resonance
-
PS Tinman, that is one heck of a rig there. They don't allow those in the US anymore as far as I know. Doubles yes, triples no.
Im actually missing the trucks,and thinking about going back to them.
The only reason i left the truck's,was because of the 17 hour day's,and that dose not leave much time to do your own thing's.
We can tow as many trailers as we want in most outback areas,as long as the prime mover is rated to do so. Most up north of the state two 4 to 5 trailers,and some mine companies have 8 trailer setups. But before you can tow more than two trailers,you need to get !what we call! an MC licence (mass combination) This takes a year of training in the HC (heavy combination) class before you can even go for your MC licence. As you can imagine ,the powers that be want to make sure you know what your doing when you are in control of 200+ ton traveling at 100KPH. But the money is worth the effort. Up north towing road trains,you can get $20 per hour per trailer. So if your towing 4 trailers,and working a 17 hour day,you make a good sum of money for the week ;)
The hardest part of the job is avoiding the idiots on the road.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ix7ZgsWTMg
Brad
-
....gotta delurk and reply.
road trains in OZ are friggin mind blowing. theres the TV show outback truckers , 4 - 5 trailers and nothing but dirt , mud , rivers , hills and goat tracks!!
I am actually in one of the outback truckers shows lol.
Got paid an extra $700.00 just for appearing in the show--along with two other long haulers.
Brad
-
....gotta delurk and reply.
road trains in OZ are friggin mind blowing. theres the TV show outback truckers , 4 - 5 trailers and nothing but dirt , mud , rivers , hills and goat tracks!!
Ive made push pull with arcing FBT before using search coils . electrical resonance is input signal is equal to feed back signal , the coil and core finds resonance
I grew up in Aus and I used to snuggle up behind the road trains to save fuel. I moved to Canada about 17 years ago and here up north they drive rigs across the lakes in the winter. Absolutely Crazy - No brakes and if the ice is to thin... (no I have never driven one).
-
Brad:
You can stew in your juices for a month or two and I will answer then. Sorry, but your BS has been exposed. Here you are arguing about resonance and you can't even explain what it is for a bloody wine glass. The whole debate with you has been an exercise in BS and bluster and the usual baiting and switching. It's been a farce. I have seen it many times now.
Even alleging that I can't answer my own questions is just a BS charade once again in an attempt to save face, because you know I can answer them. Delivery in four to eight weeks.
MileHigh
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFzu6CNtqec (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFzu6CNtqec)
Here is an example of what resonance can do. The Tacoma bridge. Wind hitting the support cables hit resonance and brought the bridge down. We watched this same film in physics class. That "motorist" running away at the last moment is actually a Professor Farquharson, who tried to rescue the dog in the reporter's car (seen on the bridge). He got bit and the dog went down with the car when the bridge fell. I think this is an example of constructive interference (additive) not unlike pushing the child on the swing. Of course, my physics professor admitted to doing a lot of drugs so....who knows?
Bill
-
Bill:
This is probably the best film you will ever see on the Tacoma Narrows bridge:
Galloping Gertie - The Collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqqyAZDpV6c
What's truly amazing is that I think it was done by high school students.
It's so good that I will give them credit right here:
Galloping Gertie -- The Collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge examines the creation and demise of the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Produced by Koyo Kim and Raluca Ifrim for National History Day 2007.
From WSHS' collections. Catalog ID: 2011.41.1.2
There are a lot of lessons to be learned in this clip and they can be applied to this forum and to this very thread.
MileHigh
-
MH:
I saw that one listed (But had not watched it) and posted the link to the other as it was shorter.
You are right...that is even better than the film we watched in class on this event. Very well documented and explained. A very good job.
Bill
PS I like how the expert outside consultant said: Naw...it will be fine, don't worry about it. Ha ha. (Or something like that) I wonder if his liability insurance went up after this?
-
It is important that those thinking along these lines grasp the concept entirely.
"what is" or "what is not" resonance.
This can be the cause of a great deal of confusion.
Synchronization, or Timing of the components of a system, while may be required for total system resonance, these are independent concepts.
timing can be coordinated at virtually any range of frequencies, velocities rpm, etc.
resonance results in things like TK shows with the bridge above.
the inductance, number of turns in the coil, resistance, transistor function
these things are the "timing".
resonance has to do with the length of wire in those coils, vs the physical size of the ferrite (times a materials constant)
vs the comparable impedances and capacitances in other parts of the circuit.
when both of these line up together in just the right way, we see things like TK's bridge example, occurring in our circuits.
PS: if you want to see an "ICE in resonance", sit behind a large diesel truck on "just the right sized bridge" for long enough, and the whole bridge will start to bounce
-
pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476060#msg476060 date=1456885282]
MileHigh
You can stew in your juices for a month or two and I will answer then.
You give your self too much credit MH. Believe me when i say that there will no stewing here ,other than to cook my wife a nice meal. I need not your answers MH,but i am surprised it would take you so long to carry out the research needed by your self to put the answers together.
[/quote]
Sorry, but your BS has been exposed.
Those that read this thread will see where the bullshit is coming from MH--let them be the judges of that.
Here you are arguing about resonance and you can't even explain what it is for a bloody wine glass.
I have answered this question many time's MH,but as you have done in the past(many times on this thread alone),you miss it,and then accuse people of not answering questions.
I have proven you wrong time and time again on this thread alone--it's all there to see,and people can judge for them self.
The whole debate with you has been an exercise in BS and bluster and the usual baiting and switching. It's been a farce. I have seen it many times now.
Ah,so you do look in the mirror MH.
The facts are(and are written in this thread for all to read),i gave an accurate description as to how a JT operates at low voltage potentials--you couldnt even give it a try,because you had no idea>--you admitted to this ;)
Then i had to set you straight about the resonant systems in an ICE-->as you got that wrong as well.
There is also the fact that you cannot answer your own questions(not one)--which i have accurately.
You cant grasp the fact that resonance can increase system efficiency's --even though many examples of such have been provided. Some devices will not even work outside there resonant frequency. Im not sure who it was,but i believe some pages back i saw some mention a pulse jet engine. The valveless pulse jet engine always runs at it's natural mechanical/acustic resonant frequency.
Even alleging that I can't answer my own questions is just a BS charade once again in an attempt to save face, because you know I can answer them.Delivery in four to eight weeks.
Dropped your self in that pile-didnt you MH.
Some one that has answers dose not need 4 to 8 weeks to answer them lol.
Some one that has no answers would require such time to gather the information needed to answer such questions ;)
Curve ball-->You can stew in your juices for a month or two and I will answer then
Predictable from some one that cannot provide the required information.
Post 557 :Also work on your personal integrity with that farce of a response from you about the resonant frequency of a wine glass.
Current post :Delivery on answers in four to eight weeks
::) Lol
First you want to know how a wine glass resonates .
Then you want to know what determines the resonant frequency of a wine glass-->how long is a piece of string question:D
Now you want to know what is resonance in a wine glass :o
The last question you only ask in the post of this reply,and yet say i have not answered it ::)
You need to work out what you want to know MH,and i will give you the answer--but only if the question can be answered with the provided information--none of your incomplete or loaded questions will be taken notice of from now on MH. So please provide all the required information about the systems parameters,so as we can make an accurate working description--you know,just like you ask from us.
Resonance in a wine glass ,is the wine glass vibrating at it's natural resonant frequency
Now i have highlighted that in red,in the hope that you dont miss it.
Now-do you think that a JTs core will be vibrating at it's natural resonant frequency?
What impact would it have on the efficiency if the running frequency is the same as the NRF of the core?.
Dont worry about trying to answer those questions either MH,as we dont have 12-18 months to wait ;)
Brad
-
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
Resonance in a wine glass ,is the wine glass vibrating at it's natural resonant frequency
By receiving pulses of energy at the correct !time!<--time MH) at it's natural resonant frequency.
These pulses of energy can be either pressure waves,or physical contact taps on the glass it self.When enough energy is stored in the glass,and the molecules of the glass are agitated,the glass then go's into resonance.
Whats your point?.
ROLFLMAO
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
Of what?
Mechanical,acoustic,or electrical resonance?
And you say i am no good at explaining things.
If you are referring to a wine glass,then there are a multitude of things that will determine the resonant frequency of that wine glass--there is no one simple MH equation that can be used to calculate that resonant frequency.
Can you list all those things that will determine the resonant frequency of a wine glass MH ?--no chance in hell. You are full of it. You ask questions you your self cannot even answer.
What grade of crystal is the wine glass made of MH ?.
What are the specifications on the physical size and parameters of the glass?.
How long is a piece of string?.
ROTFLMAO
i am surprised it would take you so long to carry out the research needed by your self to put the answers together.
ROTFLMAO
I am giving you four to eight weeks to see if you can actually understand what resonance is and figure out how a wine glass resonates.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476117#msg476117 date=1456936417]
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
Answer-By receiving pulses of energy(from a prime mover) at the correct !time!<--time MH) at it's natural resonant frequency.These pulses of energy can be either pressure waves,or physical contact taps on the glass it self.
Quote physicsclassroom.com -resonance - when one object vibrating at the same natural frequency of a second object forces that second object into vibrational motion.
Watch from 2:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE827gwnnk4
Answer correct.
What is resonance in a wine glass
Answer-Resonance in a wine glass ,is the wine glass vibrating at it's natural resonant frequency
Quote hyperphysics :a resonant frequency is a natural frequency of vibration .
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
Answer-If you are referring to a wine glass,then there are a multitude of things that will determine the resonant frequency of that wine glass--there is no one simple MH equation that can be used to calculate that resonant frequency.
What are the specifications on the physical size and parameters of the glass?.
Quote Physicsclassroom.com- A resonant frequency is a natural frequency of vibration determined by the physical parameters of the vibrating object.
My questions regarding the physical parameters of the wine glass were legitimate and correct.
You are a joke MH--that much is clear.
You cannot ,have not,and will not answer your own questions-that much is also clear.
Anyway,you enjoy your self over there in wonderland.
It's been a hoot :D
Brad
-
Well the problem is that even if the "missing" physical size and parameters of the glass were given to you, you still wouldn't be able to answer the question. Are you bluffing? Go ahead and fill in your own parameters and answer then. I said the same thing to you about the Joule Thief when you asked for specifics and you ran away. Will you run away again?
-
Well the problem is that even if the "missing" physical size and parameters of the glass were given to you, you still wouldn't be able to answer the question. Are you bluffing? Go ahead and fill in your own parameters and answer then. I said the same thing to you about the Joule Thief when you asked for specifics and you ran away. Will you run away again?
I will take this one step further because it's annoying.
Why did I put "missing" in quotations?
Let's look at the question again:
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
Is that question asking you for specific values? The answer no. Now can you understand the question?
Here is an analogy to show you how ridiculous your balking is:
Supposing you are in grade 6 and the teacher says to the class, "Write up a short story describing how you fill up your car with gas at a gas station." It's a test for the children in grade 6 to see if they are capable of describing something in a logical order and to see if they can put sentences together properly. It's not a skill-testing question to see if they know how to pump gas.
Now if a student complains that he can't write the short story because, 1) the make and model of the car is not defined, 2) how empty the gas tank is is not defined, 3) the type of gas is not defined, and 4) the brand of the gas station is not defined, then clearly there is a problem with that student.
That's exactly what you are doing when I ask you how the resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined and it's ridiculous. The question can be answered without specifics.
So you can answer the question by filling in the "missing" physical parameters by yourself, or you can answer the question as it was posed to you just like the kids in the class can write the short story about how to pump gas without specifics.
I will return to this subject in four to eight weeks if you can't answer the questions. Simple, basic questions can be answered with simple, basic answers.
MileHigh
-
Forget it Webby, the questions about the wine glass resonance are 100% legit.
-
I will take this one step further because it's annoying.
Why did I put "missing" in quotations?
Let's look at the question again:
Is that question asking you for specific values? The answer no. Now can you understand the question?
Here is an analogy to show you how ridiculous your balking is:
Supposing you are in grade 6 and the teacher says to the class, "Write up a short story describing how you fill up your car with gas at a gas station." It's a test for the children in grade 6 to see if they are capable of describing something in a logical order and to see if they can put sentences together properly. It's not a skill-testing question to see if they know how to pump gas.
Now if a student complains that he can't write the short story because, 1) the make and model of the car is not defined, 2) how empty the gas tank is is not defined, 3) the type of gas is not defined, and 4) the brand of the gas station is not defined, then clearly there is a problem with that student.
That's exactly what you are doing when I ask you how the resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined and it's ridiculous. The question can be answered without specifics.
So you can answer the question by filling in the "missing" physical parameters by yourself, or you can answer the question as it was posed to you just like the kids in the class can write the short story about how to pump gas without specifics.
I will return to this subject in four to eight weeks if you can't answer the questions. Simple, basic questions can be answered with simple, basic answers.
MileHigh
Your in dream land MH
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
The list of specifications that will determine the resonant frequency of a wine glass is a !Mile! long.
When working out how to determine what the resonant frequency will be ,you need that full list of specifications,and by building the wine glass to those specifications,then hopefully you will be some where in the ball park.
E.G-if you want a wine glass to resonate at a determined frequency of say 440Hz,then you need all the information about the makeup of the wine glass in order to construct that wine glass to resonate at the determined frequency
Now if you want to know the actual resonant frequency(the frequency that has already been determined by it's physical and chemical parameters) of a wine glass,then i would think the easiest way to do that would be to give the wine glass a quick tap,and hold a microphone !that is hooked to a scope!,close to the wine glass,and see what the vibrational frequency is on your scope. You would then know !what! the determined frequency of the wine glass is.
It;s the same when building switchmode power supplies. First you determine what output power you need,and then you build that power supply that will deliver the required output using known specifications.So the only way to know how to determine that output,is by using known specifications of the components and makeup of that power supply.
But if you want to know !what! the actual power output is of an already built power supply,then you can simply do some load tests to acquire that information-as the determined output was already set when the power supply was built.
Maybe you meant- how can we find out what the resonant frequency of a wine glass is?,as that frequency was already determined when the wine glass was constructed.
If so,then i have answered that question above-->and you should try and word things correctly MH,as it would save a lot of confusion for everyone else.
Brad
-
Just to add to this a little bit
https://www.google.com/search?q=detrmined&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=how+to+determine+the+resonant+frequency+of+a+wine+glass
The consensus seems to be to ping it and measure it with a tool,, no calculating it :(
Which is not determining the frequency but rather measuring it.
So the CORRECT question should of been,, how can you FIND the resonant frequency of a wine glass.
Just my tuppence worth :)
Bingo
Spot on webby.
Brad
-
NOPE!
and here is why.
There is not ONE frequency,, there are many,, so I was wrong, the question should be "A" resonant frequency not "THE".
It is a silly question,, but that has made me think of things in a little different way,, to me that is something that was learned.
Webby
I do not think the wine glass has multiple resonant frequency's--i believe it will have only one.
The force that causes that resonant frequency in the wine glass can have multiple frequency's that are divisions or multiplications of that resonant frequency of the wine glass.
EG,if the wine glass has a resonant frequency of say 400Hz,then we should be able to tap that glass at 200Hz,and the glass should still resonate.
This is much the same as the kid on a swing. Even if we only gave him a push every second swing,his resonant frequency will still remain the same as if we push him every swing.
Brad
-
Here is a very good example of mechanical and electrical resonance in an electric solenoid motor i built years ago for another project.--watch from 4:00 on.
In the bottom of the solenoid cylinder there is a S/S spring. When the electromagnet switches off,the PM drops onto the spring--you will see the conrod oscillate up and down when the PM hits the spring--this is during low frequency cycles. When i start raising the frequency to the solenoid,you can see and hear that the matching frequency to the spring has still not been met. At the last adjustment of frequency,you can hear and see that the rise and fall time of the PM is now exact to that of the springs reaction time-->the PM and spring combination are now at there resonant frequency.
The spring is now pushing the PM back up at the very same time the solenoid fires,and the whole system smooths right out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4VJG8-9izQ
Brad
-
Here are the two questions again:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
All of the whining and complaining and moaning and making up excuses is just you saying that you don't truly understand what resonance is because if you did you could answer both questions without batting an eyelash.
So right now you are unable to answer the questions, period. I will answer them in four to eight weeks. Now if you wanted to undertake to learn something on your own volition and came back and answered them correctly that would be great.
MileHigh
-
Here are the two questions again:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
All of the whining and complaining and moaning and making up excuses is just you saying that you don't truly understand what resonance is because if you did you could answer both questions without batting an eyelash.
So right now you are unable to answer the questions, period. I will answer them in four to eight weeks. Now if you wanted to undertake to learn something on your own volition and came back and answered them correctly that would be great.
MileHigh
Both answered
Have a nice day.
Brad
-
Both answered
Have a nice day.
Brad
Well, I'm telling you that you are wrong. You said you couldn't answer the question about the frequency without specifics, implying that if you were given the specifics you could. Then after you are told to supply the specifics yourself, you go into a whole song and dance routine and whine about how it is too complicated and you can't supply the specifics. You were bluffing the whole time. It's a farce.
It's a farce because you have been arguing about resonance in a Joule Thief and you can't even explain the mechanism of resonance for a wine glass. It's a farce because you put up some scope shots of your Joule Thief and said, "This is a Joule Thief in resonance," when that was obviously not the case.
In a month or two when I answer the questions don't you dare say, "Oh, of course, that was so obvious that I didn't bother stating it." Based on your current behaviour, I wouldn't put that past you. Don't you dare do that Brad. If the obvious is so obvious then state it now.
Clearly many people don't understand what resonance is nor can they explain it. It's just a vague concept and all they can do is parrot out the definition of resonance but they can't apply it to a real-wold example and show that they understand what they are talking about. The same thing applies to a "resonant Joule Thief." For starters it's a switching device with an operating frequency, not a resonant frequency. Nobody can define what a "resonant Joule Thief" actually is. They can't explain the mechanism, they can't sketch out a timing diagram and show where the resonance is and show what the benefits are. It's just like the foolishness around a "self-resonant coil" because of that Tesla patent.
So for years there has been chatter about a "resonant Joule Thief" and from what I can see, there is nothing to show for it at all. Relative to the standard definition of a Joule Thief, a "resonant Joule Thief" is an oxymoron.
I really hope Magluvin gets the time to work with Smoky2 and look for a "resonant Joule Thief" and documents it properly and sketches out a full timing diagram showing exactly where the resonance is and explaining the alleged mechanism for the resonance and showing the alleged benefits. However, I am not holding my breath on this.
MileHigh
-
Just say a particular frequency when the reactance of an inductor and a
capacitor balance.
End of story!
Tinman science and MarkE science are worlds apart.
When I'm flying I go by the book, as a fellow pilot I'll bet the
Koala would agree.
John.
-
THIS IS FOR MILE HIGH THIS IS WHAT YOU CALL A JOULE THIEF,
-
I GUESS TINMAN IS GOING TO DO THE DUDE THING AGAIN..
-
What determines the resonant freq of the wine glass? I know that what they call crystal has lead content. That would lower the freq by adding weight. So I wonder if a wine glass without lead also rings, but we just cant hear it because the freq is too high?
Mags
-
End of story!
John.
Just say a particular frequency when the reactance of an inductor and a
capacitor balance.
But MH insists that there is no C value in a JT--it just an IR system.
Tinman science and MarkE science are worlds apart.
Not as much as you may think ;)
When I'm flying I go by the book, as a fellow pilot I'll bet the
Koala would agree.
Good thing bird's cant read,or they'd have to attach wheels.
Brad
-
MH,
How do you define the preferred rate in scientific terms?
How do you define the natural rate in scientific terms?
I mean, could you say that the preferred internal rate of action\reaction to an external stimuli,, or should it be stated some other more precise way?
I mean, could you say that the natural internal rate of action\reaction to an external stimuli,, or should it be stated some other more precise way?
Besides stating the obvious that at resonance part of the external input is being stored within that component that is in resonance, or being destroyed, as in being converted into wasted energy, aka heat.
It does appear that no matter what the answer given you will simply be saying it is wrong.
http://www.intuitor.com/resonance/index.php
Indeed ;)
Brad
-
Here is an interesting quote that Mark Dansie posted recently for y'all to contemplate:
“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.” George Orwell (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3706.George_Orwell)
-
But MH insists that there is no C value in a JT--it just an IR system.
Brad
There is definitely a C component within the coil. I did post, probably not in this thread, scope shots of a monofilar coil and a bifilar coil and the freq they ring at. The bifi was lower in freq, more likely due to more internal capacitance. The bifi was I believe near 14khz
The Jts freq testing so far is very high with low numbers of turns. One I have found at near 3mhz, of which I havnt reached that freq of operation with the circuit so far.
Mags
-
Here is an interesting quote that Mark Dansie posted recently for y'all to contemplate:
“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.” George Orwell (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3706.George_Orwell)
The person that reads to much,and uses his brain to little,will fall into lazy habits of thinking.
-
Here is an interesting quote that Mark Dansie posted recently for y'all to contemplate:
“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.” George Orwell (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3706.George_Orwell)
"It's going to take more than the facts to convince me I am wrong". Frank Kingston Smith's wife. (Frank authored Weekend Pilot)
Bill
-
The person that reads to much,and uses his brain to little,will fall into lazy habits of thinking.
There is irony in that very sentence.
-
There is irony in that very sentence.
There is also truth.
I mean,who better to know than Albert Einstein.
Which cam first-the bench men,or the book's?.
Experiments lead writing's MH, writings do not lead experiments.
Perhaps you could close the old book's,and help develop the new MH.
Work with the rest of the team,instead of against them all the time.
Be positive for a change,instead of bringing nothing but negativity.
Help those here to design a circuit that will run at a resonant frequency,instead of the forced switching frequency they run at now. Then view the result's,and then make judgement.
Brad
-
I personally have no doubt that Tinman comprehends resonance.. after all.. it is the main path to NMR or NAR.
Yes a hammer will ring natures bell at will ,however the tuned symphony is a more steadfast path ,member Chessnyt most recently sings the magic tune to water .
you can break either the crystal or water with a hammer
here is water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc
and we already know about the tuned symphony and crystal............
-
Brad:
Well, it's another irony because I haven't opened a book about electronics in more than 30 years and you have been experimenting for 6+ years and you seemingly still haven't grasped the concept of when a capacitance is significant and when it's not significant when you want to figure out how a given circuit works. What's worse, is that you are willfully ignoring my advice about that.
Your whole line about experiments vs. books with respect to me is phony, it's a crutch that you use to stick to your own unique way of thinking, and sometimes that thinking is completely off the wall. "Books plus bench" is the way you should be thinking.
I am working with the team by challenging you guys to think instead of just blindly "pushing forward." Look at the example of the variable base resistor for the Joule Thief. I challenged you and asked you why it was supposedly needed and you had nothing to say. I could cover that issue on paper from A to Z. Likewise, I could go on a bench to investigate the issue from A to Z and state definitively and comprehensively about the requirement, or lack of a requirement, for a variable base resistor for the Joule Thief under test.
Here is another way I am helping the team: I am asking them to state what a "resonant Joule Thief" is and how it is supposed to operate. So that's why the wine glass is interesting. It makes everybody think. For six or more years people have been talking about resonance, and when the subject of one of the most common and basic resonant devices is brought up there are unanswered questions and blank stares.
I have a lot of direct experience, and an education. I remember most of my direct experience. Don't pretend that I don't have any direct experience as a way to try to dismiss what I am saying to you.
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476359#msg476359 date=1457098312]
MileHigh
Well, it's another irony because I haven't opened a book about electronics in more than 30 years and you have been experimenting for 6+ years and you seemingly still haven't grasped the concept of when a capacitance is significant and when it's not significant when you want to figure out how a given circuit works. What's worse, is that you are willfully ignoring my advice about that.
Im not ignoring you MH, im just saying your wrong.
What about parasitic capacitance which resonates with the inductance ? . I know the value maybe small,but at high frequencies at these low power levels,it plays a big part in how the circuit will operate. A series LR circuit without capacitance, is only an idealization. In the real world,the fact is that as you increase the applied frequency you reach a point where there is a small capacitance between the individual windings of the inductor whose reactance becomes significant at these low power levels. Now it is no longer an RL circuit and we can get resonance.
Your whole line about experiments vs. books with respect to me is phony, it's a crutch that you use to stick to your own unique way of thinking, and sometimes that thinking is completely off the wall. "Books plus bench" is the way you should be thinking.
MH,i dont read books as such,as all my research is via the internet--same thing i guess.
But if we restrick our self to what is yesterdays new's,then we will never get any further ahead than we are now. The only way forward is in the new discoveries--and those you will not find in the books of yesty year.
I am working with the team by challenging you guys to think instead of just blindly "pushing forward."
But your not working with us MH,you are against anything that includes an increase in efficiency due to resonance. You say !blindly! pushing forward,and we say experimentation.
Look at the example of the variable base resistor for the Joule Thief. I challenged you and asked you why it was supposedly needed and you had nothing to say.
I dont use resistors if i can help it MH,as they just burn of power as waste heat. I try and design the system to operate without them,and keep resistive losses at a minimum.
I could cover that issue on paper from A to Z. Likewise, I could go on a bench to investigate the issue from A to Z and state definitively and comprehensively about the requirement, or lack of a requirement, for a variable base resistor for the Joule Thief under test.
And i would work on the bench designing a circuit that has the least amount of resistance as possible.
Here is another way I am helping the team: I am asking them to state what a "resonant Joule Thief" is and how it is supposed to operate. So that's why the wine glass is interesting. It makes everybody think. For six or more years people have been talking about resonance, and when the subject of one of the most common and basic resonant devices is brought up there are unanswered questions and blank stares.
So what questions in regard to the wine glass did i have wrong?
I told you the easy way to find the resonant frequency of a wine glass,using a microphone and scope.
I told you how to get a wine glass to resonate.
And i told you what resonance is.
I have a lot of direct experience, and an education. I remember most of my direct experience. Don't pretend that I don't have any direct experience as a way to try to dismiss what I am saying to you.
MH,i know you have the smarts,but i have some myself you know.
I cant dismiss anything you have said toward the resonant questions MH,as you say you need 4 to 8 weeks to present them,when the rest of us here are expected to answer your questions straight away.
Brad
-
Brad:
Evey time I have stated that the capacitance in a given circuit is insignificant and should be ignored you have fought back with willful ignorance.
But if we restrick our self to what is yesterdays new's,then we will never get any further ahead than we are now. The only way forward is in the new discoveries--and those you will not find in the books of yesty year.
You haven't even made it half way through Electronics 101.
you are against anything that includes an increase in efficiency due to resonance
Who says "better efficiency through resonance?" Do you have any proof of that? From what I can see you don't, it's just one of the blind beliefs on the forums. You believe it because others have told you so, and you repeat it yourself. It is pure self-propagandizing and blind obedience. It's a bloody Orwellian nightmare and you are just a resonance zombie pod person.
Resonant circuits, actual resonant circuits, not "force a square peg into a round hole" to find the "resonant" version of a circuit - these true resonant circuits have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
In addition, I have posted several times how a resonant circuit can be just a lot of oscillating current going nowhere, and burning off a lot of power due to excessive i-squared-R losses. That translates into reduced efficiency.
I dont use resistors if i can help it MH,as they just burn of power as waste heat. I try and design the system to operate without them,and keep resistive losses at a minimum.
That comment is laughable nonsense and you completely avoided the issue of the variable resistor for a Joule Thief because you clearly cannot do the simple basic circuit analysis that that calls for.
And i would work on the bench designing a circuit that has the least amount of resistance as possible.
ROTFLMAO
I told you the easy way to find the resonant frequency of a wine glass,using a microphone and scope.
Are you a clown now?
I cant dismiss anything you have said toward the resonant questions MH,as you say you need 4 to 8 weeks to present them,when the rest of us here are expected to answer your questions straight away.
You have four to eight weeks to roll up your shirtsleeves and get to work and apply yourself so you can get to the point where you can actually answer those two simple questions about a resonating wine glass. Do it to prove to yourself and to others that you did it - you worked and got up the learning curve and applied your new knowledge now you actually understand resonance and resonance in a wine glass and you did it by yourself.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Evey time I have stated that the capacitance in a given circuit is insignificant and should be ignored you have fought back with willful ignorance.
Well that depends on the freq of operation of the circuit. If the book on power supplies tells us to operate our inductors or transformers at freq in a range of 10 times below or lower the natural RESONANT freq(determined by the inductor/transformer internal capacitance and inductance) of the inductor/transformer, and not even a lower multiple of that freq, then apparently if we did operate at, or a multiple of that resonant freq, then that capacitance is not insignificant any longer.
Mags
-
Well that depends on the freq of operation of the circuit. If the book on power supplies tells us to operate our inductors or transformers at freq in a range of 10 times below or lower the natural RESONANT freq(determined by the inductor/transformer internal capacitance and inductance) of the inductor/transformer, and not even a lower multiple of that freq, then apparently if we did operate at, or a multiple of that resonant freq, then that capacitance is not insignificant any longer.
Mags
Im beginning to wonder if this is actually MH speaking,or his 7 year old grandson has hacked his account :o.
Brad
-
Im beginning to wonder if this is actually MH speaking,or his 7 year old grandson has hacked his account :o .
Brad
Earlier in this thread you argued and argued that a standard Joule Thief in its normal operation mode was an RLC circuit. There is no capacitor in the schematic, there is no oscillation or resonance taking place because of the minuscule insignificant parasitic capacitance present in the circuit. That was pure willful ignorance on your part.
The fact that Magluvin made reference to his switching power supply design book has no bearing whatsoever on the battle about the Joule Thief circuit type.
Take a look at the timing diagram again and observe no capacitive effects whatsoever and observe traces that have a signature of an L/R-type process taking place in the circuit.
So you are dead wrong about a Joule Thief being an RLC type of circuit. I suppose a related issue is are you mature enough to admit it?
MileHigh
-
just lurking , thought Id throw this in .....
4001 , 4007 , LED etc give a pf reading on any capacitance meter , thats in reverse bias , fwd bias theyre conducting .
same goes for mosfets etc ....
yea Ill go back to my corner .....
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476419#msg476419 date=1457144080]
Earlier in this thread you argued and argued that a standard Joule Thief in its normal operation mode was an RLC circuit. There is no capacitor in the schematic, there is no oscillation or resonance taking place because of the minuscule insignificant parasitic capacitance present in the circuit. That was pure willful ignorance on your part.
You need to stop quoting incorrect bullshit MH.
Any circuit with an inductor has a C value-like it or not,thats how it is.
There for,the circuit is an RLC circuit-unless you can provide what the C value in a circuit has to be before it is not considered an RLC circuit.
I have never claimed that your JT circuit shows signs of resonance. What is being discussed here,is if we made the JT circuit to operate at a resonant state,what would the benefits be. Your stuck on that!there is only 1 JT circuit! thing again,and that is just crap.
Everyone else is playing with ideas as to how to get a JT circuit to resonate,and here you are waffling on about !your! particular circuit.
You have done nothing but bring negativity to the subject at hand.
You cannot even answer your own question's--you need 4 to 8 weeks to go gather all the information from the net. This has been a habit with you over the past year-asking questions that you your self cannot answer-->and yet determine that others that answer those questions are wrong-like with the wine glass.
Take a look at the timing diagram again and observe no capacitive effects whatsoever and observe traces that have a signature of an L/R-type process taking place in the circuit.
You off with the fairy's MH-->once again,who are you to determine what a JT circuit is?.
Who said that we cannot increase the capacitance of the circuit to gain the desired effect. This is a rule you have put upon your self MH,and we do not follow your rules--believe it or not.
So you are dead wrong about a Joule Thief being an RLC type of circuit. I suppose a related issue is are you mature enough to admit it
?
The related issue here MH,is that your stuck on one circuit design.
As i have told you time and time again--MH dose not decide what the JT circuit is.
Can you not understand that those here are designing circuits where a resonate state can be achieved. What your saying is-here is an ICE. I want you to increase the HP of that ICE without modifying anything.<-- Thats how silly you sound MH.
So after chatting to some people,we have decided that we are no longer interested in your negativity and one tracked mind.
We will simply be paying no more attention to your bullshit--like not being able to answer your own questions--stuck on one JT circuit design--ETC,ETC.
There is simply no room here for some one that has no vision,so please go annoy some other group.
Quote: An ideal inductor would not behave like a capacitor, but in the real world there are no ideal components.
Basically, any real inductor can be though of an ideal inductor that has a resistor in series with it (wire resistance) and a capacitor in parallel with it (parasitic capacitance).
Now, where does the parasitic capacitance come from? an inductor is made out of a coil of insulated wire, so there are tiny capacitors between the windings (since there are two sections of wire separated by an insulator). Each section of windings is at a slightly different potential (because of wire inductance and resistance).
As the frequency increases, the impedance of the inductor increases while the impedance of the parasitic capacitor decreases, so at some high frequency the impedance of the capacitor is much lower than the impedance of the inductor, which means that your inductor behaves like a capacitor. The inductor also has its own resonance frequency.
This is why some high frequency inductors have their windings far apart - to reduce the capacitance.
This is my last response to you MH.
Brad
-
Brad:
You are back to playing the drama queen. We are talking about the standard Joule Thief circuit and it's not an RLC circuit. Nobody at this point can demonstrate a resonating standard Joule Thief circuit because the standard Joule Thief circuit was not designed to resonate. No need to be a resonance fanboy and believe resonance will do something special - prove it for real on the bench if you can - don't just blindly believe in it. Present good solid data to your peers and summarize it.
You were so cocksure about yourself with all your big talk about resonance so I called your bluff with the example of the wine glass and surprise surprise you are lost. Why should I pose a few simple questions to you that I don't know the answers to myself? You better believe it I know the answers and people that are familiar enough with me know I would not lie about something like that.
So learn what resonance actually is before you try to do something with resonance on the bench. Prove your newly acquired smarts and answer the simple questions about the wine glass. If you fail, I will answer them later. I will just repeat, don't you dare say, "I knew that" when I answer the questions. If you know it then say it.
Let's just say you got your cage rattled out of your fantasy cocoon, and that's a good thing - or at least someone tried. It's an attempt to break the near endless cycle of mutual stagnation with little or no progress. Like it or not, that's good for you in the long run.
MileHigh
-
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
Can you list all those things that will determine the resonant frequency of a wine glass MH
These are very good questions, I am glad you brought this up.
My answer is going to be exactly the same as I have been saying to you all along.
the wine glass is very similar to the ferrite core. and as I will note,
the "input" frequency - i.e. your finger rubbing the edge of the glass
does not play a very important factor in the resonance of the wine glass.
You can test this by varying many factors of the wine glass set-up,
while the vibration frequency of your finger (caused by friction) remains relatively constant.
the resonant frequency is determined, primarily, by a materials constant of the glass, the physical dimensions of the wine glass,
as well as the materials property (as a factor of density) of the medium inside the glass. (water, oil, etc)
in a ferrite core, the "medium" outside the core dimensions, is that of the permeability of air.
When all factors are accounted for, you will see that these two examples are rather synonymous.
Now - what happens to the resonance of the glass, when your finger-vibrations are sporadic?
or are caused to be interfering with the frequency of the wine glass?
the glass does not resonate as intensely, does it?
This is the same as switching a JT , in an incoherently digital manner.
I know you "get it"... you cannot "not get it" at this point in the discussion.....
Why, then, do you insist on propagating this "apparently" ignorant viewpoint?
Is it just for the fun of conflict? Do you want to deter this line of thinking for some other goal?
or is it that you are truly that indoctrinated, that you cannot allow yourself to see what is right in front of you?
-
These are very good questions, I am glad you brought this up.
My answer is going to be exactly the same as I have been saying to you all along.
the wine glass is very similar to the ferrite core. and as I will note,
the "input" frequency - i.e. your finger rubbing the edge of the glass
does not play a very important factor in the resonance of the wine glass.
You can test this by varying many factors of the wine glass set-up,
while the vibration frequency of your finger (caused by friction) remains relatively constant.
the resonant frequency is determined, primarily, by a materials constant of the glass, the physical dimensions of the wine glass,
as well as the materials property (as a factor of density) of the medium inside the glass. (water, oil, etc)
in a ferrite core, the "medium" outside the core dimensions, is that of the permeability of air.
When all factors are accounted for, you will see that these two examples are rather synonymous.
Now - what happens to the resonance of the glass, when your finger-vibrations are sporadic?
or are caused to be interfering with the frequency of the wine glass?
the glass does not resonate as intensely, does it?
This is the same as switching a JT , in an incoherently digital manner.
I know you "get it"... you cannot "not get it" at this point in the discussion.....
Why, then, do you insist on propagating this "apparently" ignorant viewpoint?
Is it just for the fun of conflict? Do you want to deter this line of thinking for some other goal?
or is it that you are truly that indoctrinated, that you cannot allow yourself to see what is right in front of you?
smOky
Your wasting your time.
I tried to explain to MH all of the above,but he just continue's on his rant.
We are all wrong,even though MH has no answers him self--that will take him 4 to 8 weeks to gather together.
the resonant frequency is determined, primarily, by a materials constant of the glass, the physical dimensions of the wine glass,
as well as the materials property
The very same answer i gave--but wrong apparently ::)
Why, then, do you insist on propagating this "apparently" ignorant viewpoint?
Is it just for the fun of conflict? Do you want to deter this line of thinking for some other goal?
or is it that you are truly that indoctrinated, that you cannot allow yourself to see what is right in front of you?
Proof of that at some OUR post,regarding the TPU.
Just forget about it smOKy,and carry on with what you believe in.
Brad
-
Reference post.
How to determine !what! the resonant frequency of a wine glass is.
1 Answer-- If you have a microphone and an oscilloscope, you can tap the glass and measure the frequency of the ring. Tried it today,and works a treat.
How to get a wine glass to resonate
1 answer--Resonance occurs when an oscillating system(the prime mover or outside force) is driven at a frequency which is the same as the wine glasses own natural frequency.
What is resonance
Answer when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency. In the case of the wine glass experiment,the outside oscillating force is sound waves. When the frequency of the external force matches the natural frequency of the wine glass,the wine glass will resonate,and the amplitude will rise due to energy being stored in the wine glass. Once the stored energy(or amplitude) exceeds that of what the wine glass can store,the glass will shatter---the system breaks down.
Brad
-
Wine glass shmine glass. Forget the glass business already.
Resonance is great if you know what it is and what it is trying to tell you. Otherwise you are just spinning your wheels for nothing.
The battery in the above JT circuit is an analog to a capacitor if it can output and receive input it's doing the same thing as a cap would.
Before you can explain resonance you need to fully understand how amp ratings are produced for different wire AWG. They only give you amps but there is never any mention of volts so your wires are half identified which makes the amp tables more bugus then anything else. Totally useless in fact. So you guys find out how Standard EE derives amp ratings for copper wire and if you can do that and post it here and I will come back and explain to you what resonance is and what it means in your furthering of OU experiments.
Resonance, the way we use it today will never lead to OU. It's always the same humdrum, high volts no amps and it will go nowhere if the amps cannot be increased while there is high volts. But to do that you need to know the above.
Lastly, guys doing JT experiments should maybe look at my Half Coil Syndrome youtubes and then add a small slave coil or slave transformer primary in series on the B+ side since you are pulsing the B- side. Just look up wattsup1004 on youtube.
wattsup
-
Smoky2:
So how about that, you can't answer the two questions either. Your ferrite core discussion is bogus and doesn't answer either question.
Why, then, do you insist on propagating this "apparently" ignorant viewpoint?
Is it just for the fun of conflict? Do you want to deter this line of thinking for some other goal?
or is it that you are truly that indoctrinated, that you cannot allow yourself to see what is right in front of you?
My viewpoint is informed. There is no fun in it but there is good sound principle - if you want to talk about something and share it with your peers, then you should actually know what you are talking about. The old "indoctrinated" line again, messages from the guru. How come you can't see what is right in front of you and I can?
Brad:
MH has no answers him self--that will take him 4 to 8 weeks to gather together.
You stop this ridiculous immature nonsense right now and take what I am saying to you at face value.
Just forget about it smOKy,and carry on with what you believe in.
That is a very telling line, and says a lot about you. You don't actually have to know what you are talking about, you just have to believe that you know what you are talking about. And that is the problem right there, because you share a lot of disinformation and outright mistakes with your peers and present the material as if you are right. Case in point is your "resonant Joule thief" that was no such thing of the sort. That is wrong and that is counterproductive for the people reading you that believe you know what you are doing and can't separate out the right stuff from the wrong stuff.
How to determine !what! the resonant frequency of a wine glass is.
1 Answer-- If you have a microphone and an oscilloscope, you can tap the glass and measure the frequency of the ring. Tried it today,and works a treat.
You are acting like a clown and answering a question that wasn't even asked. You are answering the question, "How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass measured?" when the real question is, "How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?" You are just forcing a square peg into a round hole to satisfy yourself but you aren't fooling anybody including yourself.
MileHigh
-
I am making this posting to put things in their proper context.
Presumably Magluvin is trying to make a "resonant Joule Thief" when he has time. He is working with Smoky2 on this. I have stated in the past that I wish both of them luck on the project, I won't get involved, and I look forward to seeing the results if they come. Nonetheless, I am not holding my breath.
The related generic discussion of resonance is important and relates directly to the "resonant Joule Thief." And as it turns out some of the key players here can't answer a few simple questions about a resonating wine glass to show that they truly understand resonance. That's in contrast to their portrayal of themselves as being researchers into resonance. If you are going to research something, then you better know what it is first and demonstrate competency. It's upsetting to some people because reality is coming crashing down.
There is no point in a lot of tech talk if some of it is not making sense and to make matters worse sometimes nobody says anything about the stuff that doesn't make sense. On the positive side look at the case of ADGEX ELFE flashlight. Their excuse for it not working is that a bad glue mixture is preventing it from recharging. Thankfully, most people are waking up and realizing that the excuse is ridiculous and makes no sense. We should do the same kind of thing on this thread and get it right and not BS ourselves. Even though it is upsetting people like Brad, I am bringing value to the table. I am not some "bad guy," that is a just false label that people are heaping on me out of frustration. The reality is that some of the boys don't know what resonance truly is because they can't explain how it works for a wine glass in simple terms. Hopefully in the long run they will learn. Self-deception and meaningless tech word salads are NOT the answer, true knowledge is the answer.
-
Wattsup:
Before you can explain resonance you need to fully understand how amp ratings are produced for different wire AWG. They only give you amps but there is never any mention of volts so your wires are half identified which makes the amp tables more bugus then anything else. Totally useless in fact. So you guys find out how Standard EE derives amp ratings for copper wire and if you can do that and post it here and I will come back and explain to you what resonance is and what it means in your furthering of OU experiments.
Amp ratings for different wire sizes are simply based on making a reasonable estimate on how much resistive losses and corresponding heat generation the wire can sustain while at the same time remaining at a safe temperature in an environment that allows for a reasonable amount of air circulation. Air circulation is a must. Therefore often wire that is covered with insulation has a lower amp rating than the equivalent bare wire because the electrical insulation also acts as a thermal insulation.
There is absolutely no need to quote a voltage drop per meter for a given AWG wire gauge at the maximum rated current. There is no information to be gained there. You figure in most cases, like installing wiring in a building, that the voltage drop in the wire will not be significant.
MileHigh
-
Smoky2:
So how about that, you can't answer the two questions either. Your ferrite core discussion is bogus and doesn't answer either question.
My viewpoint is informed.
MileHigh
I answered your questions exactly. I can show you the mathematics of how this works,
it is basically the same math I have shown in most of the other examples.
I could go further, and break down the system into each individual component, the glass, the dimensional component of its shape and size,
as well as the vibratory translational effects of the liquid inside the glass, in direct relation to the frequencies input, along a graph.
But let us skip all that with which you will continue to argue, and move forward to what is exactly your point?
Do you intend to give some obscure and enlightening vision of "the mechanisms of vibration and how they make the glass resonate"?
Or some terms by which this frequency should be determined, other than what I already stated?
Do you intend to share your "informed viewpoint" ?
Or did you simply come here to tell us that 200 years of physics is wrong, then leave us in the dark?
-
Smoky2:
You did not even come close to answering the questions "exactly." Do whatever you want to do to answer the two questions. I asked two simple questions and requested two simple answers. Do the math if you want, but math is not required.
I am hearing a lot of parroting-like talk, but nothing coming from the self that shows you or Brad have an innate understanding about resonance when it comes to a wine glass. We are not talking about liquid being in the glass either, just an ordinary empty wine glass. Forget about this business of rubbing your finger along the wineglass also, that is a distraction and not even in the question.
200 years of physics is definitely not wrong, but it appears that you and Brad can't take all of the Google searches and actually apply that knowledge and crystallize it down to answering two simple questions about a resonating wine glass.
So are you parrots or can you think for yourselves and demonstrate that you truly understand?
MileHigh
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhfugTnXJV4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhfugTnXJV4)
Here is how you determine the resonance freq. of a wineglass. This method has been known since the 70's.
***Note: Only Memorex tape should be used for this. No other tape could ever have any chance of working.*** Well, that is what the advertisers say anyway.
Bill
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhfugTnXJV4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhfugTnXJV4)
Here is how you determine the resonance freq. of a wineglass. This method has been known since the 70's.
***Note: Only Memorex tape should be used for this. No other tape could ever have any chance of working.*** Well, that is what the advertisers say anyway.
Bill
You say tomato https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l05OuJ8GRs8
-
You say tomato https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l05OuJ8GRs8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l05OuJ8GRs8)
I don't think resonance can break that glass, ha ha. I love that! All those people at the party using this glass....
then...a little while later....they are all asleep. Classic.
We need a beer mug that holds a case of beer...and...keeps it cold at the same time.
Bill
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w
Look! Resonance and quantum entanglement! The Illuminati! Building 7! Roswell! All there if you just look! 8)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w)
Look! Resonance and quantum entanglement! The Illuminati! Building 7! Roswell! All there if you just look! 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yaqUI4b974&feature=iv&src_vid=wvJAgrUBF4w&annotation_id=annotation_964432 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yaqUI4b974&feature=iv&src_vid=wvJAgrUBF4w&annotation_id=annotation_964432)
Here is that same video without music so you can hear the actual tones.
MH, is this real? Does sound really make these shapes or is it some sort of special effects vid?
Bill
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Chladni#Chladni_figures
-
I answered your questions exactly. I can show you the mathematics of how this works,
it is basically the same math I have shown in most of the other examples.
I could go further, and break down the system into each individual component, the glass, the dimensional component of its shape and size,
as well as the vibratory translational effects of the liquid inside the glass, in direct relation to the frequencies input, along a graph.
But let us skip all that with which you will continue to argue, and move forward to what is exactly your point?
Do you intend to give some obscure and enlightening vision of "the mechanisms of vibration and how they make the glass resonate"?
Or some terms by which this frequency should be determined, other than what I already stated?
Do you intend to share your "informed viewpoint" ?
Or did you simply come here to tell us that 200 years of physics is wrong, then leave us in the dark?
smOKy
MHs question is loaded,and can have many meanings. Of course we will be seen as using the wrong meaning,and that is how MH will claim his distorted victory. Look at his line bellow
apply that knowledge and !!crystallize!! it down to answering two simple questions about a resonating wine glass.
Maybe some sort of !whackadoo! hint as to where he is going--but of course we have already covered material makeup of the wine glass as being 1 of the determining factors as to how the frequency will be determined for that wine glass.
Determine
cause (something) to occur in a particular way or to have a particular nature.
ascertain or establish exactly by research or calculation.
firmly decide.
Determined
having made a firm decision and being resolved not to change it.
possessing or displaying resolve..
So MHs question-how !is! the resonant frequency determined in a wine glass,is a question.
The answer could be-you determine the resonant frequency of the wine glass by (1 example)-The "resonant" or "natural" frequency of the goblet can be determined by "pinging" it and listening to the pitch of the "ringing". By using a microphone and oscilloscope we can determine this resonant frequency quite accurately.
http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/project424_89.html
So how is it determined?-- (in this case)it was determined by way of using a microphone and scope.
His question (how is it determined) could also mean the other answers we have already given--the chemical and physical makeup of the wine glass it self. All these factors would determine what the resonant frequency of the wine glass would be. His little crystallizecomment is covered in the structure(chemical) makeup of the wine glass it self.
So you see,his question is loaded,and has many meanings,and so his question(once again) is not definitive it self-much like the one he asked EMJ some time back on EMJs thread.
MH has nothing to show in regards to experiment's,and as you have seen here in this thread,is as yet to answer one of his question's--that will take 4 to 8 weeks. This gives him time to try and work out how he can emerge victorious,and how he can show everyone else that we have no idea as to what resonance is.
The fact that he made a very clear and precise statement that an ICE has no resonant systems,is testimony that he him self cannot or dose not understand resonance,and the effect it can have on different systems-like increase wanted energy output,while decreasing the required energy input.
So head's up smOKy-->beware of the loaded gun.
Brad
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yaqUI4b974&feature=iv&src_vid=wvJAgrUBF4w&annotation_id=annotation_964432 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yaqUI4b974&feature=iv&src_vid=wvJAgrUBF4w&annotation_id=annotation_964432)
Here is that same video without music so you can hear the actual tones.
MH, is this real? Does sound really make these shapes or is it some sort of special effects vid?
Bill
Cool I watched this while testing the resonance of some more wine glasses. Oscilloscope provide a nice visuals as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnL40CbuodU
-
Brad:
Both you and Smoky2 have already been proven to be "resonance poseurs" simply because you can't answer those two very simple questions about resonance. You both have failed and now you are just trying to do damage control. Since you have this near mental obsession with never being perceived as being wrong you don't like it one bit.
I will give you an analogous question to make you think about this situation.
Suppose someone says, "How do you determine the maximum speed of your car in simple terms?"
Here is what you and Smoky are doing:
Well, it's very complicated. The shape of the car has a coefficient of air friction, and then you can't forget the wind speed, and the nature of the road surface. It depends on what gear the car is in and if it is going up hill or down hill or is on a flat surface. Not sure what grade of gasoline is in the gas tank either. Oops, there may be crosswinds also. Also, the types of tires on the car make a difference, and we don't know if the tire pressure is correct in all of the tires. Oh, the temperature of the air affects the density of the air also. Then there is the displacement of the engine and how new the spark plugs are and if the fuel injectors are clean.
Oh no, I know the answer! You get in the car and drive it as fast as it will go and you look at the speedometer!!!! That was easy!
That's what you are doing, a bloody song and dance routine.
How do you determine the maximum speed of your car in simple terms?
The answer is the maximum speed of the car is determined from where the maximum horsepower that can be output by the engine is in balance with all of the air friction and various other friction forces.
And you guys clearly can't do that for the wine glass and if you truly understood resonance you would be able to do it no problem.
MileHigh
-
Salut les blaireaux,
Tinman figthing against MileHigh about JTs and wine glass resonant frequency ???
Water glass would had been more 'politically correct'. No?
Pathetic.... Come on!
For my part, I drink (French) wine and avoid useless debates.
JTs are fine and even 'OU'. Perhaps not the JT, itself, but the Leds.
You can "light" (= get some 'brilliance' out of old fashioned = round shaped (220V-1/2 watt(s)) AC Leds Bulbs)
with practically only voltage.
Guess watts? No more available !
One of my (secret) vid. In French sorry. But should be understandable.
"Allumer des LEDS avec presque rien" = Lighting Leds with practically nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNk3R9SBpbg
A picture of the "Circuit":
Bien le bonsoir...
-
Brad:
So how is it determined?-- (in this case)it was determined by way of using a microphone and scope.
You are making a fool of yourself.
So you see,his question is loaded,and has many meanings,and so his question(once again) is not definitive it self-much like the one he asked EMJ some time back on EMJs thread.
The questions about the wine glass are not loaded, but you have to actually know what you are talking about.
You are outright lying about the very simple question that I asked EMJ that he could not answer. If he actually understood how a coil worked and knew what he was talking about, he would have been able to answer the question without batting an eyelash. Instead he threw everything he had at the very simple question and failed. You are in a way in the same boat that he was in.
MileHigh
-
Salut les blaireaux,
Tinman figthing against MileHigh about JTs and wine glass resonant frequency ???
Water glass would had been more 'politically correct'. No?
Pathetic.... Come on!
For my part, I drink (French) wine and avoid useless debates.
Bien le bonsoir...
There are some important principles at play here. Look at the case of Gerard Morin. Many people with good knowledge have looked at his clips and stated unequivocally that the nice French man does not know what he is talking about. I am pretty sure that TK looked at some of his clips and said that.
So you have perhaps three groups of people with different views about Gerard Morin:
1st group: He is a fraud and he does not know what he is talking about.
2nd group: He is a legitimate free energy researcher and he produces free energy from transformers
3rd group: Don't care, or don't know of him.
I think it is fair to say that most people on this forum are in the first group and have very low confidence in his ability to make proper measurements on his transformers and his claims of over unity after looking at some of his clips.
The debate is not useless. "Resonance" is not a meaningless buzz word, it actually means something specific. Plus we know that many free energy con artists use the "magic word of resonance" to make their pitches.
If we are going to talk about resonance then we should understand it.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Of course we will be seen as using the wrong meaning,and that is how MH will claim his distorted victory.
The real victory would be if you and Smoky2 applied yourselves and arrived at the simple universal understanding of true resonance and answered the wine glass questions correctly and then applied that new knowledge to the so-called "resonant Joule Thief."
If you have nothing new to add then you may as well wait until next month and cede the floor to Magluvin and Smoky2.
MileHigh
-
Suppose someone says, "How do you determine the maximum speed of your car in simple terms?"
Here is what you and Smoky are doing:
Well, it's very complicated. The shape of the car has a coefficient of air friction, and then you can't forget the wind speed, and the nature of the road surface. It depends on what gear the car is in and if it is going up hill or down hill or is on a flat surface. Not sure what grade of gasoline is in the gas tank either. Oops, there may be crosswinds also. Also, the types of tires on the car make a difference, and we don't know if the tire pressure is correct in all of the tires. Oh, the temperature of the air affects the density of the air also. Then there is the displacement of the engine and how new the spark plugs are and if the fuel injectors are clean.
Oh no, I know the answer! You get in the car and drive it as fast as it will go and you look at the speedometer!!!! That was easy!
That's what you are doing, a bloody song and dance routine.
How do you determine the maximum speed of your car in simple terms?
The answer is the maximum speed of the car is determined from where the maximum horsepower that can be output by the engine is in balance with all of the air friction and various other friction forces.
A great example of some one that cannot or dose not understand all factors involved.
There is one vital piece missing from the highlighted above that must also be taken into account,which has been missed--not surprising ::)
A great example of where the !self proclaimed! teacher dosnt know what he is trying to teach.
Who here knows what other factor has been missed in the above highlighted?.
The only true way of knowing the vehicles top speed for the environment it is to be operated in,is indeed to actually get in the car and drive it as fast as it will go, and you look at the speedometer,or to have some one use something like a speed camera(radar gun) to record your speed. That truly is the only time you will get an accurate answer.
Brad
-
MileHigh,
My post was about the, IMO, 'uselesness' of some posts, indeed.
But was mostly about: "are (old fashioned - round shaped ) Leds 'OU' or not"?
I made one short experiment suggesting that, actually, these Leds might be 'OU'.
It also exists one scientific article about this. Sorry, I forgot the link.
What are your "Gerard Morin" stuff about? Mudding the water?
Are you suggesting that Gerard Morin" is a "nice French man"?
Or, am I missing something ?
Tu sais quoi? Je crois que tu es français.
Je crois que tu n'as pas apprécié mon "Salut les blaireaux".
De toute façons je pense que tu es un Troll.
Méfies toi, si cela est le cas, ce n'est pas bon pour ton Karma. :))
"Le Karma des Trolls" voila un bon sujet de discussion. Non?
This is my last answer. I will not even read any of your posts anymore.
Mignoniaj a-berz jean
-
Salut les blaireaux,
Bien le bonsoir...
bien le bonjour !
comment ça va ?
tu avais disparu ? ( mais tu n as rien perdu ! )
PS :
ignore le grand troll MH = M le bas ... qui blaisse
-
Nerzh, Tagor:
You are the guys that are trolling this thread. We are trying to talk about resonance and you are disturbing the thread.
Brad:
A great example of some one that cannot or dose not understand all factors involved.
There is one vital piece missing from the highlighted above that must also be taken into account,which has been missed--not surprising (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif))
A great example of where the !self proclaimed! teacher dosnt know what he is trying to teach.
Who here knows what other factor has been missed in the above highlighted?.
The only true way of knowing the vehicles top speed for the environment it is to be operated in,is indeed to actually get in the car and drive it as fast as it will go, and you look at the speedometer,or to have some one use something like a speed camera(radar gun) to record your speed. That truly is the only time you will get an accurate answer.
But did you get the points that I am making? Do you understand that in my example the question of measuring the maximum speed of the car is irrelevant, I am not even interested in it. It's all about understanding how you determine the maximum speed, not actually measuring it.
Do you get my points and understand how they apply to the wine glass discussion or not?
MileHigh
-
The Math is always based on hands-on results, and bookkeepers are just following the dirty hands, when smart!?
Yep, dirty-hands makes this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI)
Calculate: Just only 50 cc and 24.2Pk, just a low eff. 2-stroke according 'paper backs' of Uni's.
Calculate, and see the Dyno should be wrong, according ................... pen lickers religion! ;-))
-
Nerzh, Tagor:
You are the guys that are trolling this thread. We are trying to talk about resonance and you are disturbing the thread.
Brad:
But did you get the points that I am making? Do you understand that in my example the question of measuring the maximum speed of the car is irrelevant, I am not even interested in it. It's all about understanding how you determine the maximum speed, not actually measuring it.
MileHigh
Ok MH,i said i was not going to reply to you any more,but in the interest of the discussion ,and the method behind the madness,i will answer your question.
If we are to determine what the maximum speed of the car is,it cannot be done using your example Quote: The answer is the maximum speed of the car is determined from where the maximum horsepower that can be output by the engine is in balance with all of the air friction and various other friction forces.
The top speed of the car cannot be determined using the above.
Like with the wine glass,all of the relevant information must be provided to make an accurate measurement of the top speed of the car,and you have missed vital information regarding the environment that the vehicle will be traveling in. This is the same with determining the resonant frequency of the wine glass--all information needs to be supplied to make that determination.
The only way to find the top speed of a motor vehicle that is operated within the environment it is to operate in ,and where all the other information is missing or incomplete, is to actually measure it under working conditions-as with the wine glass.
So how do we determine the top speed of the car ,when there is incomplete information that is needed to make such a determination--we actually measure the speed of the car ,in the environment it is to operate in.
The very same go's for the wine glass,where unless !all! relevant information is provided,we can simply determine the resonant frequency by measuring it.
Do you get my points and understand how they apply to the wine glass discussion or not?
Did you read your own post?.
Do you understand as to why myself and smOKy say that all relevant information must be supplied in order to determine what the resonant frequency of the wine glass will be.
Do you understand that without all this information,that the only way to accurately determine the resonant frequency of the wine glass ,is to measure it.
Do you understand that this !can! be done using a microphone and scope--now posted by a number of people now,with links that validate the procedure.
And do you now understand how hard it would be to provide !all! the required information to make such a determination--like the way you tried to determine the top speed of a car,where some of the required information to make such a determination was missing,and thus would result in an incorrect determination of the top speed of the car.
Brad
-
Very simple MH
thank you for the analogy..
so to understand you ,, the foot is the path to understanding in your analogy of the cars top speed.
point and stomp [foot on gas]
so maybe with a similar analogy towards breaking the Glass[don't worry NZ the Wine is gone]
the hammer [or frequency]
maybe you should Mix it up ??
the hammer and the foot ??
::)
PS Johan
50CC is the limit in most USA regions where a license is not required [or license plates and insurance]
to drive on Public streets [do to power limitations of such small displacement] .
they call them MoPeds ..pedals and a small motor.
I think this will change that ...Yikes
Now I have to ask a question [so I stay on topic here]
How fast will it go [or HP calcs??] ??..and does it resonate ? ..it has the most unusual exhaust pipe ??
it resonates with me :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI
-
Very simple MH
thank you for the analogy..
so to understand you ,, the foot is the path to understanding in your analogy of the cars top speed.
point and stomp [foot on gas]
so maybe with a similar analogy towards breaking the Glass[don't worry NZ the Wine is gone]
the hammer [or frequency]
maybe you should switch it up ??
the hammer and the foot ??
::)
The point is (and one MH probably did not want to show),you cannot determine the top speed of a vehicle without having all the relevant information needed to make that determination..
The only way to find out what the top speed is,is to measure that speed while the car is traveling in the environment that the measurements are to be made in. MH missed relevant information needed to make that determination by any other means than to actually measure the top speed.
There is also the fact that it has nothing to do with resonance of a wine glass,unless we go to extremes,and try and mix/match things.
Top speed could be seen as maximum amplitude within the resonating wine glass.
Provided horse power could be seen as the external force acting upon the wine glass ::)
The fact is Chet,the only way to determine the resonant frequency of a wine glass,where needed relevant information is missing,is to actually measure it. I (and others) have provided a means to do this,and MH laugh's at it. This is after he has provided inadequate information to determine a cars top speed,and also dismissed the fact that ICEs can have resonant systems that increase wanted output energy,while decreasing energy consumption.
There are also systems that do not need an energy source that oscillates at the natural resonant frequency of the energy receiver in order for that receiver to resonate . Aeroelastic flutter is one that comes to mind ,where the energy input can be without oscillation,but a smooth even flow of energy. There was some guys using this sort of resonant system to generate power--a different version of the wind generator. The good old gum leaf flute works on this principle.
Brad
-
Brad:
Here is what I said: The answer is the maximum speed of the car is determined from where the maximum horsepower that can be output by the engine is in balance with all of the air friction and various other friction forces.
The only way to find the top speed of a motor vehicle that is operated within the environment it is to operate in ,and where all the other information is missing or incomplete, is to actually measure it under working conditions-as with the wine glass.
So how do we determine the top speed of the car ,when there is incomplete information that is needed to make such a determination--we actually measure the speed of the car ,in the environment it is to operate in.
The air friction and various other friction forces are also determined by the environment that the car is in. My statement encompasses the effects of the environment. My statement is correct and there is no missing information.
Do you understand as to why myself and smOKy say that all relevant information must be supplied in order to determine what the resonant frequency of the wine glass will be.
You can answer the question about the wine glass resonant frequency and provide all of the required relevant information yourself within your answer just like my answer about determining the top speed of the car provides all of the required information. In both cases, the actual top speed and the actual resonant frequency is irrelevant and in both cases I didn't even ask for the numbers.
You are saying that relevant information is missing when in fact you can provide all of the relevant information in your answers.
That's all there is to it. You are trying to challenge the questions and rewrite the questions. What you should be doing instead is putting your thinking cap on and getting up the resonance learning curve so that you can answer both questions.
The questions are not going to change, and you are not going to rewrite either question. Deal with the issues at face value and answer the questions if you can.
I will repeat: You can supply all of the required information in your answers yourself. The catch is that you have to understand resonance.
MileHigh
-
Very simple MH
thank you for the analogy..
so to understand you ,, the foot is the path to understanding in your analogy of the cars top speed.
point and stomp [foot on gas]
so maybe with a similar analogy towards breaking the Glass[don't worry NZ the Wine is gone]
the hammer [or frequency]
maybe you should Mix it up ??
the hammer and the foot ??
::)
PS Johan
50CC is the limit in most USA regions where a license is not required [or license plates and insurance]
to drive on Public streets [do to power limitations of such small displacement] .
they call them MoPeds ..pedals and a small motor.
I think this will change that ...Yikes
Now I have to ask a question [so I stay on topic here]
How fast will it go [or HP calcs??] ??..and does it resonate ? ..it has the most unusual exhaust pipe ??
it resonates with me :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI)
They also have to have an automatic transmission to be legal in most states...no shifting allowed. Wow, my scooter has like 3.3 hp and that one has 24? Mine will do 49 mph, I'll bet that one would go over 100 if geared right.
Bill
PS You can hear it when it hits resonance with that tuned pipe. Here, we called it being "on the pipe" back in the 2 stroke Kart racing days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke84i5Wvwtw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke84i5Wvwtw)
Check out this 2 stroke scoot in the above link. It has trouble keeping the front wheel on the ground when hitting the tuned pipe. This scoot has 28 hp.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah2X0F0nBfQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah2X0F0nBfQ)
Here is a good video that demonstrates resonance showing acoustic levitation.
Bill
-
You are missing some information MH,, think about it and it is so simple you will smack yourself on the head when you get it.
Why don't you smack yourself on the head for being a human prop in a criminal con job that was busted by the FBI?
Here is what your benefactor is saying right now:
Our Mission was to develop a mechanical solution to energy production, during the journey we unlocked an obvious and simple answer - Gravity.
.
I am looking for the person that wants to fund our next model and receive matching ownership of my company.
Once a begging lowlife always a begging lowlife.
This thread may help someone not get deluded into giving their money away to a resonance criminal con like that poor old lady in British Columbia gave $120,000 CDN to another group of resonance con artists. Observe how people can "talk the resonance talk" for years and yet they can't even answer two simple questions about it.
MileHigh
-
Strawman what? I am not putting any words in your mouth.
Analogies work very well. What we are seeing is the usual; weak-kneed observers of the sheer folly of Brad objecting to the question because of some imaginary "missing details" and saying nothing. We are even seeing people get aggressive, sort of like saying, "How dare you question our resonance party line?"
With respect to your comments and questions about resonance, I don't know what you are talking about. Damping forces attenuate resonance, they don't maintain resonance.
MileHigh
-
Just state what you are going to state and make it clear. Articulate your questions properly. You justifiably got push-back from me for your "smack yourself on the head" comment. What are you on the "warpath" for? I have never seen you be so aggressive. Do you object to having ideas challenged?
Go ahead, make a logical descriptive argument about how a "resonant Joule Thief" is supposed to be more efficient. Define the efficiency. Define the resonance. State exactly how it is supposed to work, draw up some timing diagrams and make a schematic.
-
It's more like what's wrong with you?
Now if you have anything to contribute to the thread and the topic under discussion, then fine.
-
I have a question. How many of you here would like to be in a thread without MH in it?
Mags
-
I have a question. How many of you here would like to be in a thread without MH in it?
Mags
What a shameful thing to say. I encourage people that disapprove (or more) of this behaviour to send an email to Magluvin expressing their feelings.
You can contemplate this famous quote Magluvin, and it has nothing to do with the origin of this website, and everything to do with you:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-
Ok then. MH, the thread is yours.
I will be in contact with Smoky and Brad in PM only on this subject from here on in. It is a better environment to work in.
Mags
-
Go for broke to make a "resonant Joule Thief." It will probably have to be a different design than a standard Joule Thief to have any hope.
Brad was complaining about the "lack of information" in the question about the resonant frequency for the wine glass and I responded to it and it should be perfectly clear to him now that there is no missing information.
Smoky2 was offering to do a mathematical treatise to answer one or possibly both questions and I say bring it on. However, it's not really necessary but still worth considering.
-
the power of resonance in an ICE
7 hp per cubic inch normally aspirated ,
https://www.youtube.com/user/robvanrossem/feed
As Johan says the boys in the box say impossible !!
stay outa the box 8)
-
PS Johan
50CC is the limit in most USA regions where a license is not required [or license plates and insurance]
to drive on Public streets [do to power limitations of such small displacement] .
they call them MoPeds ..pedals and a small motor.
I think this will change that ...Yikes
Now I have to ask a question [so I stay on topic here]
How fast will it go [or HP calcs??] ??..and does it resonate ? ..it has the most unusual exhaust pipe ??
it resonates with me :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI)
Its all about freq en timing, this in there specific cavity, then to harmonise those waves of the different working parts to a ............. stabile resonance and combining the working parts to a Massive-Standing wave, this at 15-16K rev./min!
Make a circuit line, fill in the working parts, so:
Outside - Inlet-Disk,
Inlet-Disk - Transfer-Ports,
Transfer-Ports - Outlet-Port,
Outlet-Port - Mean-Point Exhaust,
Mean-Point Exhaust - Outside.
Adjust the Diameters and Volume's, keep in mind the related media Working Temp of that part, and much of TIME en TIME!
Thats the OU, of a 2-Stroke, to get more out 50cc than Thermo-Dynamic possible, this against the Book-Religion promoted Math by some One-Paper beginners here, Tinman is a queer-Thinker and OK!
Exchanging part from a circuit, like piston or a lamp is not always ................ , feeling the true working.
Marie Curie, did start out of feeling, not out of the books, that was just a almost blanc-base!
Its going over 200km/h, with the right gear-set.
Replace: Look for Electric parts, to make current / flux compressible, like ............ above!
-
Johan
it is probably much better for the Glass breaker and resident resonance king to stay in his Box !
he should definitely not comment on that which he has no idea about!!
ICE]s in particular ,
But the true possibilities of outside the Box thinking when it comes to resonance !
I use the word resonance because I don't have the Kings permission [he slaps all who use his word!!
resonance
he is a Deity and Legend in his own Mind
Just ask him ??
He knows everything you will ever need to know about RESONANCE [Just ask him ...he will tell you in a couple months
[his lordship is very busy]]
nothing to see here "move along"
7 HP per cubic inch ..
normally aspirated !!
-
They also have to have an automatic transmission to be legal in most states...no shifting allowed. Wow, my scooter has like 3.3 hp and that one has 24? Mine will do 49 mph, I'll bet that one would go over 100 if geared right.
Bill
PS You can hear it when it hits resonance with that tuned pipe. Here, we called it being "on the pipe" back in the 2 stroke Kart racing days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke84i5Wvwtw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke84i5Wvwtw)
Check out this 2 stroke scoot in the above link. It has trouble keeping the front wheel on the ground when hitting the tuned pipe. This scoot has 28 hp.
Thanks, Great that you know the: OnThePipe feeling!!
That is when the whole Fluide-Circuit is in Harmony, Resonate and massive Standing-Wave!
Your YT of 28pk, is only not a 50cc, its a Bigger-Bore 70-80cc, this on a Small 50cc Case, with a Reed-Valve, but very good tuned, TIME, to produce Max-Torque over Centrifugal and Variator, so always the perfect Gear in charge.
40 years ago, 12 or 14 gears to manage the Torque of only 3-500 rev/min:
http://www.suzukicycles.org/history/history_04-race-1960-1967.shtml (http://www.suzukicycles.org/history/history_04-race-1960-1967.shtml)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-0AH79mY2E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-0AH79mY2E)
4-stroke is more easy for school programmed tuners, on -off, little induction but still Resonance.
-
Johan
it is probably much better for the Glass breaker and resident resonance king to stay in his Box !
he should definitely not comment on that which he has no idea about!!
ICE]s in particular ,
But the true possibilities of outside the Box thinking when it comes to resonance !
I use the word resonance because I don't have the Kings permission [he slaps all who use his word!!
resonance
he is a Deity and Legend in his own Mind
Just ask him ??
He knows everything you will ever need to know about RESONANCE [Just ask him ...he will tell you in a couple months
[his lordship is very busy]]
nothing to see here "move along"
7 HP per cubic inch ..
normally aspirated !!
Simple, they always ask, for what is there OWN weakest point!!!
So: Where is the PROOF from the balcony, .................... silence!
-
Look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFjqBaH_NWU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFjqBaH_NWU)
With displacing only 200gr, making ............ a 380gr!
Make the most easy 2 cilinder Tune-able Piston Engine, with 2 columns / cilinders, below small stroke camshaft to drive invert boxer-like 1 membrane piston between them, above it the driven Flywheel Crankshaft.
Don't think, FEEL!
-
What a shameful thing to say. I encourage people that disapprove (or more) of this behaviour to send an email to Magluvin expressing their feelings.
You can contemplate this famous quote Magluvin, and it has nothing to do with the origin of this website, and everything to do with you:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
I can understand where Mags is coming from MH,as you do indeed bring much negativity to threads some times--well most times.
You insist we answer questions you ask of us within day's,but deem it reasonable that you may take up to 4-8 weeks to provide answers to your own questions.
I also have this feeling that your answers will be some very basic,and misguided attempt to explain how the resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined,and what resonance is--which is just the natural resonant frequency of an object set into oscillation at it's natural resonant frequency by an outside force.
Your answers will be basic,and part of what has already been explained in more detail already in this thread. There will be no big !CABOOM! answer from you in those long awaited 4-8 weeks,and those here waiting for MHs bible on resonance will be sadly disappointed .
Maybe we look into quasi resonance while your at it.
Maybe we could design a JT using this type of resonant switching :D--reduce the EMI losses and all ;)
Brad
-
Its all about freq en timing, this in there specific cavity, then to harmonise those waves of the different working parts to a ............. stabile resonance and combining the working parts to a Massive-Standing wave, this at 15-16K rev./min!
Make a circuit line, fill in the working parts, so:
Outside - Inlet-Disk,
Inlet-Disk - Transfer-Ports,
Transfer-Ports - Outlet-Port,
Outlet-Port - Mean-Point Exhaust,
Mean-Point Exhaust - Outside.
Adjust the Diameters and Volume's, keep in mind the related media Working Temp of that part, and much of TIME en TIME!
Thats the OU, of a 2-Stroke, to get more out 50cc than Thermo-Dynamic possible, this against the Book-Religion promoted Math by some One-Paper beginners here, Tinman is a queer-Thinker and OK!
Exchanging part from a circuit, like piston or a lamp is not always ................ , feeling the true working.
Marie Curie, did start out of feeling, not out of the books, that was just a almost blanc-base!
Its going over 200km/h, with the right gear-set.
Replace: Look for Electric parts, to make current / flux compressible, like ............ above!
Can you explain the resonance? Perhaps show a diagram with the mechanism of the resonance explained including a timing diagram or provide some links that explain the resonance?
I am suspecting the "resonance" for things like exhaust chambers for gasses is completely different than what resonance means for an electrical circuit. If that is true then showing motorcycles revving their engines is not relevant to this discussion.
MileHigh
-
Johan
it is probably much better for the Glass breaker and resident resonance king to stay in his Box !
he should definitely not comment on that which he has no idea about!!
ICE]s in particular ,
But the true possibilities of outside the Box thinking when it comes to resonance !
I use the word resonance because I don't have the Kings permission [he slaps all who use his word!!
resonance
he is a Deity and Legend in his own Mind
Just ask him ??
He knows everything you will ever need to know about RESONANCE [Just ask him ...he will tell you in a couple months
[his lordship is very busy]]
nothing to see here "move along"
7 HP per cubic inch ..
normally aspirated !!
Your mocking and sarcasm is just a bunch of showboating and for what purpose? Have we started a feeding frenzy now? Is this "The Lottery?" You state "The true possibilities of outside the Box thinking when it comes to resonance?"
Show me something "outside the box" when it comes to resonance and explain why that is the case.
MileHigh
-
It is unfortunate that MH can NOT keep himself from blowing things up,, and it would not be the first time he was impeded from free posting,, maybe one day he will learn how to play with everyone,, and not just himself.
I think the quote he posted is enough to keep him away,, what a lack of ability that shows in dealing with other views in a positive and productive manner,,
Let's see MH,, if "you" can't get along nicely "you" are going to try and guilt us into letting you play??
go stuff yourself MH!
Do not dare complaining or even posting,, even tho you do have some skills and talents that might be helpful the cost of having you around has grown to be way too much.
The simple fact is that Brad and myself have had a heated debate and it takes two to tango. So if you are going to give me crap then why not Brad too?
Do not dare complaining or even posting
Back to the pogroms are we? You should be embarrassed for that comment and bow your head in shame.
-
I can understand where Mags is coming from MH,as you do indeed bring much negativity to threads some times--well most times.
You insist we answer questions you ask of us within day's,but deem it reasonable that you may take up to 4-8 weeks to provide answers to your own questions.
I also have this feeling that your answers will be some very basic,and misguided attempt to explain how the resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined,and what resonance is--which is just the natural resonant frequency of an object set into oscillation at it's natural resonant frequency by an outside force.
Your answers will be basic,and part of what has already been explained in more detail already in this thread. There will be no big !CABOOM! answer from you in those long awaited 4-8 weeks,and those here waiting for MHs bible on resonance will be sadly disappointed .
Maybe we look into quasi resonance while your at it.
Maybe we could design a JT using this type of resonant switching :D --reduce the EMI losses and all ;)
Brad
My "negativity" is mostly a response to your negativity Brad. You are so obsessed with not being wrong or not being corrected or rewriting or challenging a question so that you are not perceived as being wrong that it is completely ridiculous. It's a dirty cat fight with you and you start it almost all the time. On top of that, sometimes there are these pregnant embarrassing moments where you say the most ridiculous nonsensical things and nobody says anything, and believe me that many people know you are putting your foot in your mouth. You are given "a pass" because you supposedly wear some kind of halo and people reading you would be too embarrassed themselves to correct you. And that's a big part of the reason that it is taking you more than six years to get through the equivalent of an Electronics 101 course. Your own peers are letting you down by not challenging your whackadoo statements or correcting and educating you. Then again, one can assume that they don't want to deal with your obsessive push-back to the point of lunacy if they are going to try to correct you. Do you get that? They don't want to deal with it and that makes you your own worst enemy.
You talk about being "misguided," you have got to be one of the most misguided people on this forum. Your continual push-back spawns all of the negativity - poor little Brad can't be wrong - when the reality is that sometimes you are "not even wrong" or "beyond wrong."
You want an example of irrational relentless push-back spawning a lot of negativity? Your battle about "something missing" in the question asking how the resonant frequency is determined for the wine glass is a classic example. It's completely ridiculous as I showed you with the example of the maximum speed for a car. You don't have to try to answer a question that wasn't even asked to twist yourself "into the clear." Some people reading are aghast that you seemingly can't process or understand a simple question that simply asks you to explain something without needing specifics. There are always questions asking people to explain the concept or the process without specifics. We do this almost every single day in our daily lives and yet you want to insist that "something is wrong with the question." The only reason you are saying that something is wrong with the question is because you can't answer it. Or, even worse, you are not capable of dealing with concepts or processes because that simple basic abstraction is beyond your capabilities.
I am simply standing my ground this one time and I won't be demonized for that. I am not even truly interested in this stuff and it's rare that I want to talk circuits. Instead of you always getting "a pass" why not at least this one time follow this through to the end and see if you can learn something new, or even better, teach yourself something new?
The question of the build of "the resonant Joule Thief" has been put aside. I suppose the only question is if Magluvin will report his results if they are negative.
Since you talked the big talk about resonance I brought up the issue of the resonating wine glass. You and Smoky clearly have not been able to show you know what you are talking about - that's where it stands like it or not.
You are going to wait for a few more weeks to see if you or Smoky will teach yourselves because that is a lot better than getting spoon fed. To be honest part of the wait is karma that you brought onto yourself as clearly evidenced earlier in this thread.
Like it or not, you should respect me for being honest with you about the resonance stuff. Like it or not, you got some blunt talk about your continual obsessive push-back. Your buddies on this forum mostly give you a pass when you state the most ridiculous totally incorrect things and that just keeps you in a stupor. Sorry to be harsh, but I can see that the boys have all picked up stones and they want to hurl them at me. Shame on anyone that does that, go read "The Lottery" again and bow your heads in shame.
MileHigh
-
Why not stick to what the book says. Words have different meanings in the
context in which they are used.
For engines the best description would be Inertial Supercharging.
A lot of day to day words were used in early electrical work because they
had a likeness to what was observed.
-
There are lots of really smart people on here. Some people are book smart (masters and PhD's), some people are hands on (mechanical and electrical engineers), some people are lateral thinkers, designing new solutions (Architects and Inventors) and we also have the scamers, fakers and crazy folks who keep us entertained.
Everyone here brings their unique skill sets to this forum and they are all extremely valuable. I have been corrected many times by MH, Tinman, TK and others and like others and I am not very good at admitting when I am wrong. I will also admit I will dig my heals in when I see large amounts of money being invested in dead end technology or scams.
I think we all need to pick our battles but I am not sure there is a lot of value in arguing for the sake of it and we should not assume someone is admitting they are wrong by walking away from a thread, sometimes it is just not worth the effort when time would be invested better on exposing the next ELFE or u-Plug or pushing the boundaries through innovation and new proof of concepts.
Just my 2 joules
Nink
-
Nink:
You make a lot of good points. I suppose one of the things that I take issue with is self-delusion because it is a parallel to the scammers out there that use illusion and lying to steal money from people. Self-delusion is arguably self-scamming and illusion and lying without money. You become your own enemy. What's stolen instead is the "currency" of self-honesty and advancing your knowledge. The glacier ends up melting instead of going forward.
Resonance is interesting and has some applications. But what it is not, is some magic panacea like the self-deluded want to preach.
Take a look at the example of the "resonant Joule Thief." Right now it is just an idea, no more than that. It's doesn't even exist and the improved performance attributes that are almost literally claimed about it as fact are no more than hopes and wishes.
However, this thread was stating that it was taken for granted that a "resonant Joule thief" was doable and it was just a question of "finding it." At this point in time it's just a hope, and the alleged improved performance is just a hope. I am all for hope, but when it comes to electronics, rational analysis comes first and hope second.
"Resonant Joule Thief?" Bring it on we are all waiting for it but wise people will be taking nothing as a given just because you have the word "resonance" in the description.
Resonant anything? Somebody post or link to something that is supposedly "outside the box" and is supposedly "more efficient" and let's take an honest look at it.
Go ahead, link or post something that shows something remarkable about resonance. Anybody?
Moving on, we will see if the boys can master the concept of the resonating wine glass. If not, the answers will be given later.
Then that's it, there is no point in taking it any further than that. Just don't be surprised if you never see a resonant Joule Thief and you never see anything described or linked to that shows something remarkable or outside-the-box with respect to resonance. If that's the case, then people need to ask themselves why all of this buzz about resonance? What you will see through, is the two questions about the wine glass answered.
Then that's it, time to move on. I am proud of being part of a movement that possibly helped to shut down Hydroenergyrevolution and Intelligentry. Law enforcement surely uses Google, and they landed on threads on this forum. That's my real satisfaction. I have put any attempts to educate or help others way back on the back back burner. This thread is an exception and I have no problem simply walking away at the right time.
The issue of a "resonant Joule Thief" is not a "given" that you just have to "find" like some people want you to believe. Learn about what resonance truly is as a first step at least.
MileHigh
-
My "negativity" is mostly a response to your negativity Brad. You are so obsessed with not being wrong or not being corrected or rewriting or challenging a question so that you are not perceived as being wrong that it is completely ridiculous. It's a dirty cat fight with you and you start it almost all the time. On top of that, sometimes there are these pregnant embarrassing moments where you say the most ridiculous nonsensical things and nobody says anything, and believe me that many people know you are putting your foot in your mouth. You are given "a pass" because you supposedly wear some kind of halo and people reading you would be too embarrassed themselves to correct you. And that's a big part of the reason that it is taking you more than six years to get through the equivalent of an Electronics 101 course. Your own peers are letting you down by not challenging your whackadoo statements or correcting and educating you. Then again, one can assume that they don't want to deal with your obsessive push-back to the point of lunacy if they are going to try to correct you. Do you get that? They don't want to deal with it and that makes you your own worst enemy.
You talk about being "misguided," you have got to be one of the most misguided people on this forum. Your continual push-back spawns all of the negativity - poor little Brad can't be wrong - when the reality is that sometimes you are "not even wrong" or "beyond wrong."
You want an example of irrational relentless push-back spawning a lot of negativity? Your battle about "something missing" in the question asking how the resonant frequency is determined for the wine glass is a classic example. It's completely ridiculous as I showed you with the example of the maximum speed for a car. You don't have to try to answer a question that wasn't even asked to twist yourself "into the clear." Some people reading are aghast that you seemingly can't process or understand a simple question that simply asks you to explain something without needing specifics. There are always questions asking people to explain the concept or the process without specifics. We do this almost every single day in our daily lives and yet you want to insist that "something is wrong with the question." The only reason you are saying that something is wrong with the question is because you can't answer it. Or, even worse, you are not capable of dealing with concepts or processes because that simple basic abstraction is beyond your capabilities.
I am simply standing my ground this one time and I won't be demonized for that. I am not even truly interested in this stuff and it's rare that I want to talk circuits. Instead of you always getting "a pass" why not at least this one time follow this through to the end and see if you can learn something new, or even better, teach yourself something new?
The question of the build of "the resonant Joule Thief" has been put aside. I suppose the only question is if Magluvin will report his results if they are negative.
Since you talked the big talk about resonance I brought up the issue of the resonating wine glass. You and Smoky clearly have not been able to show you know what you are talking about - that's where it stands like it or not.
You are going to wait for a few more weeks to see if you or Smoky will teach yourselves because that is a lot better than getting spoon fed. To be honest part of the wait is karma that you brought onto yourself as clearly evidenced earlier in this thread.
Like it or not, you should respect me for being honest with you about the resonance stuff. Like it or not, you got some blunt talk about your continual obsessive push-back. Your buddies on this forum mostly give you a pass when you state the most ridiculous totally incorrect things and that just keeps you in a stupor. Sorry to be harsh, but I can see that the boys have all picked up stones and they want to hurl them at me. Shame on anyone that does that, go read "The Lottery" again and bow your heads in shame.
MileHigh
First off....
"I am simply standing my ground this one time and I won't be demonized for that. I am not even truly interested in this stuff and it's rare that I want to talk circuits. Instead of you always getting "a pass" why not at least this one time follow this through to the end and see if you can learn something new, or even better, teach yourself something new?"
The problem I have with standing your ground is the constant filling of pages of it. How can anyone move forward 'efficiently' when referencing my previous posts are pages behind all the debate. Its terribly frustrating. Thats like reading a Bible that has atheist debate strewn throughout making that Bible 30 inches thick instead of just 2 inches. Maybe its better to debate a topic in a new thread, instead of flooding one where people are trying to 'do' things.
Where I stand on the resonance thing is that I know it exists, whether it is a big heavy bell, a wine glass, or simply a coils inductance with its capacitance. If I can find the resonant freq of a winding on a core, why should I get involved in a debate about hows and whys the resonance occurs when I and Smoky and Brad already know why. Inductance and capacitance together is all we need to understand. If we can determine the freq of that resonance, why should we have to be haggled into describing the nano bits of why its happening when we already know it is there?
I just cannot work like that. It will be a never ending deal. Ive seen where you have opened your own threads on subjects you want to discuss. But they tend to end up just dead from the get go. Hint hint. So you tend to bring it all where the people are. And soon those threads die down from other getting tired of it all. Im not going to open a new thread only to see it covered in what we have here. "It cant be done" "you guys dont know what resonance is" "Ill tell you what it is in 4 to 8 weeks"??? Page after page after page. The only one getting off on it is you. Do you see any happy people here?
My mom had a slight stroke last week and it put a lot of things off for me here. Just finishing the GTI system tonight and Ill have a good amount of time for the bench.
If things dont work out with the resonance deal, then I will find out why and post as to such. But I wont be posting every day details here as they will just get smeared into the background. Ill do it in once in a while longer posts.
Gotta git back to work. Lunch time is spent.
Mags
-
I had a peek at page 1 , this thread is ancient and was supposed to be 2 dozen posts long lol ;D
MH and others should be seen as a resource , that there alone would rub a few people the wrong way
If anyone wants conventional wisdom regaurds electronics , physics etc , there are forums open to questions but once you go there youll have to explain why and how you intend to apply this knowledge
....and that is when you are going to be singled out as an example and get hammered
its important for people to have ideas out side the box , its also important to know whats in the box
these days forums are like the roman arenas , 2 goes in , 1 comes out , or is that mad max :)
-
Magluvin:
I hope your mother has a full and speedy recovery.
Threads get long no matter what, it's a fact of life. I find your argument strange, use links if you have to. But where is "Saint Brad" when you complain about the length of the thread? He is easily responsible for 50% or more when it comes to the length of the thread. I asked some simple questions about a wine glass resonating, and he has been objecting to that obsessively and eating up page after page. Instead of taking my responses at face value and then trying to figure it out for himself it's a battle. He is the root cause of the "problem."
If you know all about resonance then the wine glass questions should be a simple no-brainer.
I have made my points, but if Brad comes back and tries to force a question into his own mold, or worse, play the game of answering a question that wasn't even asked, or says something that probably three-quarters of us know is cockamamie nonsense that gives people the wrong information, then I will respond.
Good luck with the "resonant Joule Thief" and it will be great to see your results one way or the other. Starting a task and actually completing it to fruition will be a great thing.
Massive:
Thank you for your comments.
MileHigh
-
MH
Where does the shame lie in your apparent ignorance of present investigations into resonance and LENR ,does the shame lie in your ignorance or in your ability
to call such claims false and bogus because you have no Knowledge or experience ,yes it is true we could go to a physics forum and play two men enter one man leaves.. might sell a lot of tickets ...
fact is that resonance is under serious investigation as a means to an end here and elsewhere , many fellows building here have built all manner of circuits to investigate this ,here they build specifically to hunt in ferrites .Akula etc etc
most recently member chessnyt found a path to over abundant electrolysis
in water thru a circuit that senses in real time and responds appropriately to the Resonant peaks .,
Your inability to comprehend what Smokey is truly meaning
with his JT resonant proposal and design criteria are lost in your
dogma.
he is talking about building a JT circuit to pound a ferrite into oblivion[eventually... baby steps at first]
and hopefully some transmutation in the process [been claimed many times
here and elsewhere]
by using minimal input and maximum use of resonance or a harmonic of same.
My grandkids watching mythbusters could explain the concept ,and most children could too .
Things come apart at frequencies specific to their compositions or the composition of dominant elements within their matrix .
many feel that heat alone is not the best path to LENR [such as Parkhomov and others are doing]
many feel the addition of frequency to specific targets within the sample matrix would be of tremendous benefit .
here is a link that would probably benefit tremendously from such an addendum as Smokey's proposed build.
http://www.lookingforheat.com/
staying in your box of EE experience is not what we are talking about here
never was.
climb down off your cross we need the wood .
-
The question of the build of "the resonant Joule Thief" has been put aside. I suppose the only question is if Magluvin will report his results if they are negative.
MileHigh
My "negativity" is mostly a response to your negativity Brad. You are so obsessed with not being wrong or not being corrected or rewriting or challenging a question so that you are not perceived as being wrong that it is completely ridiculous. It's a dirty cat fight with you and you start it almost all the time. On top of that, sometimes there are these pregnant embarrassing moments where you say the most ridiculous nonsensical things and nobody says anything, and believe me that many people know you are putting your foot in your mouth. You are given "a pass" because you supposedly wear some kind of halo and people reading you would be too embarrassed themselves to correct you. And that's a big part of the reason that it is taking you more than six years to get through the equivalent of an Electronics 101 course. Your own peers are letting you down by not challenging your whackadoo statements or correcting and educating you. Then again, one can assume that they don't want to deal with your obsessive push-back to the point of lunacy if they are going to try to correct you. Do you get that? They don't want to deal with it and that makes you your own worst enemy.
Well now is your time to shine MH,and tell us all what,how and when resonance is. Forget the 4 to 8 weeks bullshit,let's us have it.
You talk about being "misguided," you have got to be one of the most misguided people on this forum. Your continual push-back spawns all of the negativity - poor little Brad can't be wrong - when the reality is that sometimes you are "not even wrong" or "beyond wrong."
!If! i am proven to be wrong MH,then i take it on the chin,and learn from my mistakes. But so far in this thread,i have had to correct you on a few occasions now. First up was the cool joule circuit,and how it managed to run without any inductive coupling between L1 and L2,and then your incorrect statement about there being no resonance in ICE's. Then there was your last gasp for air-trying to determine the top speed of a vehicle without all the relevant information needed to do so.
You want an example of irrational relentless push-back spawning a lot of negativity? Your battle about "something missing" in the question asking how the resonant frequency is determined for the wine glass is a classic example. It's completely ridiculous as I showed you with the example of the maximum speed for a car. You don't have to try to answer a question that wasn't even asked to twist yourself "into the clear." Some people reading are aghast that you seemingly can't process or understand a simple question that simply asks you to explain something without needing specifics. There are always questions asking people to explain the concept or the process without specifics. We do this almost every single day in our daily lives and yet you want to insist that "something is wrong with the question." The only reason you are saying that something is wrong with the question is because you can't answer it. Or, even worse, you are not capable of dealing with concepts or processes because that simple basic abstraction is beyond your capabilities.
Your question !as i have said! is all over the place.
First it's !what! determines the resonant frequency of the wine glass,and then it's !how! is the resonant frequency of the wine determined--two totally different question's--both of which i have answered correctly. Your car's top speed answer was wrong,as you missed one vital piece of information needed to calculate the top speed of the vehicle.
I am simply standing my ground this one time and I won't be demonized for that. I am not even truly interested in this stuff and it's rare that I want to talk circuits. Instead of you always getting "a pass" why not at least this one time follow this through to the end and see if you can learn something new, or even better, teach yourself something new?
Your ground you are standing on MH,is 4 to 8 weeks long.
Why is it you can demand we answer questions within day's,and yet you have the right to take weeks to answer the same questions-->your questions.
Since you talked the big talk about resonance I brought up the issue of the resonating wine glass. You and Smoky clearly have not been able to show you know what you are talking about - that's where it stands like it or not.
A big claim by some one that has submitted nothing in the way of an accurate description to there own questions.
You are going to wait for a few more weeks to see if you or Smoky will teach yourselves because that is a lot better than getting spoon fed. To be honest part of the wait is karma that you brought onto yourself as clearly evidenced earlier in this thread.
First up-you(nor anyone else) will tell me how long i have to wait for anything,no will i be told what i do and do not have to learn.
What is clear in this thread so far,is you do not have much of an idea as to where resonant systems
exist. There is also the fact that it is going to take you 4 to 8 weeks to figure out how you can get your self out of this hole you have fell in--a hole you dug your self.
Like it or not, you should respect me for being honest with you about the resonance stuff. Like it or not, you got some blunt talk about your continual obsessive push-back. Your buddies on this forum mostly give you a pass when you state the most ridiculous totally incorrect things and that just keeps you in a stupor. Sorry to be harsh, but I can see that the boys have all picked up stones and they want to hurl them at me. Shame on anyone that does that, go read "The Lottery" again and bow your heads in shame.
It has nothing to do with buddies sticking together MH,it has to do with some of the garbage you post that is very incorrect.
There have been a few examples here on this thread alone
1-there is no resonance in an ICE
2-the cool joule circuit dose not operate as i described.
3-this is how you determine the top speed of a motor vehicle--even though a large piece needed to make that determination was missing.<--Do you know what was missing from that MH?.
4- 4 to 8 weeks to deliver the !correct! answers to ones own questions.
Question 1--what determines the resonant frequency of a wine glass
Question 2--how is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined
Question 3-- What is resonance<--the scientific meaning.
The people on this thread are making choices based on what they have seen so far MH,not on who they like the best,and so far you have made 3 incorrect determinations regarding resonance and top speed of a motor vehicle.
Brad
-
Resonance is a "mass noun" as is pollution!
-
Brad:
I am not going to address almost all of what you said because it has been covered before and there is no point. Then there is the "willful ignoring" of my responses to go in tandem with your willful ignorance. It's either that or you have some cognitive issues where sometimes you are told something and the information passes right through you like you weren't even there.
A couple of times in this thread you have tried to define resonance like this: (paraphrasing) "Resonance is when you hit something at its resonant frequency and it starts to resonate." That is a total fail and you clearly have some ways to go up the learning curve.
There is the only one outstanding issue for now, the two questions about the resonating wine glass:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
My advice to you would be for you and Smoky2 to study and try to figure out how to answer the questions. That will help you with the "resonant Joule Thief" immensely.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
I am not going to address almost all of what you said because it has been covered before and there is no point. Then there is the "willful ignoring" of my responses to go in tandem with your willful ignorance. It's either that or yo-u have some cognitive issues where sometimes you are told something and the information passes right through you like you weren't even there.
A couple of times in this thread you have tried to define resonance like this: (paraphrasing) "Resonance is when you hit something at its resonant frequency and it starts to resonate." That is a total fail and you clearly have some ways to go up the learning curve.
There is the only one outstanding issue for now, the two questions about the resonating wine glass:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
My advice to you would be for you and Smoky2 to study and try to figure out how to answer the questions. That will help you with the "resonant Joule Thief" immensely.
MileHigh
You have my answers to your questions-one of which you have failed to include.
The original question was-! What! determines the resonant frequency of the wine glass-noy ! How! is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined.
You need to learn the difference between the two MH-who has the cognitive issue ?
Face it-you have no answer to your own questions that are any different than that provided by others here on this thread-which are much the same as given by me.
You have also failed on a number of occasions now to understand existing resonant systems increasing the efficiency of various systems presented to you, and backed up with facts.
So far, the only one here that has failed the resonant test is you MH.
The fact that it is going to take you 4 to 8 weeks to gather up the information needed to answer your own questions, is testimony toward youe knowledge on the subject.
Your all questions-no answers--》all talk, no action.
You have proudly shown us this in this thread.
Brad.
-
At this point Brad that's just a bunch of useless trash talk that we have all seen before. Open up some books and apply yourself and try to answer the questions if and when you can. Sorry, but for this resonance discussion I had to call your bluff.
MileHigh
-
At this point Brad that's just a bunch of useless trash talk that we have all seen before. Open up some books and apply yourself and try to answer the questions if and when you can. Sorry, but for this resonance discussion I had to call your bluff.
MileHigh
Mh
You have not called anyones bluff. In fact, the bluff is from you, and you were called out by others, along with myself.
You were wrong about there being no resonance going on in an ICE.
You missed vital information in regards to your determining the top speed of a car.
You have provided no answers to your own questions that would prove myself and others wrong in regards to your questions.
So not only am I calling you out on your bluff, but so far it has been proven that you have got it wrong on more than one occasion in this thread regarding resonance, and what resonance is in different systems.
You have provided no evidence what so ever that myself and others here are wrong.
These are all facts MH-there all right here on this thread. For you to deniegh them, is just proof of how delusional you really are.
The question now is-why do you continue to try and force those here to forget about things you cant explain you self?. Why the continual insistance that there is nothing special in something you know very little about?.
Why do you try and steer people away from things that have been proven to increase efficiency in systems.
Sorry MH, but you have now jumped out of the pot, and into the fire.
Cant wait to see your resulting answers to your own questions.
4 - 8 weeks to gather answers to your own questions MH--that says a lot about what you expect from others, and what you deem to be correct for your self.
Clear double standards MH, but would we expected anything less from you.
Brad
-
Brad:
The real victory would be if you and Smoky2 applied yourselves and arrived at the simple universal understanding of true resonance and answered the wine glass questions correctly and then applied that new knowledge to the so-called "resonant Joule Thief."
If you have nothing new to add then you may as well wait until next month and cede the floor to Magluvin and Smoky2.
MileHigh
well, if you would like to be specific, and explain where you think what I said was incorrect, I will be happy to explain it to you in greater detail.
so that you can understand and learn from it.
What I took your question to mean, is exactly the opposite of what everyone is showing you.
They show you how to "measure" the resonance that is occurring. Generally, by an outside mechanism.
The way I answered your questions, is the opposite of that.
i.e. - determining what the frequency "should be", given the factors involved.
When calculated, then the wine glass is set on the table, and filled to the appropriate level, with the proper density of fluid
--- this value should (in theory) be the same as measured by the various methods demonstrated by our peers.
I am not going to baby step you through the mathematics of congealed silicates, in their various chemical compositions
crystalline structure, density, grain lengths, dopants, thickness of the glass, dimensions of the resonant chamber formed by the goblet shape.
fluid mechanics of the liquid, be it oil, water, or some other medium.
Although it would be a great educational adventure for those wanting to increase their knowledge, it is a bit off-topic, and a lot of extra work just to prove a point to someone who doesn't bother to read..
you are dodging your own questions, and any proposed answer to them, with no explanation of yourself.
If my answer was NOT the answer you were looking for, perhaps you should rephrase the question,
or better yet, give us YOUR answer(s), and let us stand corrected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and by the way - to everyone - you do NOT have to tap the wine glass at the resonant frequency to cause it to resonate.
ANY frequency will work, so be it that it is a consistent one.
you can rub your finger along the rim at different speeds
or tap it at different frequencies, stimulate with a speaker and tone generator, etc.
now, to BREAK the glass - yes, this does need to be the
"natural" resonant frequency of the glass system or a coherent (octave/multiple/divisor/interfering frequency node).
this is easier to deal with when the glass is empty - as air has very minimal effects as a medium.
consider the difference between the speed of sound in air, vs the speed of sound in a vacuum.
in an empty glass the natural resonant frequency is close to that of the resonant chamber, times a coefficient of the glass material.
apply this knowledge to the speed of sound in thick, dense fluid such as oil - and the change now has a significant value.
also, by filling the glass with a liquid, you are in effect, altering the size of the resonant chamber.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w
Look! Resonance and quantum entanglement! The Illuminati! Building 7! Roswell! All there if you just look! 8)
care to enlighten us on your thoughts about this?
What do you suppose is the resonant frequency of that metal plate?
and how does that pertain to the different patterns that emerge at different frequencies?
I feel like saying something here, but I think I already did about 15 pages back.....
-
Here,
get a Mile High, and learn about this guy.
Hell, i'll smoke one with ya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Young_(scientist) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Young_(scientist))
this, I think is an important topic for our entire civilization.
We KNEW this stuff 200 years ago.
yet now it seems forgotten by most.
I blame our segregated educational system.
splitting of the knowledge into job-specific categories, for monetary gain.
a dumbing down of our society on a grand level......
I would like to point out here, that a variation of Young's Modulus, is still to this day used in determining BOTH
the natural resonant frequency of the glass material
AND
the self resonant frequency of the ferrite material in a torroid (that number you get from the manufacturer)
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476619#msg476619 date=1457371820]
Resonant anything? Somebody post or link to something that is supposedly "outside the box" and is supposedly "more efficient" and let's take an honest look at it.
Are you serious MH :o
How about the biggest one of them all ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_coil
Let me guess,the Tesla coil is not !outside! the MH box-right?-->and why?,because it has been around for some time :D,and a true show of how resonance makes things work so well,and without resonance,this would be nothing much at all.
Go ahead, link or post something that shows something remarkable about resonance. Anybody? ::)
The issue of a "resonant Joule Thief" is not a "given" that you just have to "find" like some people want you to believe.
MileHigh
[/quote]
Learn about what resonance truly is as a first step at least.
Quote wikipedia: In physics, resonance is a phenomenon that occurs when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.
Quote physicsclassroom.com: resonance - when one object vibrating at the same natural frequency of a second object forces that second object into vibrational motion.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/reson.html --Quote:
Resonance
In sound applications, a resonant frequency is a natural frequency of vibration determined by the physical parameters of the vibrating object. This same basic idea of physically determined natural frequencies applies throughout physics in mechanics, electricity and magnetism, and even throughout the realm of modern physics. Some of the implications of resonant frequencies are:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A-level_Physics_(Advancing_Physics)/Resonance Quote:
Resonance occurs when an oscillating system is driven (made to oscillate from an outside source) at a frequency which is the same as its own natural frequency. All oscillating systems require some form of an elastic force and a mass e.g. a mass at the end of a spring. All oscillators have a natural frequency. If you have a mass on a spring, and give it an amplitude, it will resonate at a frequency:
We could also see resonance as a way of storing and giving back energy, by way of vibrations and/or oscillations at high efficiency's,much like in some boost converters.
As we know,once we have a resonant situation between the exhaust flow and piston movement/position in a two stroke ICE,the efficiency of that engine can greatly increase--> (simplified explanation). In the case of the ICE resonance,the energy is not being stored,but due to the resonant factor,the energy conversion is at a much higher efficiency.
Resonance is really nothing more than a vibration or oscillation of a system at it's natural frequency.
What determines the resonant frequency of a wine glass?
Both the physical and chemical makeup of the wine glass is what determines what the resonant (natural) frequency will be for that wine glass.
How is the resonant frequency determined for the wine glass.
The only true way of determining the actual resonant(natural) frequency of the wine glass,is to measure it. This !CAN! be done with a microphone and scope.
Take a look at the example of the "resonant Joule Thief." Right now it is just an idea, no more than that. It's doesn't even exist and the improved performance attributes that are almost literally claimed about it as fact are no more than hopes and wishes.
This may be the case for the MH JT circuit,but in other kinds of JT circuit's,resonance could indeed increase the efficiency of the system. My line of thought in regards to this,is by way of an electrodynamic induction system--or resonant inductive coupling if you like.
You need to stop thinking that the MH JT circuit is the only JT circuit MH. A JT circuit is a circuit that can drain (what would otherwise be wasted)the remaining energy from !almost! dead batteries.
The idea behind the resonance thing,is to do this at a greater efficiency--more light,less waste heat.
However, this thread was stating that it was taken for granted that a "resonant Joule thief" was doable and it was just a question of "finding it." At this point in time it's just a hope, and the alleged improved performance is just a hope. I am all for hope, but when it comes to electronics, rational analysis comes first and hope second.
Apparently rational analysis comes in 4 to 8 weeks :D
"Resonant Joule Thief?" Bring it on we are all waiting for it but wise people will be taking nothing as a given just because you have the word "resonance" in the description.
4 to 8 weeks before any of us know what resonance is
what determines the resonant frequency of a wine glass
And how we are going to determine that resonant frequency.
Moving on, we will see if the boys can master the concept of the resonating wine glass. If not, the answers will be given later.
All the answers have been provided MH--so dont worry to much about your long winded(yet to work out) resonant answers.
Then that's it, there is no point in taking it any further than that. Just don't be surprised if you never see a resonant Joule Thief and you never see anything described or linked to that shows something remarkable or outside-the-box with respect to resonance. If that's the case, then people need to ask themselves why all of this buzz about resonance? What you will see through, is the two questions about the wine glass answered.
In 4 to 8 week's. :D
I have put any attempts to educate or help others way back on the back back burner.
Maybe they will thank people like myself,Mag's,and smOKy for keeping you away from them MH ? ;D
This thread is an exception and I have no problem simply walking away at the right time.
Oh-MH,,,please dont make any exceptions on our behalf ;D
Please---feel free to walk away any time you want 8)--->we got this one ;)
Brad
-
Here,
get a Mile High, and learn about this guy.
Hell, i'll smoke one with ya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Young_(scientist) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Young_(scientist))
this, I think is an important topic for our entire civilization.
We KNEW this stuff 200 years ago.
yet now it seems forgotten by most.
I blame our segregated educational system.
splitting of the knowledge into job-specific categories, for monetary gain.
a dumbing down of our society on a grand level......
I would like to point out here, that a variation of Young's Modulus, is still to this day used in determining BOTH
the natural resonant frequency of the glass material
AND
the self resonant frequency of the ferrite material in a torroid (that number you get from the manufacturer)
HA-whats the chances of that :D. MH will not be happy ;)
Young's Modulus allowed, for the first time, prediction of the strain in a component subject to a known stress (and vice versa). Prior to Young's contribution, engineers were required to apply Hooke's F = kx relationship to identify the deformation (x) of a body subject to a known load (F), where the constant (k) is a function of both the geometry and material under consideration. Finding k required physical testing for any new component, as the F = kx relationship is a function of both geometry and material.
Brad
-
Answer these two questions in your own words:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
If you can't do it then you don't know what you are talking about.
-
Smoky2:
When calculated, then the wine glass is set on the table, and filled to the appropriate level, with the proper density of fluid
--- this value should (in theory) be the same as measured by the various methods demonstrated by our peers.
You have already been told that there is no liquid in the glass.
I am not going to baby step you through the mathematics of congealed silicates, in their various chemical compositions
crystalline structure, density, grain lengths, dopants, thickness of the glass, dimensions of the resonant chamber formed by the goblet shape.
fluid mechanics of the liquid, be it oil, water, or some other medium.
Although it would be a great educational adventure for those wanting to increase their knowledge, it is a bit off-topic, and a lot of extra work just to prove a point to someone who doesn't bother to read..
Please baby step me through it.
consider the difference between the speed of sound in air, vs the speed of sound in a vacuum.
Can you elaborate on that?
in an empty glass the natural resonant frequency is close to that of the resonant chamber, times a coefficient of the glass material.
I would like to know more about this.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
There is nothing special about a Tesla coil.
All the answers have been provided MH--so dont worry to much about your long winded(yet to work out) resonant answers.
I have already stated several times that I am looking for simple answers. Tell me this time that what I am saying to you is not going to pass right through you like you aren't even there. I told you that the environmental factors for the maximum speed of a car were factored into what I said in my statement and that passed right through you like you weren't even there.
The idea behind the resonance thing,is to do this at a greater efficiency--more light,less waste heat.
Give me some reasons why resonance will do this.
As we know,once we have a resonant situation between the exhaust flow and piston movement/position in a two stroke ICE,the efficiency of that engine can greatly increase--> (simplified explanation). In the case of the ICE resonance,the energy is not being stored,but due to the resonant factor,the energy conversion is at a much higher efficiency.
So what precisely is the "resonant situation?" Why don't you show a simplified diagram and a timing diagram to explain that to us and explain how it increases efficiency. I asked Johan the same types of questions and he did not come back and respond.
What is a "resonant factor" in an ICE and how does it improve efficiency?
MileHigh
-
Answer these two questions in your own words:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
If you can't do it then you don't know what you are talking about.
Gee,your questions change daily MH.
Now it is !how! dose a wine glass resonate,and before it was !how! is the resonant frequency determined for a wine glass.
Before that it was !what! determines the resonant frequency of a wine glass.
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
This has been answered over and over and over--are you dyslexic ?
You measure it.
How is the length of a piece of string determined?
You measure it.
How is the RPM of an ICE determined
You measure it.
How dose a certain food taste
You taste it.
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
It resonates due to vibrating at it's natural frequency.
That frequency is determined by the crystal structure and purity of the wine glass which give rise to the vibrations.. The stronger, closer,and elasticity of the individual crystal bond's is part of what determines that resonant frequency. There is also the physical dimensions,along with environmental conditions that also play a part in what the resonant frequency will be.
Now-enough with your foolish game's MH ,and enough with the ever changing question's.
I give you until thursday to post your answers to your own question's--and anything after that,you will become the first to go on my block list.
I will see no more of your post,and you will see no more of mine--game ,set and match.
I also have this feeling that you will be added to others block list as well,as you have gone far beyond stupid on this one,and all we have seen from you so far,is mistake after mistake,while you have the audacity to say that we are all wrong,or have no idea as to what we are talking about--and also keeping in mind that you have not answered even one of your own questions--including those you presented to EMJ on his thread.
Thursday MH,and then after that,we are no longer a problem for each other.
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476678#msg476678 date=1457444525]
There is nothing special about a Tesla coil.
How well do they work outside a resonant state ?
I have already stated several times that I am looking for simple answers. Tell me this time that what I am saying to you is not going to pass right through you like you aren't even there. I told you that the environmental factors for the maximum speed of a car were factored into what I said in my statement and that passed right through you like you weren't even there.
Post 633 Quote: How do you determine the maximum speed of your car in simple terms?
The answer is the maximum speed of the car is determined from where the maximum horsepower that can be output by the engine is in balance with all of the air friction and various other friction forces.
Your right MH--it has passed right through me,as i do not see all environmental factors included in your post. Can you please show me where they are?,as all i see is maximum HP and frictional factors in that post--> i do not see all environmental factors applied to your summation. :o
Give me some reasons why resonance will do this.
Many techniques for transmitting power over “mid-range” uses resonance to enhance the efficiency of the energy transfer . But you know this already,so why are you asking questions that you already have the answers to.
What is a "resonant factor" in an ICE and how does it improve efficiency?
We have done this already MH,and simply not going to do it again.
Brad
-
This has been answered over and over and over--are you dyslexic ?
You measure it.
That's laughable. You are doing it again, measuring is not a valid answer, that's just cheating and like the old cliche goes, you are just cheating yourself.
You are still a double fail if you can't answer two simple questions in your own words with two simple answers.
-
The answer is the maximum speed of the car is determined from where the maximum horsepower that can be output by the engine is in balance with all of the air friction and various other friction forces.
Your right MH--it has passed right through me,as i do not see all environmental factors included in your post. Can you please show me where they are?,as all i see is maximum HP and frictional factors in that post--> i do not see all environmental factors applied to your summation.
Then you answer the question yourself including the environmental factors. Once you have answered the question "properly" then show me how my statement is incorrect.
Many techniques for transmitting power over “mid-range” uses resonance to enhance the efficiency of the energy transfer . But you know this already,so why are you asking questions that you already have the answers to.
Earth to Brad: You were talking about a Joule Thief, not transmitting power. Please turn off the "stream of consciousness" in your head that jumbles up all of your thoughts up like spaghetti.
-
HHmm
unless I am really misunderstanding what MH is trying to do here, I think he is showboating ?
your explaining the procedure which is used to experiment [which you do all the time] is not enuff for him
its sorta like when you ask him whats a magnet ??
and he can't answer and he says we don't need to know what it is just how it acts ...
seems like MH is talking outa both sides of his mouth again.
don't worry about what I do.. just what I say !
Yikes !!
-
HHmm
unless I am really misunderstanding what MH is trying to do here, I think he is showboating ?
your explaining the procedure which is used to experiment [which you do all the time] is not enuff for him
its sorta like when you ask him whats a magnet ??
and he can't answer and he says we don't need to know what it is just how it acts ...
seems like MH is talking outa both sides of his mouth again.
don't worry about what I do.. just what I say !
Yikes !!
Poor Chet. Have you noticed any flaws in some of the stuff Brad has had to say? Oops, I forgot that you love the intense bondage of the straitjacket and the ball gag. Any balance in your commentary and you would be in serious serious trouble. Moral bankruptcy is a harsh mistress.
-
Whatsa matter MH
don't like when you get called on your hypocrisy so you resort to nonsense personal attacks ?
how do you work with magnets if you don't really understand them ??
your ever soooo helpful when the shoe is on another foot ...
-
Whatsa matter MH
don't like when you get called on your hypocrisy so you resort to nonsense personal attacks ?
how do you work with magnets if you don't really understand them ??
your ever soooo helpful when the shoe is on another foot ...
What's the matter with you, Chet? You explain to us what a magnet *really* is? You can't? Whoops, not a single other person on this forum can either, can they? And yet you want to single me out? That is the lamest BS you are trying to pull on me. In your previous posting you played straw-man with me and said I made statements that I didn't make. Even you, not being technical, can spot Brad's continuous stream of ridiculous gaffes and you say nothing.
You are in a straitjacket and you are casting stones at me like a mindless drone because "forum political correctness" has told you to do it. Go back and read "The Lottery" and bow your head in shame.
-
I can answer the question very easily MH--you drive it as fast as it will go in the environment it is in,and measure the speed--100% accurate.
Using your speed measuring technique,we will never know the answer,as your missing one major environmental factor needed.
MH--do you know what you have missed ?.
Earth to Brad: You were talking about a Joule Thief, not transmitting power. Please turn off the "stream of consciousness" in your head that jumbles up all of your thoughts up like spaghetti.
Guess you missed yet another post,regarding resonant inductive coupling transformers ::)
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476686#msg476686 date=1457447454]
Have you noticed any flaws in some of the stuff Brad has had to say?
Brad--Hey Chet,have you noticed any flaws in what MH has to say?
Chet--No Brad,i have not.
Brad--How can you say that Chet?
Chet--Well because MH has not said anything yet. I will know in 4 to 8 weeks :D
-
Stop pointing away from yourself
You are ultimately saying here that Brad is clueless (and Smokey too) because of some standard which
You have set ,
------
That they could probably resonate hell off its hinges if given the chance ..
Doesn't matter to you.
No you need some standard beyond measurement criteria ,some higher level of knowledge which
You hold Ransome and flaunt in grandiose self serving pleasure for all to see..
(And for months of time ...you sadist !!)
Bow your head with me....
Putz
And then explain the difference between what they do to resonate (measure)
And what you do with magnets ?
Double putz
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476688#msg476688 date=1457448569]
Even you, not being technical, can spot Brad's continuous stream of ridiculous gaffes and you say nothing.
Chet's going to need a little time MH--maybe 4 to 8 weeks i would think ;)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency
Since measuring is not an answer then how can anything be known about the oscillations per time unit?
In short, no frequency can be known without measuring the cycles per time unit unless it is compared to a known value from an item that has that value known,, which is measuring in its own way.
Guess we'll find out in 4 to 8 weeks ;)
MH is going to rewrite physics ::)
-
MH
I am giving you a new knickname.
From now on i think we should call you 4T8 ;D
-
I can answer the question very easily MH--you drive it as fast as it will go in the environment it is in,and measure the speed--100% accurate.
Using your speed measuring technique,we will never know the answer,as your missing one major environmental factor needed.
MH--do you know what you have missed ?.
My statement again:
The answer is the maximum speed of the car is determined from where the maximum horsepower that can be output by the engine is in balance with all of the air friction and various other friction forces.
"All of the air friction and various other friction forces" will depend on the environment the car is being tested in. So your whole line of "reasoning" is wrong when you allege that I am "missing the environmental factor."
Guess you missed yet another post,regarding resonant inductive coupling transformers ::)
You were talking about a Joule Thief and not "transmitting power over 'mid-range.'"
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency)
Since measuring is not an answer then how can anything be known about the oscillations per time unit?
In short, no frequency can be known without measuring the cycles per time unit unless it is compared to a known value from an item that has that value known,, which is measuring in its own way.
I refuse to believe that you can't understand the meaning of the question.
-
Stop pointing away from yourself
You are ultimately saying here that Brad is clueless (and Smokey too) because of some standard which
You have set ,
------
That they could probably resonate hell off its hinges if given the chance ..
Doesn't matter to you.
No you need some standard beyond measurement criteria ,some higher level of knowledge which
You hold Ransome and flaunt in grandiose self serving pleasure for all to see..
(And for months of time ...you sadist !!)
Bow your head with me....
Putz
And then explain the difference between what they do to resonate (measure)
And what you do with magnets ?
Double putz
If you are going to claim that you know about resonance then answering two simple questions about resonance should be a trivial matter. But instead, it's a high-drama circus. What can you infer from that? Stop your ridiculous "enforcer" nonsense and support truth and education instead of skewed politically correct enforced ignorance.
Calling somebody's bluff is a worthwhile exercise in the search for the truth and we are trying desperately to tun lemons into lemonaid but the resistance is on full force. How dare people actually demonstrate competence, this is a free energy forum after all? We need more people like FatBird. Why don't you go to GDS and call their bluff?
-
Most would call it hypocrisy !
and a double standard , with no value whatsoever but to place yourself at the top of some make believe pile of humanity.
creepy indeed !
you can't explain a magnet ,but that's OK because its you ..and we just measure .
Brad measures to find resonance [which he does Spot on whenever he pleases ]
but that's not OK he needs to bow and kiss your errr ring...
your quite odd in the way you set a standard and flaunt your self as some higher level of morality ...
very odd indeed
gotta go
however one personal comment
this ain't doin us any good...
please figure a way around this bump !
-
No, we were having a discussion about resonance and I suspected that some people were bluffing about it. You know, like how 95% of the people that build stuff with coils and post about them all the time don't actually understand how they work?
So I posted these two simple questions and requested two simple answers:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
And low and behold, nobody has been able to answer them correctly in their own words. So what are the implications for people that are trying to experiment with resonance?
The questions were posed because of Brad's big talk about resonance, and it's turned out to be big fake talk and a bunch of copy-pasting. That's a worthwhile exercise whether you like it or not. It has devolved into a bloody circus and that's not my doing. Answers will be provided in April. If people had the right attitude they would take up the challenge and try to answer these simple questions by learning and then distilling that knowledge and comprehending it so that they could successfully answer the two questions. On another forum where people take pride in educating themselves in the information age they would welcome this as a fun challenge. Instead you have a circus with a bunch of poseurs that aren't happy that they can't talk the talk anymore because someone asked them to walk the walk and they couldn't do it. All that they could do was complain and copy/paste, they couldn't use their own brains and intellect to answer the questions. But they still can if they want to work at it. Experience has shown they will not learn if it's spoon fed to them.
If you don't like it, tough for you.
-
Going to electronics pre-101 :)
I asked this a long time ago elsewhere but did not get an answer,,
A conductor has a relaxation time period before it starts to conduct,, does an inductor have that same delay?
Yes, it is the inverse of its resonance frequency.
Actually, I just made that up...but it sounded reasonable didn't it? I actually have no idea what the answer to your question really is. Sorry.
Bill
PS I would think that it would vary with the permeability of the inductor though. (Seriously)
-
MH
As regards TinMan and Smokey and your education of same and claim that they are faking it ?
I just got my crystal ball back from the shop...
I see that you have no clothing ? ( the Emperor has no cloths??) And egg on face..
Could be on the fritz again that atom guy really made a mess of it...
Although,
I suppose in Tinmans case he probably has something in his seven thousand videos
That will serve up crow ?
Enjoy you spring time !
-
What's the matter with you, Chet? You explain to us what a magnet *really* is? You can't? Whoops, not a single other person on this forum can either, can they? And yet you want to single me out? That is the lamest BS you are trying to pull on me. In your previous posting you played straw-man with me and said I made statements that I didn't make. Even you, not being technical, can spot Brad's continuous stream of ridiculous gaffes and you say nothing.
You are in a straitjacket and you are casting stones at me like a mindless drone because "forum political correctness" has told you to do it. Go back and read "The Lottery" and bow your head in shame.
actually MH, I know for a fact that at least 4 of us can do a pretty good job at it.
perhaps more, I don't "know" everyone well enough to make broad assumptions like that.
The problem I see with attempting to explain it to you, is the gaps in your logic.
You seem to have trouble following a coherent language-based discussion.
How could I ever expect you to be able to follow a quantum atomic loop around a single rendition.
much less the "countably infinite" number of renditions one must calculate to grasp a basic understanding of the magnetic moment.
Which occurs at something over a million THz in a monoatomic (Fe).
Then expect you to be able to add up all these quantities and their associated angular vectors to apply this to a mass-field scenario.
In all honesty, the way this thread has been going,
I would venture to say it is easier to perform long drawn out trigonometric derivations
than it is to teach a simply basic concept of wave interference to Milehigh.
It is beyond the point of ridiculousness. I am not sure at this point, if you are just not paying attention, if you habitually forget what was stated,
or that you just enjoy the confrontation (attention, etc) of being the naysayer. I am unsure of your intentions here.
And now, once again, just for you MH, I will do what I said I was NOT going to do...
(seems like a waste of time, but what the hell, you actually seem interested in the answer for once....)
-
actually MH, I know for a fact that at least 4 of us can do a pretty good job at it.
perhaps more, I don't "know" everyone well enough to make broad assumptions like that.
The problem I see with attempting to explain it to you, is the gaps in your logic.
You seem to have trouble following a coherent language-based discussion.
How could I ever expect you to be able to follow a quantum atomic loop around a single rendition.
much less the "countably infinite" number of renditions one must calculate to grasp a basic understanding of the magnetic moment.
Which occurs at something over a million THz in a monoatomic (Fe).
Then expect you to be able to add up all these quantities and their associated angular vectors to apply this to a mass-field scenario.
In all honesty, the way this thread has been going,
I would venture to say it is easier to perform long drawn out trigonometric derivations
than it is to teach a simply basic concept of wave interference to Milehigh.
It is beyond the point of ridiculousness. I am not sure at this point, if you are just not paying attention, if you habitually forget what was stated,
or that you just enjoy the confrontation (attention, etc) of being the naysayer. I am unsure of your intentions here.
And now, once again, just for you MH, I will do what I said I was NOT going to do...
(seems like a waste of time, but what the hell, you actually seem interested in the answer for once....)
The highlighted stuff must be you mistaking me for somebody else.
We are not here to talk about quantum physics, and that's a subject that I know next to nothing about. Likewise I didn't ask you to explain anything about this to me, did I?
I made a posting to you where I asked some follow-up questions to one of your postings.
Beyond that, I am asking you to answer my two simple questions about the wine glass in your own words with simple, succinct answers - four sentences or less. No discussion of fluid in the glass, no finger rubbing the rim, absolutely no copy/paste. Just answer the questions in your own words. Are you capable of doing that?
-
before I get into this, I will state some basic assumptions of the conditions involved.
These assumptions are to give quantities to the unknown factors necessary for such discussion to take place.
We will first assume that our wine glass is void of all defects, bubbles, cracks, stress-lines, and other such imperfections in the crystals
and since either two of the common methods of calculation are dependent upon temperature and other such factors,
(Young's Modulus or Shear Modulus)
We will further assume that these calculations take place at Sea Level, at SI "standard" temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.
We will also assume there is "standard" ratio of the components of the "air", such that the mathematical constants applied thereto,
do not change throughout the mathematical analysis of the glass' resonance.
I will use Young's Modulus, as it pertains, with respect to glass-ceramics, directly to the velocity and propagation of the wave function.
This is derived using the Bulk Modulus K, and by a proportional constant of nature, both Shear Modulus and Poison's Ratio are defined.
Young's Modulus (defined by a capital "E", not to be confused with Energy) is therefore modified as:
E = pv^2
p is the density of the glass, and v is the longitudinal velocity of the pulse, or wavefront.
as you can see here, we must hold temperature constant, or we change the value of the modulus.
like sticking a tuning fork in the oven ;)
To further simplify the discussion, it will be assumed that the particular wine glass is of known composition.
let us assume this particular wine glass to be composed of a silicate
with a Young's modulus of 75
We will assume the speed of sound in air to be 343 Meters per Second
We will also assume that the wine glass is (mostly) cylindrical, and without odd curvatures.
[Note: there may be other obvious assumptions I may have forgotten,]
[ so the above list may be added to over the next short time]
[ while I attempt to fulfill what has been requested of me.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, what represents the resonant standing wave inside an (empty) glass, or glass filled with only air:
is considered in two parts.
There is the resonance of the cavity
and the shift in frequency caused by the elasticity of the glass material.
I will deal with the easy part first, the other half would probably take me most of a day to put into words.
The above Young's Modulus equation is already crunching half a page of math into a single line.
Do it again for the resonant cavity, and forgive me for needing a little time to plug both of them together.
it has been the better part of 15yrs since I've dealt with this particular issue.
Such is generally only required in theory, not in practice....
better yet, I have already done way more than necessary I think.
So let me just set this mess on my desk for now, I think you can see where it is leading.
I am not prepared at this moment to fully describe the wave interactions between the soundwave
and the vibrational wave through the glass material
in a coherent mathematical equation that represents both features.
this would be a lot easier if it were a flat, thin rectangle of glass.
Not a round goblet shape, its a mathematical blunder taking the tensor forces over a curvature.
(I think you have gotten the best of my patience on this one!! grr)
But what I will do instead is give you a footing by which you can change your own diaper.
(sorry, my babies are grown, I don't do that anymore)
So,. let us begin:
the frequency of the resonant cavity, formed by the dimensions of the wine glass is defined as:
f = v / 4(h + 0.4d)
where h is the height of the glass from the inside bottom to the rim
d is the diameter
v is the speed of sound
coincidentally:
v = f * wavelength
wavelength = 4(h + 0.4d)
v= f(4(h +0.4d))
and so forth and so on...
If the f represented by the resonant cavity were labeled as F1
the actual frequency resonating from the glass labeled as F2
then,
F1 - F2 = the shift in frequency caused by the glass material, as defined by Young's Modulus.
What you will find with your microphone or other testing apparatus, is both F2 resonating from the glass material
as well as F1 resonating inside the glass (with traces of F2 observable at certain locations therein)
as well as other (lower intensity) odd number harmonics.
these are defined as:
f = N(v) / 4(h + 0.4d)
where N is an odd number.
Why an odd number?
Because, much like our Joule Thief, the standing wave in the wineglass is a Half-Wave.
therefore, only the odd harmonics are not destroyed.
go ahead and test for these harmonic frequencies with your wine glass microphones.
If you find yourself unable to grasp these simple concepts,
you cannot understand what resonance "is".
everything that resonates, does so according to simple natural laws.
distances, velocities, intervals of time, rates of propagation
the things that define frequency
electricity and magnetism do not get a free pass on this one.
it is all the same
-
four sentences.....
hmm.,.. I guess I fail your test then.
I require much more than that.
-
So you are talking about the resonance of the air cavity inside the wine glass.
I asked you about the resonance of the wine glass itself. Is there a comprehension issue?
Now that you understand that I am asking you about the resonance of the wine glass itself (like if you were to flick your finger against the rim) please give clear and succinct answers to my questions:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
-
So you are talking about the resonance of the air cavity inside the wine glass.
I asked you about the resonance of the wine glass itself. Is there a comprehension issue?
Now that you understand that I am asking you about the resonance of the wine glass itself (like if you were to flick your finger against the rim) please give clear and succinct answers to my questions:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
your inability to comprehend overwhelms me.....
the resonance of the glass itself, is a function of BOTH the resonance of the cavity formed by the SHAPE and DIMENSIONS of the WINE GLASS and the materials constant caused by the change in frequency through the glass itself.
if you flick a flat piece of glass - then you are dealing with (mostly) the resonance of the glass itself.
the physical dimensions used in this part of the equation are the length and width and thickness of the flat piece.
also it must be known if you are flicking it on its' wide flat surface or on one of its' edges.
this is much different than a "wine glass" resonance. as I just explained above.
take 3 different size wine glasses, from the same set.
same glass material, etc.
put them on your table, and flick each one.
Now, you can hear how their physical dimensions change the frequency.
I have to go wash my hands now,. I think I got some poopie on them..
can someone please throw his dirty diaper away for me...
-
your inability to comprehend overwhelms me.....
the resonance of the glass itself, is a function of BOTH the resonance of the cavity formed by the SHAPE and DIMENSIONS of the WINE GLASS and the materials constant caused by the change in frequency through the glass itself.
if you flick a flat piece of glass - then you are dealing with (mostly) the resonance of the glass itself.
the physical dimensions used in this part of the equation are the length and width and thickness of the flat piece.
also it must be known if you are flicking it on its' wide flat surface or on one of its' edges.
this is much different than a "wine glass" resonance. as I just explained above.
take 3 different size wine glasses, from the same set.
same glass material, etc.
put them on your table, and flick each one.
Now, you can hear how their physical dimensions change the frequency.
I have to go wash my hands now,. I think I got some poopie on them..
can someone please throw his dirty diaper away for me...
You dare talk about comprehension issues. Total fail. You were asked to give a simple answer and the mass of the resonating glass is much much larger than the air in the cavity and around the glass so it can be ignored. The resonant frequency of the wine glass has essentially nothing to do with the air in the cavity of the glass. Plus I asked for a simple explanation. You are supposed to be explaining what resonance in a wine glass is, not having a technical wanking session to impress a bunch of unknown posters.
Your previous long posting is an incoherent technical word salad. So I am firmly putting you in the poseur category. You clearly can't express something simple in simple terms. For all I know you did a Google frenzy.
consider the difference between the speed of sound in air, vs the speed of sound in a vacuum.
Speed of sound in a vacuum? You must have tripped over your keyboard in a chaotic Google frenzy.
Take your colourful metaphors and wipe your face with them.
-
My statement again:
"All of the air friction and various other friction forces" will depend on the environment the car is being tested in. So your whole line of "reasoning" is wrong when you allege that I am "missing the environmental factor."
Like i said,you are missing vital information that is not frictional force, that is needed in order to calculate the speed doing it your way.
You were talking about a Joule Thief and not "transmitting power over 'mid-range.'"
Wrong !once again!.
You asked for an example where resonance increase efficiency.
It had nothing to do with a Joule Thief.
Brad
-
Like i said,you are missing vital information that is not frictional force, that is needed in order to calculate the speed doing it your way.
Brad
For the car, I can't explain why you can't understand how the environment the car is in will determine the frictional forces on the car. I will just have to assume that you are incapable of comprehending this and leave it at that.
Wrong !once again!.
You asked for an example where resonance increase efficiency.
It had nothing to do with a Joule Thief.
In fact we were talking about a Joule Thief.
Take a LOOK:
You need to stop thinking that the MH JT circuit is the only JT circuit MH. A JT circuit is a circuit that can drain (what would otherwise be wasted)the remaining energy from !almost! dead batteries.
The idea behind the resonance thing,is to do this at a greater efficiency--more light,less waste heat.
You are unbelievable and your thought patterns are like a bowl of spaghetti in motion. It's almost impossible to have a debate with you.
MileHigh
-
I refuse to believe that you can't understand the meaning of the question.
Judging by the ratio of those that read and understand your questions in the same way,to those that understand your questions in a different way,it is clear MH that you dont understand your own questions. ;)
Everyone here has read and answered your questions in a way that makes sense as to how the questions were asked. You on the other hand seem to have some other understanding of your questions.
Brad
-
Judging by the ratio of those that read and understand your questions in the same way,to those that understand your questions in a different way,it is clear MH that you dont understand your own questions. ;)
Everyone here has read and answered your questions in a way that makes sense as to how the questions were asked. You on the other hand seem to have some other understanding of your questions.
Brad
More trash talk nonsense.
-
No, we were having a discussion about resonance and I suspected that some people were bluffing about it. You know, like how 95% of the people that build stuff with coils and post about them all the time don't actually understand how they work?
So I posted these two simple questions and requested two simple answers:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
And low and behold, nobody has been able to answer them correctly in their own words. So what are the implications for people that are trying to experiment with resonance?
That's a worthwhile exercise whether you like it or not. It has devolved into a bloody circus and that's not my doing. Answers will be provided in April. If people had the right attitude they would take up the challenge and try to answer these simple questions by learning and then distilling that knowledge and comprehending it so that they could successfully answer the two questions. On another forum where people take pride in educating themselves in the information age they would welcome this as a fun challenge. Instead you have a circus with a bunch of poseurs that aren't happy that they can't talk the talk anymore because someone asked them to walk the walk and they couldn't do it. All that they could do was complain and copy/paste, they couldn't use their own brains and intellect to answer the questions. But they still can if they want to work at it. Experience has shown they will not learn if it's spoon fed to them.
If you don't like it, tough for you.
The questions were posed because of Brad's big talk about resonance, and it's turned out to be big fake talk and a bunch of copy-pasting.
Ah--there ya go MH,playing that game once again.
When links and quotes are copy-pasted for references to answers given in my own word's,you play the old-->cant put an answer in his own word's--game.
But epic fail this time MH,as my answers in my own words are plastered all over this thread.
The biggest issue we have here,is your lack of knowledge in the english language ,and the fact that you dont understand your own question's.
Every one here reads your questions the very same,and has replied to those questions with correct answers. You on the other hand(and only you) seem to read your questions in a totally different way. !but! let me guess--we all have it wrong,and dont understand english,and you have it right,and have taken the english language to a whole new level ?. ::)
So the numbers have been crunched MH,and it seems that you need some lessons in the english language.
This is simply one of those times that you have been outvoted in number's,and it seems that we may have to explain to you as to what your questions actually mean.
Dose anyone here have the time to give MH lessons in english 101.?
Brad
-
One more time Brad that's mostly useless trash talk.
Bradley doesn't like his dose of cod liver oil but Bradley does like his serving of ice cream after school.
You should try writing that out in long-hand 500 times just like back in elementary school.
You have never tried to answer the two questions in your own words. If you truly understand resonance then you should be able to answer the questions in simple terms with no problems. If you can't do that then the thread should be handed over to Magluvin. I will give my answers in April.
-
ok MH, your turn
tell us the mechanics behind the resonance of the wine glass
i'll hold my breath
please feel free to omit any
...technical word salad
-
"the wine glass resonates because you are tapping it"
is that the answer?
just because there is no "air" present to vibrate your ears, does not mean the waveform completely ceases to exist.
soundwaves can travel through space with no medium, and manifest themselves on the other side back into a medium, where they can then again be heard by your mortal sensory appendages.
is it technically "sound"? that depends on how you choose to define what "sound" is.....
and also to some degree, your ability to evacuate your test chamber.
all this is irrelevant to the discussion.
and is just a subservient attempt to distract everyone from your idiocracy.
Your allusion to the irrelevance of a resonant chamber, with respect to something that resonates...
is quite absurd.
without such resonant chamber, the glass would NOT resonate.
it would behave much like the flat piece of glass and just go thunk,.
(actually the flat glass does resonate, just not for very long and the wavelength is much shorter)
-
if you break your wine glass and pick up a piece of the "glass itself"
and flick it
f = [sqrt(E/4L^2p)]
where E is Young's Modulus at that temperature.
L is the thickness of the glass
p is its' density
^^ there that's four sentences.
unfortunately, your wine glass is not only SiO2, there are other components in the glass material.
which makes the reality a more complex equation.
-
mortal sensory appendages ??
surely you jest ....
his holiness has no such appendage !!
And if he did surely he would not waste it in such a fashion ...as listening .
please do not confuse him with the facts ,his mind is made up ...
April [would that be April 1st??]
so let it be written so let it be done.!
-
"the wine glass resonates because you are tapping it"
is that the answer?
just because there is no "air" present to vibrate your ears, does not mean the waveform completely ceases to exist.
soundwaves can travel through space with no medium, and manifest themselves on the other side back into a medium, where they can then again be heard by your mortal sensory appendages.
is it technically "sound"? that depends on how you choose to define what "sound" is.....
and also to some degree, your ability to evacuate your test chamber.
all this is irrelevant to the discussion.
and is just a subservient attempt to distract everyone from your idiocracy.
Your allusion to the irrelevance of a resonant chamber, with respect to something that resonates...
is quite absurd.
without such resonant chamber, the glass would NOT resonate.
it would behave much like the flat piece of glass and just go thunk,.
(actually the flat glass does resonate, just not for very long and the wavelength is much shorter)
Well, I had to quote that posting in it's entirety.
Thanks for proving that you are completely clueless and exposing yourself for all the world to see. It makes all of your vain little attempts to belittle me look quite silly and comical right now. If you were on my "resonance team" you would be booted down into the minor leagues. Common sense is not always so common, is it?
MileHigh
-
mortal sensory appendages ??
surely you jest ....
his holiness has no such appendage !!
And if he did surely he would not waste it in such a fashion ...as listening .
please do not confuse him with the facts ,his mind is made up ...
April [would that be April 1st??]
so let it be written so let it be done.!
You are on Planet Bizarro. Better come back to Earth before your appendage falls off.
-
Mh
You have an X files thing goin on here , I keep expecting Orson Welles or some "don't adjust your TV screen "
Voice to come over the Putor ...
twighlightzone for certain...
I sure hope you don't wake up tomorrow with one of those
"what did I do Last night ...and Who Dat ?? "
moments ....
flyin with out a wire !
-
For the car, I can't explain why you can't understand how the environment the car is in will determine the frictional forces on the car. I will just have to assume that you are incapable of comprehending this and leave it at that.
In fact we were talking about a Joule Thief.
Take a LOOK:
You are unbelievable and your thought patterns are like a bowl of spaghetti in motion. It's almost impossible to have a debate with you.
MileHigh
I have no trouble at all with the frictional forces applied by the environment.
You have trouble understanding that other forces exist within the environment that act upon the car in a non frictional way.
What is the 1 major force that acts upon the car in a non frictional mannor that you have missed MH?
If you cannot answer this 1 simple question, then how can you parade around this thread like you are some sort of guru resonance preacher.
Your questions as they are understood by everyone (but you), have been answered correctly many times now, and in our own words.
I think you have ! How! And ! What! All mixed up. But that dose not matter, as we have provided answers for both.
As we are all done with our answers, and you will not be posting your answers for 4 to 7 weeks now, might I suggest you just sit back , and shut up until you provide those answers, as I think most of us here are done with your constsnt bable about how everyone else is wrong, and you are right--a claim that is not yet backed up by the claimant.
So smash back some valium MH, and maybe go help some of those other poor lost soles you were talking about some time back. Then pop back over here in April with your ground breaking revalations.
Brad
-
I don't know what the one major force is that acts upon the car in a non frictional manner, please tell me what it is.
-
and of course the point of the questions being answered, in accordance to commonly accepted physics
goes entirely uncommented on...
im not sure what the point of the whole exercise was...
"I bet you can't explain this!"
"<detailed explanation>"
"you're wrong!"
"<more details>"
"well... you were wrong about something else!"
this could go on perpetually.......
-----------------------------------------------------
I am arguing with a man who admits to not having the necessary knowledge set to understand a particular problem.
Yet insists on everyone being wrong when they try to give him the knowledge.
doesn't build, doesn't experiment, doesn't read....
thinks he knows things, but isn't sure why.
refuses to state an opinion of his own, other than to profess disagreement with that of others.
even when he cites the work of others, to substantiate his nonsense, he refutes portions of those others' work
which is a self deluding fallacy, and negates the very argument of using the others' work as a reference.
we seem to be going in circles, as the thread has been effectively hijacked, by the Knights who say Nay!
"Get back here you bloody bastards, I'll bite your kneecaps off!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just had a holy revelation:
perhaps the Wine Glass resonates, because MileHigh willed it be so......
it is an odd curiosity that a man who has never owned a joule thief, posts more times in JT threads than most adamant experimenters....
-
moving forward...
-
I am arguing with a man who admits to not having the necessary knowledge set to understand a particular problem.
Yet insists on everyone being wrong when they try to give him the knowledge.
doesn't build, doesn't experiment, doesn't read....
thinks he knows things, but isn't sure why.
refuses to state an opinion of his own, other than to profess disagreement with that of others.
even when he cites the work of others, to substantiate his nonsense, he refutes portions of those others' work
which is a self deluding fallacy, and negates the very argument of using the others' work as a reference.
we seem to be going in circles, as the thread has been effectively hijacked, by the Knights who say Nay!
"Get back here you bloody bastards, I'll bite your kneecaps off!"
Only in Brad's strange world can he insist that he is right when he is told that he is wrong by the person that posed the actual question. The whole reason for presenting this exercise the way it was presented was because of Brad's overbearing attitude about his "supreme powers of reasoning" where he is devoid of listening to other people's input. He was pushy and forceful and brash about "better efficiency through resonance" and was so sure of himself, and look where it has ended up. Because he was so brash and so unwilling to listen to other people he was asked two simple questions about resonance that anybody that knows their stuff should be able to answer no problem. He was put on the spot this one time because he deserved it. And he has been unwilling to take other's people's input countless times before about a myriad of subjects so I just decided to stick it through to the end this one time. Brad has willfully ignored advice about electronics from true electronics experts, bloody geniuses with 40 or more years of senior electronics design experience.
Then you came along and couldn't answer the two simple questions either, in fact you said some stuff that is totally whackadoo. Our "resonance guru" has lost his bells.
I am arguing with a man who admits to not having the necessary knowledge set to understand a particular problem.
Yet insists on everyone being wrong when they try to give him the knowledge.
Presuming you are referring to the automotive question that Brad posed to me, then here you are espousing the same kind of retarded logic that is a hallmark of this thread.
That's just the way the cookie has crumbled. If Brad answers my question to him about the car issue I am thinking that there is a 75% chance that his response will be inexplicably nonsensical and my statement about about determining the top speed for the car will still be valid. That's just the way it goes.
MileHigh
-
as shown in the image above, the resonant standing wave of the ferrite torroid is a half-wave.
the wavelength of this wave is ~twice the diameter of the torroid.
(negating for now, the effects of the materials constant)
what this means for a 2 inch torroid, is that the fundamental resonant frequency
or base resonant frequency, is somewhere close to 3 Ghz.
you can plug the wavelength into the equations in my earlier posts and get a close estimate to the actual values.
its the same math for both wineglass and ferrite torroid,
the torroid has an additional magnetic component whch must also be taken into consideration, this applies to amplitudes, not frequency.
most of you do not have fast switching transistors that can hit the 3Ghz mark.
So, as I stated before, we look for resonant nodes at lower frequencies.
How do we find them?
We simply increase the wavelength by odd multiples until we get into the range of our transistors capabilities.
preferably within the range of the linear mode of operation
the first node will occur at just under 0.75Ghz
the second node around 93.685Mhz
11.711Mhz
1.464Mhz
182.98Khz
22.872Khz
the actual resonant node will be slightly different from this, due to the materials constant.
so a slight tuning from this point of reference is necessary to find the actual resonant node.
it is clearly visible on the scope, as an increase in amplitudes, and an associated "cleaner" waveform.
note: if you start with the natural resonant frequency value provided by the ferrite manufacturer
the calculations will be more precise to the actual resonant nodes, and less adjustment will be needed.
[a wise man told me to just ignore MH's rebuttals, as what he has to say at this point probably doesn't matter]
-
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827804-600-sound-can-leap-across-a-vacuum-after-all/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827804-600-sound-can-leap-across-a-vacuum-after-all/)
discovered nearly 7 years ago, we now have well founded equations that describe this.
the speed of sound in a vacuum is slightly faster than that of air, but not by much.
the propagation, void of medium, is a character of the wave function,
which was defined by the atmosphere that created it, prior to entering the void.
has anyone seen my marbles?
sound is not just the air vibrating. that is plain silly.
the air vibrates as a response to the sound frequency.
radiowaves in the audible spectrum can stimulate air molecules into making sound.
especially when there is a receiver nearby that can physically vibrate in response to the radiowave.
when a soundwave hits a boundary where there is no more "air" through which to propagate
it forms into an extremely low power form of the radio wave equivalent frequency.
still in the same tone as the sound, but traveling in a form of radio wave.
there was a good documentary done back in the 80's or 90's called "the sounds of space"
this stuff has always been in the background of most theories, we just couldn't verify it until recently.
-
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827804-600-sound-can-leap-across-a-vacuum-after-all/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827804-600-sound-can-leap-across-a-vacuum-after-all/)
discovered nearly 7 years ago, we now have well founded equations that describe this.
the speed of sound in a vacuum is slightly faster than that of air, but not by much.
the propagation, void of medium, is a character of the wave function,
which was defined by the atmosphere that created it, prior to entering the void.
has anyone seen my marbles?
I think that you lost your marbles.
<<< Now a theoretical analysis by Mika Prunnila and Johanna Meltaus, both of the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland in Espoo, suggests that sound may be able to leap across a vacuum separating two objects made of piezoelectric crystals. These crystals generate an electric field when squeezed or stretched by sound waves or other forces, and deform in an electric field.
When a sound wave reaches the edge of one crystal, the electric field associated with it can stretch across the gap and deform the crystal on the other side, creating sound waves in that second crystal (Physical Review Letters, vol 105, p 125501). “It is as if the sound waves don’t even recognise the vacuum – they just go through,” says Prunnila. >>>
Who is the asshole that came up with the title for the article I wonder? "Sound can leap across a vacuum after all" A 21-year-old journalism grad that has a minor in Basket Weaving and has a certificate in Social Studies in Differently Enabled Philosophical Speculations in the 21st Century?
-
These are comments from the peanut gallery and you can ignore them if you want. I will not get involved at all in your toroid resonance discussion. Just my two cents for the heck of it:
what this means for a 2 inch torroid, is that the fundamental resonant frequency
or base resonant frequency, is somewhere close to 3 Ghz.
I am pretty sure that if the base resonant frequency is 3 GHz, then you can only go up in frequency to get a harmonic resonant response, and that itself will be attenuated. You can't get lower resonant responses, that doesn't make sense.
The only thing that you can do is excite the toroid with a square-wave-type signal and line up an odd harmonic in the signal with the 3 GHz base resonant frequency of the toroid in an attempt to get a "rise" out of the toroid. However, the amount of spectral power at 3 GHz you can get from a standard bench function generator is presumably very very low. Then on top of that, the chances of anybody having a scope that can even see 3 GHz is probably close to zero. In other words, with such high frequencies, the toriod will look like a dead parrot no matter what.
The fundamental (no pun) point being that the toroid can only potentially resonate at harmonics above 3 GHz, nothing below 3 Ghz.
End of the peanut gallery - good luck Mr. Resonance Guru.
-
Cool I watched this while testing the resonance of some more wine glasses. Oscilloscope provide a nice visuals as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnL40CbuodU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnL40CbuodU)
Great Video. Loved it.
Cheers
-
snip..
it resonates with me :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI)
Another great video. Awesome! It sounds like a mosquito on steroids.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476774#msg476774 date=1457503042]
MileHigh
Only in Brad's strange world can he insist that he is right when he is told that he is wrong by the person that posed the actual question.
You mean i am assumed wrong by some one that has posted no counter argument,or any proof what so ever that i am wrong.
What was the !actual! question?
Was it the original question--> !what! determines the resonant frequency of a wine glass?.
Or was it the second question--> !how! is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?.
Then there is the bonus question-->what is resonance?.
All three questions have been answered by not only myself,but from other members as well,and they all say the same thing ;).
Of course we are all wrong,because a man that has no counter answers says we are.
The whole reason for presenting this exercise the way it was presented was because of Brad's overbearing attitude about his "supreme powers of reasoning" where he is devoid of listening to other people's input.
I have read and listened to every one's input MH,and it's the same as mine.
The only one here saying that i(and everyone else here) is wrong,is you--the man that has provided no input but to say we are all wrong--none of us know how the resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined,and none of us know what resonance is,and none of us know what determines the resonant frequency of that wine glass.
The only one with the correct answers(apparently),is the very same single individual that has provided no answers at all-->that be you MH.
He was pushy and forceful and brash about "better efficiency through resonance" and was so sure of himself, and look where it has ended up.
Yes--look where he has ended up.
1-had to show MH that resonant systems do indeed exist in ICEs that improve the efficiency of that ICE,and provided all the info to back it up. This was after you quoted that there is no resonance in an ICE.
2- I also had to inform you that your way of determining the top speed of a car was missing vital information needed to calculate the top speed of that car,and to this date,you cannot work out what that needed information is. You insist that there is only frictional forces at work that will be acting upon the car. The fact that you have no idea as to what the other major factor is that is also needed before your way of determining the top speed of the car will even be close,shows me that you know far less than i thought you did.
Because he was so brash and so unwilling to listen to other people he was asked two simple questions about resonance that anybody that knows their stuff should be able to answer no problem.
The !fact! is MH,i have answered all the questions correctly--along with every one else--and you are yet to prove me wrong--those are the facts MH.
He was put on the spot this one time because he deserved it. And he has been unwilling to take other's people's input countless times before about a myriad of subjects so I just decided to stick it through to the end this one time.
This sounds more like you MH--not me. You have been corrected a number of times on this thread by those that know far more than you do--EG,the resonant systems in an ICE,your bogus car speed calculations--to which you cannot even work out the 1 major thing you have missed that is needed for you to get even close to being correct.
I had to correct you on how the cool joule circuit was able to oscillate,due to the miller capacitance effect--and that is just in this thread alone.
What other myriad of subjects are you talking about MH?.
Are you still sore about me kicking your ass all over the place regarding the moon landing's?
Or maybe it was when i had to correct you on your assumption that a single coil with a lower resistance provided more pull force acting upon a PM than that of two coils that resulted in twice the resistance,and so 1/2 of the current draw. I know you were not happy about me showing by way of accurate experimental data that you were wrong on that one as well.
Brad has willfully ignored advice about electronics from true electronics experts, bloody geniuses with 40 or more years of senior electronics design experience.
To whom are you referring to MH? ,and to what advice are you referring to?
Then you came along and couldn't answer the two simple questions either, in fact you said some stuff that is totally whackadoo. Our "resonance guru" has lost his bells.
The two simple questions have been answered correctly,not only by myself,but also by others here as well.
The only one here that is yet to provide answers ,is you MH.
So looking at the statistics MH,we are all 3up,and you are 0.
Presuming you are referring to the automotive question that Brad posed to me, then here you are espousing the same kind of retarded logic that is a hallmark of this thread.
Ok-so we have to use our brains to answer your question's(that we have answered correctly a number of times now),but you expect me to provide you with the answer to my question,regarding your flawed top speed of a car calculation method. ::)
That's just the way the cookie has crumbled. If Brad answers my question to him about the car issue I am thinking that there is a 75% chance that his response will be inexplicably nonsensical and my statement about about determining the top speed for the car will still be valid. That's just the way it goes.
Sure,i'll give you the answer MH-->in about 4 to 8 weeks-->right after we hear your new revelations on resonance.
The fact that you have no idea as to what other major environmental forces act upon the car that are not frictional forces,is scary to say the least.
Brad
-
Wow, maar 2 dagen weg en zo een: ……………………. Resonance, klasse!
Blanko = Incognito: 122 stemmen, kippies!?
Contributing: + or - = 21 stemmen, Connected
Why so many only blanc / nick without force only reactive, any fundament.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476779#msg476779 date=1457506116]
These are comments from the peanut gallery and you can ignore them if you want. I will not get involved at all in your toroid resonance discussion. Just my two cents for the heck of it:
The peanut gallery you say :o
Lets have a look at who the peanut is here.
I am pretty sure that if the base resonant frequency is 3 GHz, then you can only go up in frequency to get a harmonic resonant response, and that itself will be attenuated. You can't get lower resonant responses, that doesn't make sense.
What did smOKy say?
Quote: most of you do not have fast switching transistors that can hit the 3Ghz mark.So, as I stated before, we look for resonant nodes at lower frequencies.
How do we find them?.
Resonance guru MH--do you not understand this,as it seems very straight forward to me.
If our child on the swing has a resonant frequency,can that frequency be maintained if we only give him a push every 3rd swing,or 4th swing,or 5th swing?,while adding the needed energy to maintain the amplitude of each swing.
The fundamental (no pun) point being that the toroid can only potentially resonate at harmonics above 3 GHz, nothing below 3 Ghz.
The fundamental point is MH--you missed the boat on this one.
End of the peanut gallery - good luck Mr. Resonance Guru.
I thought you were the guru on resonance MH?.
But it seems this one has skipped straight over you head !again!.
Brad
-
The correct timing in an ICE engine is not "resonance" and it has absolutely zero to do with the resonance we are discussing.
Oeps: Sure?
Than why is this 2-stroke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI)
Running with only a pre-ignition from only 1.2mm this rev/min, while a 4-stroke in the same tuning ignite over 30-48 degrees before TDC?
-
Why we did go (partly) from Cast to Forged pistons?
Is the Fuel explosion a lineair expansion for the piston?
-
Johan
MH Knows the answer to this question , but he's booked up until JULY now .
you'll have to get in line ...no cutting.[Webby already tried sneaking one in ]
ResheeshMHButswammi has been enlightened.. he is a Much Higher Power now and has no Mortal appendages
so he can't hear you anyway !
Note
he actually may not even be on the planet ATM ,something about a StarTrek sequel and resonating "Q" into another dimension..??
???
however in my ignorance [having not yet attained the enlightenment [can't find the matches ??]]
I am amazed that 3hp per cubic inch [21--24hp on a 50CC] on a normally aspirated motor with a cork in the tailpipe
is possible.
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI
-
Brad:
Shocking eh? You have been told that you are wrong and all that you can do is whine and complain and stomp your feet and insist that you are right. You tried a few times and you were wrong and then you Google searched and did a few mini copy-paste-a-gasms. Why don't you try to answer the questions in your own words, four sentences or less for each question. Demonstrate that you know what you are talking about. Go ahead, you have nothing to lose.
For the ICE issue, initially you made a typical "Brad statement," something like "An ICE is in resonance." Only later when you were pushed to put you brain and mouth in gear did you try to offer up any specifics. I have stated to you repeatedly that we are talking about the standard engineering and scientific definition for resonance, not motor shop talk or motor marketing talk for "resonance." Nonetheless, I am open to understanding exactly what you mean by "resonance" in this case and have asked you and Johan for motor schematic diagrams of any supposed resonant system along with an explanation and a timing diagram and so far I have seen nothing. Pointing to a clip of a guy revving a two-stroke engine is meaningless.
The car speed analogy was done for one purpose only: To prove to you that you can indeed answer a question on a conceptual level without having to give specific measurement numbers or solve for a specific configuration. Just the fact that I had to do that because you would not accept that line of reasoning to answer a conceptual question with a conceptual answer is absolutely mind boggling. It's the equivalent of taking your hands and showing you how to tie your own shoes. It's so ridiculous but I did it anyway so you would stop whining and complaining about the question about determining the resonance frequency of the wine glass.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Resonance guru MH--do you not understand this,as it seems very straight forward to me.
If our child on the swing has a resonant frequency,can that frequency be maintained if we only give him a push every 3rd swing,or 4th swing,or 5th swing?,while adding the needed energy to maintain the amplitude of each swing.
But we are not pushing on a swing anymore now are we? We are talking about the frequency content in an excitation signal trying to excite a core at its resonant frequency or a possibly at a harmonic of its resonant frequency. Things don't resonate at a frequency that is lower than the fundamental frequency. The core is acting as a filter with its own frequency response and it will not respond to any excitation that is below the fundamental frequency.
I am pretty sure that Smoky2's logic is wrong on this one, but I don't want to get into it beyond that and I am truly not interested. I am not holding my breath expecting anything to come from the resonance guru working with you and Magluvin. I won't be surprised if he flies by night if all you guys come up with is resonant goose eggs.
MileHigh
-
I think that you lost your marbles.
<<< Now a theoretical analysis by Mika Prunnila and Johanna Meltaus, both of the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland in Espoo, suggests that sound may be able to leap across a vacuum separating two objects made of piezoelectric crystals. These crystals generate an electric field when squeezed or stretched by sound waves or other forces, and deform in an electric field.
When a sound wave reaches the edge of one crystal, the electric field associated with it can stretch across the gap and deform the crystal on the other side, creating sound waves in that second crystal (Physical Review Letters, vol 105, p 125501). “It is as if the sound waves don’t even recognise the vacuum – they just go through,” says Prunnila. >>>
Who is the asshole that came up with the title for the article I wonder? "Sound can leap across a vacuum after all" A 21-year-old journalism grad that has a minor in Basket Weaving and has a certificate in Social Studies in Differently Enabled Philosophical Speculations in the 21st Century?
Oh bugga.
I am going to have to agree with you MH on this one.
Sound needs a medium to travel in,as it is a mechanical wave,and as a vacuum is void of any medium,then the sound wave cannot propagate.
Sound can be transmitted across a vacuum,but that is via way of electromagnetic field's,and not sound waves them self.
I also see no reason a wine glass will not resonate in a vacuum,we just wont hear it do so.
Brad.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476814#msg476814 date=1457533651]
MileHigh
Shocking eh? You have been told that you are wrong
By who?-->you? lol.
and all that you can do is whine and complain and stomp your feet and insist that you are right.
I cant stomp to much MH,as you know,i am nursing a broken foot.
Im not complaining much,other than your idiotic 4 to 8 weeks for an answer bullshit.
You tried a few times and you were wrong
Havnt been proven wrong yet--where did you come up with that?.
and then you Google searched and did a few mini copy-paste-a-gasms.
There googlegasms MH-get it right.
But yes i did--to back up my answers i gave you in my own words. They are here on this thread to repost when you dump your load in 4 to 7 weeks.
Why don't you try to answer the questions in your own words, four sentences or less for each question. Demonstrate that you know what you are talking about. Go ahead, you have nothing to lose.
Already done--see reply above.
For the ICE issue, initially you made a typical "Brad statement," something like "An ICE is in resonance."
Nooo-go back and reread-then come back and correct your self!once again!
Only later when you were pushed to put you brain and mouth in gear did you try to offer up any specifics.
You mean i had to waste more of my time educating you. ::)
I have stated to you repeatedly that we are talking about the standard engineering and scientific definition for resonance, not motor shop talk or motor marketing talk for "resonance."
All data supplied fits well within the standard scientific definition of resonance.
Nonetheless, I am open to understanding exactly what you mean by "resonance" in this case and have asked you and Johan for motor schematic diagrams of any supposed resonant system along with an explanation and a timing diagram and so far I have seen nothing. Pointing to a clip of a guy revving a two-stroke engine is meaningless.
I provided you with all the information required to explain the resonant systems in an ICE,along with a complete explanation of the timing involved--along with the relevant links to back up my claim's. MH just did a post skip reading session-as you often do.
The car speed analogy was done for one purpose only: To prove to you that you can indeed answer a question on a conceptual level without having to give specific measurement numbers or solve for a specific configuration.
What you did end up doing,was show how your conceptual level explanation was flawed right from the word go. It was incomplete,and never had a chance in hell of being able to determine the top speed of a car--that is fact.
Just the fact that I had to do that because you would not accept that line of reasoning to answer a conceptual question with a conceptual answer is absolutely mind boggling.
Here is exactly what your example showed.
It showed us the very reason we should stick to what we believe in,and not what others think we should believe in. The very moment i read that post of yours,regarding the top speed of the car,i picked it apart in no time flat--and your wheels fell off MH.
What you ended up doing,is showing us all here,that you have no idea what the hell you are doing.
You also showed why it is very important not to take the word of one person over reality.
You failed badly in that one MH,and only re-enforces my disbelief in what you are trying to peddle.
!!!Have you worked out what you missed in that top speed of a car!! analogy yet?.
It's the equivalent of taking your hands and showing you how to tie your own shoes. It's so ridiculous but I did it anyway so you would stop whining and complaining about the question about determining the resonance frequency of the wine glass.
And there is the idiotic post for today.
The man that cant tie his own shoes,is showing us all how it should be done.
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476818#msg476818 date=1457534548]
MileHigh
But we are not pushing on a swing anymore now are we? We are talking about the frequency content in an excitation signal trying to excite a core at its resonant frequency or a possibly at a harmonic of its resonant frequency. Things don't resonate at a frequency that is lower than the fundamental frequency.
If the resonant frequency of the core it self is in the GHz range,then the pulse of energy/force that is the energy input giving rise to that resonance of the core, can be a divisional/lower harmonic of that resonant frequency--the very same as the child on the swing,that will maintain his resonant frequency,even when the supplied energy pulse is a divisional of that frequency.
The core is acting as a filter with its own frequency response and it will not respond to any excitation that is below the fundamental frequency.
And you have proof of this theory of yours MH?
I am pretty sure that Smoky2's logic is wrong on this one, but I don't want to get into it beyond that and I am truly not interested. I am not holding my breath expecting anything to come from the resonance guru working with you and Magluvin. I won't be surprised if he flies by night if all you guys come up with is resonant goose eggs.
I thought you were the guru MH.
You are the one that is going to rewrite resonant history--in 4 to 7 weeks :D
So far,the rest of us are all correct,as you are yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.
You keep saying we are all wrong--where is your evidence of that.
So far you have made only mistake's,and there has been no presentation of truth from you yet.
Brad
-
So you guys think that for the sake of a wine glass and a furty little car speed all this junk being thrown around is fully warranted. This is indeed a sad day to be an OUer when you have to vent so high to protect what - some dreamstate resonance crap and a car whizzer. hahahahaha
Bad boys.
@MH
Nice try but your answer to my question failed miserably showing that you cannot comprehend what is at stake here, which is understandable since your internal drive for OU devices is set to "totally impartial". So we will just wait before we can talk about resonance. Anyone talk before my question is answered is just blowing in the wind.
@tinman
Just get back on your bench already where it counts. Why the hell are you talking to @MH about anything OU anyways. You cannot get water from a rock. Get it though your heads already. These EEers are stuck even worst then you guys. Great for textbook Standard EE questions but never never discuss or ask their opinion on anything OU.
@all
I don't know. I think you guys are totally lost in space. No map, no plan, no possible light at the end of the tunnel, just lost in a black hole called Standard EE where all your questions will never be answered, no possibility for true growth and destined to repeat the same old same old. So good luck with that. I asked one little itty bitty question promising to then tell you guys what resonance is and not a twich, not a sign, OK, so advance on your own. hehehe
wattsup
-
Brad:
Karma is a bitch and you are mostly mindless and useless trash talk. Mr. "resonance researcher" can't explain how a bloody wine glass resonates in his own words.
Question: How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
Answer: You hit it at its resonant frequency and it starts to resonate.
You are a bloody genius Brad!
Watsup:
I will listen to what you have to say about the wire and will then respond in turn.
MileHigh
-
Oh bugga.
I am going to have to agree with you MH on this one.
Sound needs a medium to travel in,as it is a mechanical wave,and as a vacuum is void of any medium,then the sound wave cannot propagate.
Sound can be transmitted across a vacuum,but that is via way of electromagnetic field's,and not sound waves them self.
I also see no reason a wine glass will not resonate in a vacuum,we just wont hear it do so.
Brad.
In space....
No one can hear you scream.
Now we know why.
Bill
-
So sound passing thru a vacuum and coming out the other side as a sound again..
What's that ??
Can,t find Smokey 's original post with all the movement here.
Although I am looking forward to MH's thesis on developing a huge standing wave in a 2 stroke 24hp 3 cubic inch engine
With no resonance !
He says impossible (resonance plays no part in an ICE ) it is not in his frame of reference...
So it must be a lie ?
A man of impeccable character and moral fiber....
-
In space....
No one can hear you scream.
Now we know why.
Bill
"sound" doesn't pass through space, rather the wave that was created by the sound propagates.
just as radio frequency waves propagate through space in the audible spectrum can be picked up by a microphone.
"sound" doesn't pass through the air.
rather, the disturbance that caused the audible frequency range vibrations, interacted with the air to cause the sound. Whether it be a radio wave, or the vocal chords of a chickadee.
sound is just the experience of vibration, change in pressure caused by the wavefront, as it propagates.
what is required to change between the two, "physical sound" and its' radio frequency equivalent:
is a solid but movable interface.
we do this with speakers and microphones all the time. it's nothing new or strange.
we already knew that soundwaves pass through space, we just had not proven it in a laboratory setting until 2009.
the physical interface incurs a moment of inertia, as the wave energy is transferred into momentum, applying pressure against the atmosphere. This process slows the wave down.
Once "sound" is traveling through the air, and is once again removed from the medium, it does NOT instantly start traveling at the speed of light again. It travels at a speed slightly above that at which it was already propagating.
pesky little "massless" particles.... when you slow them down, you need energy to speed them up again....
-
Chet:
Although I am looking forward to MH's thesis on developing a huge standing wave in a 2 stroke 24hp 3 cubic inch engine
With no resonance !
Where is that standing wave? Can you provide a detailed description of the process, a mechanical schematic, and an annotated timing diagram? Can you explain how it meets the scientific and engineering description for resonance?
He says impossible (resonance plays no part in an ICE ) it is not in his frame of reference...
So it must be a lie ?
I will ask you exactly essentially the same set of questions as above for the ICE.
I am looking forwards to your replies.
A man of impeccable character and moral fiber....
So you are attacking my character with sarcasm because I am debating resonance and how it works in a wine glass??
That makes your character the one that is highly questionable. And there isn't a shred of balance in your "colour commentary," why is that? Where is your moral fiber?
MileHigh
-
Oeps: Sure?
Than why is this 2-stroke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI)
Running with only a pre-ignition from only 1.2mm this rev/min, while a 4-stroke in the same tuning ignite over 30-48 degrees before TDC?
All that I see is a video clip of a guy revving a two-stroke engine. That means nothing. Can you provide a detailed description of the process, a mechanical schematic, and an annotated timing diagram? How is the engine "resonating" and what is your definition of "resonance" for the engine?
If you are going to claim that the engine has "resonance" for better performance then please explain exactly how the process works.
MileHigh
-
MH when you call people liars out of your own personal ignorance
You must surely have proof??
Put the horse back in front of the cart and back up your claim or retract it !
Or admit your ignorance in the field ?
Your double standard does not quite reach that far!
-
MH when you call people liars out of your own personal ignorance
You must surely have proof??
Put the horse back in front of the cart and back up your claim or retract it !
Or admit your ignorance in the field ?
Your double standard does not quite reach that far!
Show me what you are talking about and I will respond.
-
exactly the point , you have no idea what your talking about and you call people fools and Liars and then ask for the knowledge.
Bow your head ....
in my limited experience with cavity resonance in a combustion chamber I would never call a man a Liar making that Claim on internal combustion in a cylinder.
but as you say you never really learn when your spoon fed ,however you usually learn pretty quickly on terra firma [not cyberspace] not to call people Liars just because you are ignorant.
Why are you keeping this Up ??
-
So this all about me "daring" to ask for solid explanations and data about an ICE or two-stroke engine in "resonance?"
I asked you yourself to back up those claims and you were just being a parrot, right? You have nothing to say about that.
I am just asking for convincing proof and evidence that a gasoline engine runs more efficiently with "resonance" and I am asking for a definition of that "resonance."
I am not going to take any crap from you about that, period. How is that straitjacket feeling? Don't you love being trapped...
I am still waiting for you to show me where I called someone a liar for the engine discussion.
-
Fine take your Marbles and go home ,we'll see you in April.
who said anything about limits to your Resonance in a ICE or combustion chamber is a BS claim ?
moving the goal posts is another thing you always point to
Bow your head...
next time look before you leap ,I hope you don't act this way on the streets ?
please limit this type of silliness it to La La land ...
-
Just my two cents for the heck of it:
I am pretty sure that if the base resonant frequency is 3 GHz, then you can only go up in frequency to get a harmonic resonant response, and that itself will be attenuated. You can't get lower resonant responses, that doesn't make sense.
The only thing that you can do is excite the toroid with a square-wave-type signal and line up an odd harmonic in the signal with the 3 GHz base resonant frequency of the toroid in an attempt to get a "rise" out of the toroid. However, the amount of spectral power at 3 GHz you can get from a standard bench function generator is presumably very very low. Then on top of that, the chances of anybody having a scope that can even see 3 GHz is probably close to zero. In other words, with such high frequencies, the toriod will look like a dead parrot no matter what.
The fundamental (no pun) point being that the toroid can only potentially resonate at harmonics above 3 GHz, nothing below 3 Ghz.
good luck
Thank you for adding your perspective.
This is basically what I am saying, but from a different point of view.
Yes, you are correct in that the torroid itself cannot resonate with the JT.
but the JT can resonate with the higher (attenuated) 3Ghz freq.
I worked the equation backwards to find those frequency nodes that would do so.
suppose we chose (from my example) the 22.872Khz node,
and chose a transistor that switched in linear mode at this freq.
the 3Ghz resonance would be the 6th (odd/half-wave) harmonic of the JT's operating frequency.
The result in magnetic amplitude during the "charging" of the ferrite, is an increase.
Not only the tiny amount gained by constructive interference of the harmonic signals.
But also, due to the changes in reluctance through the ferrite at the 3Ghz frequency.
[prepare yourself for techno-babble, if you don't like math, you can skip to the next msg.]
reluctance (R) is defined as Ampere-turns per Weber, or as Turns per Henry.
the particular definition you know and use may depend on which country you live in or
which profession you were educated to perform in.
Either way, the value is the same.
R = Magneto-motive force in Ampere-turns / Magnetic Flux in Webers
these are fancy words, what does this mean?
Flux = NI ; N is # of turns, I is current
or = field strength * circumference of the torroid
this is generally applied in a similar manner to Ohm's Law.
and in fact, in the copper coil, and in an abstract observation, throughout the whole of the electronic portion of the circuit, it is equivalent to Ohm's Law, at any point of observation.
the magnetic induction, however, has an inverse proportion to the electromagnetic flux.
flux, in the magnetic spectrum relates to the Weber.
Defined as Volt-Seconds, or Maxwell's.
luckily for us, Maxwell did the work of combining the magnetic flux with the electric.
I could not do that..... Maxwell should get a statue next to Lincoln....
electric flux = charge / permittivity
faradayian induction combined with Gaussian induction presents, what J.C. called a "deamon".
( I intended every bit of that pun! lol )
without boring everyone to death,
we get a 0 in the numerator in the equation for reluctance,
as it pertains to the materials property of the ferrite torroid.
What happens when you put this deamon in a box? well, if we were to hit the exact frequency,
according to Maxwell, magnetic flux increases infinitely for a finite period of time,
the collapsing field burns up and destroys our circuitry.
This is discussed in great detail by Steven Mark, and BruceTPU in much greater detail that I could relate to you in words.
Luckily for us, the rest of the JT circuit (battery, transistor,wires, LED, Cap, Etc)
represents a secondary impedance, which when we adjust for this, we are not exactly resonating with the 3Ghz, but slightly lower than. The resonant wave-form will appear, with increases in amplitude, out of phase with the actual resonance of the ferrite, causing (some small bit of)
destructive interference. Allowing us to continue operation of the circuit, at nominal values,
without excessive buildup of energies in parts of the system.
What this means for us, and our meters and scopes
is a decrease in current from the battery half-cycle, and an increase in current from the field collapse
during the other half-cycle. this reflects between the base and ground, and back into the coil the following half cycle. One could say this is the reason for less current draw through the transistor.
or by the other perspective, one could say the increase in voltage associated with the drop in current
resulted in a decrease in electric flux. Either perspectives are (partially) correct.
except in that, if we couple to this with a secondary transformer coil, the primary circuit is not affected by the draw on the ferrite's field.
The field strength, in resonance, dominates over the coil, by a great deal.
current in the primary JT coil does not increase back to its' non-resonant levels.
the secondary can then be used to power another JT-type torroid, or a load.
such as a motor, or heating element for direct power transfer measurements
-
Chet:
So you have nothing to say, you can't show me where I called someone a liar about the engine "resonance" stuff.
You lost your marbles or you never had any marbles. You are just a groupie for the band.
MileHigh
P.S.: You found my quote and I responded to that. When you say to someone, "It's a bunch of BS" that's different than calling someone a liar. Typically, the person is referencing a 3rd party claim, they are not necessarily literally making the claim themselves. Ultimately, it doesn't matter - all that I am asking for is solid material to back up the claim. People have a right to say "BS" without you playing the role of the Thought Police.
-
Resonance in a combustion chamber is a BS claim ?
Yes it's BS until someone can show a mechanical schematic and a timing diagram and explain the process and explain exactly where the resonance is and how it improves performance. That's a reasonable request.
If it doesn't meet the scientific and engineering definition of resonance then it doesn't count because that's what we are talking about here, real resonance and not marketing "resonance" hype or just a shop talk buzz word.
-
So this all about me "daring" to ask for solid explanations and data about an ICE or two-stroke engine in "resonance?"
that whole mess seems like a feat of engineering to me, and if you somehow managed to get all the parts to line up just right, im not sure you could even call it an engine anymore..
the engine itself, is always at half-wave resonance with its' driveshaft.
assuming you have no transmission, and used some kind of belt-drive, instead of gear-teeth.
at a 1:1 turning ratio, for simplicity of discussion.
the alternator, also would have to have a belt-drive that is both synchronous with the engines rotation
as well as with its' internal electric coils, which I don't even think they consider this when making alternators....
same with the cooling fan, and anything else rotating with the engine.
not to mention, EVERYTHING would have to be aligned with a timing light...
like your cam
you would basically be build a spacecraft, and im pretty sure it would rip itself apart as soon as you achieved your goal.
That is what you would have to do to obtain "total system resonance" with a two stroke engine.
like we are talking about doing with electronic circuits.
any impedance mismatch on the engines rotation will throw the entire system out of resonance.
Now, that is not to say that some engines, under some RPM values, cannot be "partially" resonant
with the rotation of the engine.
like two matched fly-wheels, transferring momentum from one part of the system to the other requires little excess energy.
can this type of thinking result in a decrease in fuel consumption, at those RPM's?
I don't see why not,. but given the examples shown thus far, I would not claim that resonance was what they were observing.
-
Now, if someone cam to me and wanted to explain how the 3200RPM
somehow related to tolerances in the system, and the 106.666Hz
9 million meter wavelength, or a harmonic there-of....
I might be willing to hear them out.
-
MH
Your punch drunk and spewing babble.
Calling a person a BS'er is not what ??
You have become an abomination of your own goalpost moving self !!
Triple putz tehnical foul ,
If we were playing by the old kings rules
You would be given a
Time out !!
I leave you to your new standards ,should be self evident (by your own hand) to your readers
-
Any engine is essentially a mechanism that operates synchronously for the majority of the moving parts. It's very important to not confuse "synchronous operation" with "resonance."
For example, finding a better dwell angle and having dynamically changing valve timing (or whatever) is not "resonance" by any means - it's just an improved timing sequence for the synchronous operation.
If you have a "tuned" exhaust chamber for the expended gasses from the cylinders that gives you less back pressure and therefore more efficiency, that's still not "resonance" in the scientific and engineering sense. One more time, it's just an improved version of a synchronous machine.
This is not my area of expertise, but if someone says that the "tuned" air intake ports and "tuned" exhaust chambers give you less air flow resistance and therefore more horsepower, that's great, but it is not resonance in the way we are meaning it on this thread and even in the regular world of engines it's not true resonance. It's just a buzz term that the Marketing department knows sells more motorcycles or cars.
Now, on the other hand, if someone wants to explain exactly how an ICE or a two-stroke engine exhibits the property of "resonance" with a complete description, a mechanical schematic, and an annotated timing diagram I am all ears. Even if they did show the process and explain the advantages, I am not sure it will indeed be true resonance. Like I said, I am out of my element. On the other hand the term "resonance" is used and abused all the time on the forums and in real life. I refuse to take anything for granted.
The "mutual back-stroking club" when it comes to resonance and coils extracting energy from the aether, and "my circuit is an open system" and "getting electrons from the ground" is alive and well on the forums. Sometimes you can say just about anything and you get drones nodding in approval.
MileHigh
-
MH
Your punch drunk and spewing babble.
Calling a person a BS'er is not what ??
You have become an abomination of your own goalpost moving self !!
Triple putz tehnical foul ,
If we were playing by the old kings rules
You would be given a
Time out !!
I leave you to your new standards ,should be self evident (by your own hand) to your readers
Why don't you go be a groupie on a new thread for a while?
-
Webby
actually its a much deeper issue with MH.. he is trying desperately to call Brad and Smokey posers
frauds BS "ers or whatever else he can ,as well as rule resonance a Trigger word for fraudsters and scam artists .
he claims resonance is of no unusual value beyond known practices and present applications..
Ho Hum stuff...Calls fellows BS'ers who say otherwise ..sans his nonsense ICE assumption ,and calls fellows Liars
to Boot ...
Oh I forgot he moved the goal post on all his NASTY comments and says he meant it in a friendly way [I guess??]??
yeah MH calls guys BS'ers as a compliment Now ,nothing at all to intimate a Lier or such ::)...
how far will you move your Moral compass MH ??
he has woven a big web for his Nasty self
MH
you have set the standards by which you judge others here ,and now you are a hypocrite who wont own up to
his own Hypocrisy !
you try very hard to discredit TinMan in particular.. it seems at all costs ??
why are you doing this nonsense ...certainly not to teach him about resonance and how to manifest it
he has already shown a better understanding than yourself [ICE claim as one example]
he obviously understands acoustical resonance [his how to tutorial ]
he plays with resonance in circuits to win Pulse motor competitions at will
and even made a very big discovery playing with resonance and magnetic... fields...
ohhhhhhhh is that what this is all about ....??
OKay then !!
The motive surfaces...
-
The gases that the engine use are part of the system.
So here is a simple little starting point
http://www.brighthubengineering.com/machine-design/84316-how-intake-resonators-improve-volumetric-efficiency (http://www.brighthubengineering.com/machine-design/84316-how-intake-resonators-improve-volumetric-efficiency)
I do not believe that MH is interested or willing to learn anything on the operation of an ICE and its components,, so any technical requests would be superfluous.
I think the analogy was a mistake and should just be dropped,, as well as the wine glass.
Finally, Webby you linked to a real article about using intake Helmholtz resonators to improve inlet volumetric efficiency. That's great and it makes perfect sense and I get it.
Don't you allege that I am not "interested or willing to learn anything on the operation of an ICE and its components." That is a just a totally stupid thing to say when I have made repeated requests for more information. This is where we separate the men from the boys: I challenge you to apologize for saying that nonsensical thing when the only reason you said it was to be negative.
The wine glass is a perfect topic for discussion because it exposes who is real and who isn't. It makes you question what you are doing and if you need to do some more learning and research before you go on the bench.
I am not going to be made out to be some kind of a "bad guy" for getting you guys to really think about what resonance really is and how it may or may not apply to a Joule Thief. The root cause for the ridiculous hostility is because some of you come face to face with your own limitations and the need to learn something new if you are going to be more effective if you want to explore resonance in a Joule Thief. You don't like it one bit because you feel exposed. Demonstrate your competence with respect to resonance first, that would be a good start.
MileHigh
-
Chet:
What it all comes down to is you are in your "protective mother/groupie" roll right now and that gives you a feeling of purpose. Heaven forbid that you act unbiased.
Brad's definition of resonance in a wine glass is "you hit it at the resonant frequency and it starts to resonate." You might not have a problem with that in your bound condition but the real world and for any sane person with a reasonable technical background it's completely ridiculous. They would find that "definition" laughable and better for Romper Room than a forum where people are supposed to be researching energy with oscilloscopes and mutimeters.
In all likelihood Brad will not lift a finger to try to educate himself. Smoky2 also gave a jaw-dropping "explanation" for a resonating wine glass and if you are astute you saw how Brad has flat-out disagreed with him. Magluvin is a mystery.
My advice to anyone that is curious about answering the two questions about the wine glass is to do some research and take a crack at answering them. If nobody gets it the answers will be revealed later. It's supposed to be a pop quiz and not an insane asylum.
Do you see Chet - this is a fun pop quiz that has people stymied. Now people can take it at face value as a pop quiz and wait patiently for the answers if they don't get them, or they can stomp around like a bunch of near-crazy people pulling out their hair and spewing out tons of negativity. All over two measly questions about a resonating wine glass?
MileHigh
-
OH
so IXNaey on the ICEEYEAYResonanceeyeay
just about The Wine glass stuff Now
Sticken to the Glass.
Got it
Wink Wink...
shoulda said something about forty pages ago but OKEE DOEKEY
need any help with that goal post ??Looks heavy...
your startin to scratch up Stefan's Carpets ...
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476861#msg476861 date=1457556991]
MileHigh
Finally, Webby you linked to a real article about using intake Helmholtz resonators to improve inlet volumetric efficiency. That's great and it makes perfect sense and I get it.
As i expected -you missed the very same,that was posted some time back now--along with a lot more,including video's showing the timing,and scientific explanations of said resonant features in an ICE.
Don't you allege that I am not "interested or willing to learn anything on the operation of an ICE and its components." That is a just a totally stupid thing to say when I have made repeated requests for more information. This is where we separate the men from the boys: I challenge you to apologize for saying that nonsensical thing when the only reason you said it was to be negative.
If you were interested in learning MH,you would not play your !skip post! reading game,and then say--no one has posted any of the information i requested,and there for have not presented any proof of resonance in an ICE.
The wine glass is a perfect topic for discussion because it exposes who is real and who isn't. It makes you question what you are doing and if you need to do some more learning and research before you go on the bench.
The lesson being learned here MH,is how you miss posts,and then blame others for not presenting information to back up claims.
How inadequate you are at accounting for all factors and forces that will determine the top speed of a car.
How you love to preach,but are unable to come to terms of simple operations-like resonant featires in an ICE.
How you do not seem to know what the scientific determination of resonance is,and how it relates to different systems.
How !so far! you have been wrong with nearly everything on this thread,and yet still believe it is all us that have no idea as to what we are talking about.'
And the list go's on.
I am not going to be made out to be some kind of a "bad guy" for getting you guys to really think about what resonance really is and how it may or may not apply to a Joule Thief. The root cause for the ridiculous hostility is because some of you come face to face with your own limitations and the need to learn something new if you are going to be more effective if you want to explore resonance in a Joule Thief. You don't like it one bit because you feel exposed. Demonstrate your competence with respect to resonance first
, that would be a good start.
This has to be some sort of joke.
You cant understand the simple mechanisms behind the resonant features in an ICE,to the point of saying that there is !no! resonance in an ICE.
You not only missed a vital piece of information in your !cars top speed! determination attempt,but have no idea as to what it was that you missed.
You dont even know what the correct scientific determination of resonance is,and then you have the audacity to say that !we! all need to demonstrate competence with respect to resonance.
LOL--are you serious :o
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476866#msg476866 date=1457558131]
MileHigh
Brad's definition of resonance in a wine glass is "you hit it at the resonant frequency and it starts to resonate." You might not have a problem with that in your bound condition but the real world and for any sane person with a reasonable technical background it's completely ridiculous. They would find that "definition" laughable and better for Romper Room than a forum where people are supposed to be researching energy with oscilloscopes and mutimeters.
Your full of shit MH. That is not my definition of resonance in a wine glass at all.
Go and find the post where i defined resonance in a wine glass the way you said i have.
In all likelihood Brad will not lift a finger to try to educate himself. Smoky2 also gave a jaw-dropping "explanation" for a resonating wine glass and if you are astute you saw how Brad has flat-out disagreed with him. Magluvin is a mystery.
More BS from you MH.
Please also show where i disagreed with smoky's definition of a resonating wine glass--and dont get it mixed up with the !sound waves! traveling through a vacuum conversation<-- as you do your mix and match thing all the time,to suit your need's.
My advice to anyone that is curious about answering the two questions about the wine glass is to do some research and take a crack at answering them. If nobody gets it the answers will be revealed later. It's supposed to be a pop quiz and not an insane asylum.
!How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined!
This is your anal question MH,and it has been answered--many times.
I cant wait to see your answer,and i am going to refrain from blocking you for just this reason.
Im waiting for something wonderful--Like maybe-->
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by the frictional quantity of the system as a whole :D
What determines the resonant frequency of a wine glass?
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by the frictional quantity of the system as a whole :D
MHs theory of everything?--i really hope not ::)
Not only has this been covered (which YOU probably missed,due to your skip post reading flaw-as the case with the ICE),but like your top speed of a car analogy,you once again missed something very important ::)
But anyway,we shall see how you stack up with your answers to come.
Do you see Chet - this is a fun pop quiz that has people stymied. Now people can take it at face value as a pop quiz and wait patiently for the answers if they don't get them, or they can stomp around like a bunch of near-crazy people pulling out their hair and spewing out tons of negativity. All over two measly questions about a resonating wine glass?
Your own questions,that have yet no answers-apparently.
There is crazy here for sure MH,but it is dose not dwell in those you specify.
Take a closer look in the mirror.
Brad
-
shoulda said something about forty pages ago but OKEE DOEKEY
Seriously challenged communication skills is the cause. Why don't you work on fixin dat ting?
-
I had thought about it and looked up science of bells. The first on the list was this on Yahoo search
http://www.thebelltower.com.au/downloads/Science_of_Bells.pdf
Cleanin up shop. Was a wreck. Cleaned of bench. Ready to go. ;)
Mags
-
Brad:
Here is the first reference I could find that you made to an ICE.
I dont think you grasp the reasoning behind resonance. The reasoning being much the same to that of having the timing correct in an ICE engine-done for best performance.
Webby linked to a short article about using a air resonator to improve the air intake cycle. The article had a diagram and a description and made sense. What you say above is meaningless because you offer no details whatsoever. Without details I took "timing" to mean the most common reference for timing, the spark plug timing, and there is resonance in that.
So with your absolutely abysmal communication skills of course you are going to get into trouble all the time because you can't convey information properly and consequently people can't understand you properly. It's a serious serious problem that you have and you should do something about it.
Going back to the resonators for improving the air intake cycle, they aren't making use of resonance in a continuous cycle, they are more one-shot devices that are slaved to the timing of the pistons.
You dont even know what the correct scientific determination of resonance is,and then you have the audacity to say that !we! all need to demonstrate competence with respect to resonance.
That is just a bunch of useless trash talk and everybody knows it's useless trash talk. All that you do is hurt yourself when you carry on like that.
So why don't you just link to your preferred answers to the two questions or just answer them here in your own words and I will consider that your "final answer." You have tried to answer three or four times so I don't know which is the one you want to stand by. But if you are going to link then don't link to something with a bunch of Google copy/pastes, that is not a valid answer.
MileHigh
-
Weird. so far I havent found anything on a deep science of bells. Still looking. Is it a secret science? Silence the science? lol
Mags
-
Whether its a wine glass, a bell or a cap and coil, the resonant freq of each shows 'increased activity', without increased input. ;)
Thats what Im interested in. ;)
When I think of Teslas Peirce Arrow, he had an AC motor under the hood, 3 ft wide 2 ft long if I remember correctly. Now if the windings in that 'AC' motor had a resonant freq, then if the input were to operate those windings at their 'AC' resonant freq, then it would seem the motor would have 'increased activity' with that input, compared to running it at other freq other than lower multiples of that resonant freq. Most likely that 'increased activity' would be greater with an input of the windings resonant freq rather than even a multiple of it...
Mags
-
Brad:
Here is the first reference I could find that you made to an ICE.
Webby linked to a short article about using a air resonator to improve the air intake cycle. The article had a diagram and a description and made sense. What you say above is meaningless because you offer no details whatsoever. Without details I took "timing" to mean the most common reference for timing, the spark plug timing, and there is resonance in that.
So with your absolutely abysmal communication skills of course you are going to get into trouble all the time because you can't convey information properly and consequently people can't understand you properly. It's a serious serious problem that you have and you should do something about it.
Going back to the resonators for improving the air intake cycle, they aren't making use of resonance in a continuous cycle, they are more one-shot devices that are slaved to the timing of the pistons.
That is just a bunch of useless trash talk and everybody knows it's useless trash talk. All that you do is hurt yourself when you carry on like that.
So why don't you just link to your preferred answers to the two questions or just answer them here in your own words and I will consider that your "final answer." You have tried to answer three or four times so I don't know which is the one you want to stand by. But if you are going to link then don't link to something with a bunch of Google copy/pastes, that is not a valid answer.
MileHigh
Once again, you just cant associate one example with another-can you MH.
How can you not see that both show an increase in system efficiency.
If you operate a system such as a JT type system in it's natural resonant frequency, you will increase the efficiency of that system.
This is much the same as having the correct timing in an ICE, where the correct timing will also increase the efficiency of that system.
Can you not understand that the switching timing of the transistor needs to be correct in order for that JT type circuit to run at it' natural resonant frequency.
Both systems need to have correct timing in order for both systems to operate at there peak efficiencies.
Man-talk about having to spoon feed.
Brad
-
MH
So I noticed you ignored my comment regarding friction being what determines the resonant frequency of a wine glass.
Is this what your big answer is going to be?
Brad
-
for the first time in 25 pages, I am going to have to agree with MH here.
his perspective on the "resonance" of an ICE is perfectly valid.
Noone thus far, has shown an ICE in "resonance".
and while I DO feel that I answered his questions validly, concerning the Wine Glass,
I, Myself, was not the one he requested to do so,,,
and thus, the answers were in "my own words", not the own words of whom he requested the answer from.
synchronization is NOT resonance, although it "can be", it is not necessarily so.
things can synchronize, with respect to ratios, and a division there-of.
But this is not always resonance.
In fact, in the case of the two-stroke engine, which resonates at 1/2 wavelength of the engine.....
ONLY the odd harmonics are "resonant".
which discludes 50% of all synchronous frequencies by default.
If you do not understand this, go back a page or two and read what I posted about the Joule Thief, and ?Wine glass.
two-stroke engine also falls into this same category.
Which I am sure, is the reason it was suggested instead of the more common 4 or 6 cylinder engine.
-
for those of you who wish to truly understand "resonance":
a 4-cylinder engine represents the 1/4 wavelength, like 1/2 of the JT circuit. (mismatched impedance)
1/4 is the 3rd resonant freq of the 1/2, as is the 1/2 to its' 6th resonant freq of the ferrite.
Thus, it is easier to get a 4-banger to "resonate", than it is a two-stroke engine.
I would explain this further, but it is quite frankly, irrelevant.
For a two-stroke ICE to become "resonant", we have to redesign the entire system to do so.
It is not just some random RPM that the engine achieves.
the problem is much more complicated than that.
-
Brad:
A Joule Thief and an ICE can both be looked upon as synchronous machines and there is no resonant frequency associated with them. If you optimize a standard Joule Thief or an ICE to get maximum efficiency that is not resonance. I acknowledge a small subsystem on an ICE can use resonant techniques to improve performance, but the entire ICE itself is a synchronous machine, and not a resonant machine. You are going to have to find a new type of Joule Thief if you want it to truly have a resonant frequency. Then you will have to demonstrate the resonance itself, and that ties into the reason I brought up the resonating wine glass.
I am not going to make any comment at all about the resonating wine glass. The point is to give people the opportunity to answer the questions themselves if they choose to. Or if they can't answer the questions and they have to do their own research, the hope is that they have a "Eureka!" moment and it all comes clear to them and they answer both questions successfully. Then they can apply that knowledge to their research. Of course anybody is free to answer the questions.
I will immediately acknowledge anybody that answers the questions successfully and then I will give the answers the way I would word them myself.
With respect to Johan and Chet and the "resonating" two-stroke motorcycle engine, I have asked for details several times and have gotten no response at all to my follow-up questions asking for some substance. I would not surprised if I never get a response. If that's the case, then we all know we see that on threads all the time. It's a pain in the ass because it means that people are BSing each other and just stroking each other. They are saying stuff and making claims without anything to back it up and chances are they don't even know what they are talking about. It's a "brain copy/paste." That's the reason I asked the questions about the wine glass. With the wine glass there is no "brain copy/paste" or faking it or spoon feeding - you really have to show your "stuff" and back it up with the real thing. Now if Johan and Chet do come back and provide the requested details, that will be a different thing entirely. But right now all that I am sensing is a "drive by" posting.
MileHigh
-
I know I am repeating myself but it's easy for the questions to get lost in the thread so here they are again:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
Note the responses must be simple, four sentences or less for each response.
-
for those of you who wish to truly understand "resonance":
a 4-cylinder engine represents the 1/4 wavelength, like 1/2 of the JT circuit. (mismatched impedance)
1/4 is the 3rd resonant freq of the 1/2, as is the 1/2 to its' 6th resonant freq of the ferrite.
Thus, it is easier to get a 4-banger to "resonate", than it is a two-stroke engine.
I would explain this further, but it is quite frankly, irrelevant.
For a two-stroke ICE to become "resonant", we have to redesign the entire system to do so.
It is not just some random RPM that the engine achieves.
the problem is much more complicated than that.
Well i hope your excluding me from the statement about the two stroke motor itself being resonant,as i have only been referring to resonant systems that exist within the two stroke engine as a whole to increase both performance and efficiency by way of acoustical resonance.
What is resonance in scientific terms.
Quote:In physics, resonance is a phenomenon that occurs when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.
Apparently this dose not fit in with MHs terms and conditions for resonance--but too bad.
Patented Resonant systems within a two stroke engine(fully explained) that improve both efficiency and power output--as defined by the terms of physics,and also explained by myself some pages back.
http://www.google.com.au/patents/US3254484
ACOUSTICAL RESONANCE APPARATUS FOR IN- CREASING THE POWER OUTPUT F AN INTER- NAL COMBUSTIGN ENGINE John Stephen Kapper, Henry Whitfield House, Guilford, Conn. Filed Jan. 23, 1964, Ser. No. 339,625 7 Claims. (Cl. 60-32) My invention relates to acoustical apparatus for increasing the horsepower output and efficiency of naturally aspirated internal' combustion engines by manipulating acoustical effects normally occurring in the exhaust and intake gas columns of such engines. More specifically, the invention relates to means for manipulating sound pressure waves in relation to the intake and exhaust systems of naturally aspirated internal combustion engines, and to means for manually or automatically adjusting the effective acoustical length of the exhaust and intake systems of an engine while the engine is operating and to the addition of resonator and/ or sound generators to such exhaust and intake systems in order to: (l) utilize sound pressure waves to assist cylinder charging and cylinder scavenging; (2) achieve resonance of the gas columns in the intake and exhaust systems at all engine speeds and thus increase the amplitude of the sound pressure waves and their resultant effect on cylinder charging and cylinder scavenging; and (3) increase the amplitude of the sound pressure waves .in the exhaust and intake systems still further by means of secondary resonators and/or sound generators.
There are a list of such patents that refer to much the same resonant state's,and as can be clearly seen,also comply with the meaning of resonance within the spectrum of physics.
Brad
-
@ Brad
while this has little to do with the resonance of the engine itself,
synchronization within the intake/exhaust flows of the ICE, can affect efficiency.
this is defined by the equation for the engines "back pressure".
at too low a pressure, the engine has no torque.
at too high a pressure, the engine backfires.
catalytic converters and mufflers are designed with this equation in mind.
using the diameter and length of the exhaust pipe, in certain locations
one can determine the pulse frequency of the exhaust, with respect to the resonant frequency of the pipe.
when these two are at a coherent resonant node, the flow of exhaust is least impeded by the force of the engines exhaust.
This adds to the HP equation, during the evacuation stage of the combustion chamber.
results = increase in fuel efficiency
this is not engine resonance, this pertains to the frequency of the engine, with respect to the resonant frequency of the exhaust system.
This goes back to my earlier statement, about certain portions of the system being in resonance, but not the system as a whole.
This is more of a synchronization of the engine rpm, with the resonant cavity of the exhaust.
Do you see the difference?
the exhaust may be resonating, but the engine, with respect to the oscillations, and the dimensions of the chamber containing the driveshaft,
is nowhere near its' resonant freq.
neither is resonant between the engine and alternator, engine and water pump, engine and cooling fan, etc.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476897#msg476897 date=1457596799]
MileHigh
A Joule Thief and an ICE can both be looked upon as synchronous machines and there is no resonant frequency associated with them. If you optimize a standard Joule Thief or an ICE to get maximum efficiency that is not resonance. I acknowledge a small subsystem on an ICE can use resonant techniques to improve performance, but the entire ICE itself is a synchronous machine, and not a resonant machine.
I never once claimed that the ICE it self was in resonance. What i said that there were various resonant systems that exist within an ICE that improve both performance and efficiency.
Is this not what the whole !resonance! ordeal is about?--showing how resonance can increase efficiency. You stated that there was no resonance at all associated with an ICE,and i provided the resonant systems that do indeed reside within a two stroke ICE.
You are going to have to find a new type of Joule Thief if you want it to truly have a resonant frequency. Then you will have to demonstrate the resonance itself, and that ties into the reason I brought up the resonating wine glass.
As i have stated very clearly all along,i am not bound by your one particular JT circuit MH. The JT is an effect provided by a circuit--it is not a single circuit.
I am not going to make any comment at all about the resonating wine glass. The point is to give people the opportunity to answer the questions themselves if they choose to. Or if they can't answer the questions and they have to do their own research, the hope is that they have a "Eureka!" moment and it all comes clear to them and they answer both questions successfully. Then they can apply that knowledge to their research. Of course anybody is free to answer the questions.
And who is to decide that the question has been answered correctly MH?--you?
So far,your track record and knowledge is far to low to be making any such judgement on who is correct ,and who is not.
I will immediately acknowledge anybody that answers the questions successfully and then I will give the answers the way I would word them myself.
And how is it that !your! wording will be the !holy bible!-the be all and end all of the correct answers to your questions.
With respect to Johan and Chet and the "resonating" two-stroke motorcycle engine, I have asked for details several times and have gotten no response at all to my follow-up questions asking for some substance. I would not surprised if I never get a response. If that's the case, then we all know we see that on threads all the time.
MH
I have provided such information some pages back in this thread. I provided a description in my own word's,and a more in/depth description in the links i provided,on one of the existing resonant systems in a two stroke ICE.
It's a pain in the ass because it means that people are BSing each other and just stroking each other. They are saying stuff and making claims without anything to back it up and chances are they don't even know what they are talking about.
Such as those that cannot provide the needed information regarding determining a vehicles top speed. Also the fact that you still do not know what you missed, shows that you are not as smart as you thought you were.
Why is it that i picked up on your needed missing information as soon as i read your post about determining the top speed of a car,but as yet you do not know what it is?. How is it then that you think you have a better understanding about your own questions than those that see mistake after mistake from you?.
No resonance associated with an ICE,where that resonance is as per physics specifications >wrong
Your cool joule circuit dose !not! operate due to the miller effect/ capacitance-->wrong
This is all you need to determine the top speed of a car-->wrong.
After all these mistake's,you still deem your self worthy of determining !what! determines the resonant frequency in a wine glass,and !what! is resonance.
It's a "brain copy/paste." That's the reason I asked the questions about the wine glass. With the wine glass there is no "brain copy/paste" or faking it or spoon feeding - you really have to show your "stuff" and back it up with the real thing. Now if Johan and Chet do come back and provide the requested details, that will be a different thing entirely. But right now all that I am sensing is a "drive by" posting.
It will make no difference what they post MH,as you will just skip on past it(as you did with mine-on a number of occasions now),and say they have posted nothing at all. This is what you do all the time MH,and it started way back before the wine glass saga,and ICE saga.
Brad
-
@ Brad
results = increase in fuel efficiency
neither is resonant between the engine and alternator, engine and water pump, engine and cooling fan, etc.
while this has little to do with the resonance of the engine itself,
synchronization within the intake/exhaust flows of the ICE, can affect efficiency.
this is defined by the equation for the engines "back pressure".
at too low a pressure, the engine has no torque.
at too high a pressure, the engine backfires.
What is !engine! back pressure?
If you are referring to exhaust back pressure,then you have the last two statements wrong.
catalytic converters and mufflers are designed with this equation in mind.
I work with exhaust systems every day of the week--it's my job. http://dapcotyreandauto.com.au/
Two stroke and four stroke exhaust systems are totally different in the way they work.
The two stroke exhaust i have already explained.
The exhaust system for a 4 stroke engine that provides maximum performance,is one that has no restriction of flow at all. Cat converters and mufflers that have the least amount of flow restriction,are those that provide best performance.
using the diameter and length of the exhaust pipe, in certain locations
one can determine the pulse frequency of the exhaust, with respect to the resonant frequency of the pipe.when these two are at a coherent resonant node, the flow of exhaust is least impeded by the force of the engines exhaust.
This adds to the HP equation, during the evacuation stage of the combustion chamber.
This is(and always has been)my point.
These resonant systems within the 2 stroke engine improve both performance and power.
this is not engine resonance, this pertains to the frequency of the engine, with respect to the resonant frequency of the exhaust system.
Once again--i have never said engine resonance. I have clearly stated resonant systems within a two stroke engine that increase performance and efficiency.
You are saying the same thing as i have said smOKy
This goes back to my earlier statement, about certain portions of the system being in resonance, but not the system as a whole.
This is more of a synchronization of the engine rpm, with the resonant cavity of the exhaust.
Do you see the difference?
Of course i see the difference--i have stated the difference many times now.
Why are we having this conversation?
the exhaust may be resonating, but the engine, with respect to the oscillations, and the dimensions of the chamber containing the driveshaft,
is nowhere near its' resonant freq.
I have a feeling smOKy that you have been too busy to read my post.
Brad
-
what happens when you poke holes in your cat?
they are not designed for the least amount of restriction.
they are designed for the PROPER amount of restriction.
as defined by industry standards for emissions and noise pollution.
catalysis is a function of air-flow over time.
What I am trying to emphasize here, is that the ICE example only includes partial resonances.
NOT total system resonance, which is a prerequisite for resonant electronic circuits.
For your circuit to be considered "resonant",
It must fit the wine glass analogy.
-
if the switching function operates the ferrite at a resonant frequency,
but does not resonate with secondary impedance of the (battery+transistor || LED) circuit,
The system is not "resonant".
This is the point I am trying to make
Both frequencies must be coherent, for resonant operation.
-
This free course study offered by MIT,
will help you understand the number 42
http://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-6-008-digital-signal-processing-spring-2011/ (http://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-6-008-digital-signal-processing-spring-2011/)
-
Kadenacy!
-
MileHigh said
resonance plays no Part in ICE designs and any body stating this was Clueless and obviously had no grasp on resonance... .
here is the simplest which any loud mouth clueless Putz should know
cavity resonance engine design
THE BUZZ BOMB
Ignition of the Argus pulsejet was accomplished using an automotive type spark plug located about 76 cm (2.49 ft) behind the intake shutters, with current supplied from a portable starting unit. Three air nozzles in the front of the pulsejet were at the same time connected to an external high-pressure air source that was used to start the engine. Acetylene gas was typically used for starting the engine, and very often a panel of wood or similar material was held across the end of the tailpipe to prevent the fuel from diffusing and escaping before ignition.The V-1 was fuelled by 625 l (165 US gal) of 75 octane gasoline.
Once the engine had been started and the temperature had risen to the minimum operating level, the external air hose and connectors were removed and the engine's resonant design kept it firing without any further need for the electrical ignition system, which was used only to ignite the engine when starting.
--------------------------
then Johan shares a 2 stroke which works on creating huge output based on similar [cavity resonance and a huge standing wave]
it is not an ancillary resonant system it is a complete resonant design.
which generates a Huge standing wave or ....simply doesn't work [work being defined here as 3-4 hp per cubic inch in a normally aspirated recip or Over unity from an engineering perspective]
creating this resonant standing wave between the carb intake and the tailpipe end is the holy grail of the design in its entirety .
3 to 4 HP per cubic inch
stop with your moving the goal posts MH
you outright stated that resonance plays no Part in ICE designs and any body stating this was a BS'r and Clueless and obviously had no grasp on resonance... .
WRONG
don't keep pointing to others... Look at what you said
YOU ARE WRONG ...PERIOD
just like you are completely wrong about your Intimations here that Brad and Smokey are Guru Posers
and clueless about resonance and many other things you try to say
stick to what you know.... you are good at that .
but please stop commenting on things which you are clueless about .
and resonance in mass and how it may effect energy harvesting is NOT YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE !!
YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS
ZILCH
but that does not stop you from calling people that do seek anomalies in resonance or resonant Mass
posers and frauds and Nonsensical and Bs'ers etc etc etc ad nauseum .
you know nothing about it ..just like your ignorant resonance and engine design statement.
but yet you flap your lips with the greatest of ease...
you lost a lot of ground [credibility] in this thread so far.
grab your shovel MH I am quite certain you are not done pointing to others and digging that hole
but one thing I can assure you of
if I was lookin to change this world and seek new energy sources... your two targets here would be way ahead of you on most peoples short list of assets towards that goal.
and yes I know its very easy to throw stones at guys outside the Box
I watch you do it all the time.....
you self righteous PUTZ
Bow your head !!!!!!!
-
author=sm0ky2 link=topic=8341.msg476908#msg476908 date=1457600937]
.
they are not designed for the least amount of restriction.
they are designed for the PROPER amount of restriction.
as defined by industry standards for emissions and noise pollution.
catalysis is a function of air-flow over time.
That is correct. But we are not talking about being restricted to industry standard's--we are talking about performance and efficiency.
what happens when you poke holes in your cat?
Why would you poke holes in you cat,when you can simply fit a high flow cat/
This is the very reason high flow cat's are made--to increase both efficiency and power--we sell them daily.
What I am trying to emphasize here, is that the ICE example only includes partial resonances
I agree with you on this smOKy-there is no argument from me there.
I will run you by what happened regarding the ICE /resonance thing.
I told MH that the correct timing on an ICE is much the same as a JT type circuit operating at system resonance,where the timing on both have to be correct in order to gain maximum efficiency and power.
Some how MH decided that there was no resonance with regards to ICEs,even though my post was in regards to the timing being correct in both situations,in order to gain maximum efficiency.
I then showed MH that resonant !!!systems!!! do indeed exist in the two stroke ICE.
I never once said that the engine it self was in resonance.
For your circuit to be considered "resonant",
It must fit the wine glass analogy.
And what is the wine glass analogy smOKy ?--is it MH approved?.
NOT total system resonance, which is a prerequisite for resonant electronic circuits.
Show me a system(an electrical circuit such as a JT type circuit) where every component of that system operates at it's natural resonant frequency.
Brad
-
Brad
while you may never have said the total engine was in resonance
fact is resonance is an integral part of advancements in ICE engine design and the internal combustion engine in its simplest known form [no moving parts] only works due to resonance .the Buzz bomb
Johans engine is a resonant cavity in motion from intake to tailpipe or it doesn't do what it does 3-4 HP per cubic inch "breaks the rules"
MH was completely wrong on this and called you a Clueless Poser for stating it.
we are all witness to that !
-
Good day all:Just wanted to post some very interesting reading material: If you want to really get into the basic mechanisms involved with coil resonance(s), I have attached an U.S. patent from March of 2010 dealing with *double* resonant systems, or as some say 'resonance within resonance'.This is some of the *BEST* reading material I have come across with a plethora of information in one document. You might want to read it a number of times to actually grasp the scope of application........ I believe that this is what applies to the D.S. replication and probably has applications in relation to the Ruslan device as well.I find very interesting the differentiation between L/C resonance and 1/4 wave resonance........ this patent give an iterative development cycle /method (actual steps involved) of combining the two resonances in one coil for the *preferred* results.enjoy........take care, peacelost_bro
Please, read the related patent!?
-
Hey All!!!!!
I can see clearly now, the rain is gone,
I can see all obstacles in my way
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind
It’s gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day.
I think I can make it now, the pain is gone
All of the bad feelings have disappeared
Here is the rainbow I’ve been prayin' for
It’s gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day.
MileHigh gettin' into the proto-reggae groove!
-
Johan
that patent would not load for me yesterday
from Lost Bro's post here
Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY
« Reply #12628 on: March 09, 2016, 09:00:45 PM »
http://overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/12615/#.VuFXhHnSldg
anybody else have that problem ??
-
Hey All,I am going to respond to Aaron's kicking me off of the forum, but I promise you that I am not championing a cause or anything. Just closing the loop.Aaron: You are so paralyized by fear that it is bad for your mental health. Anytime anybody has tried to correct you, the proper usage of your scope comes to mind right away, you instantly go on the defensive and will go to almost any length to feign that you were not wrong. Even when it is very obvious, you stick to your story. I am telling you, there is something wrong there. You try to stick to what you think is right, and the proper information almost has to be pounded into your head before you will accept it. You are acting like a petty despot dictator that is "infallable." Instead of trying to assimilate the opinions of others that are often more knowledable than you with respect to electronic circuits, you create a shield of defensiveness and hostility around yourself. The easiest way out when you can't respond to questions to defend your point is to call the other person an idiot. You are the author of your own misery.You are afraid to admit that you are wrong, Aaron. You are afraid to demonstrate a willingness to learn from the "other side" and at least give the new information some thought and consideration. You paint yourself into a corner and are afraid to step on the fresh paint. To you the fresh paint looks like burning coals. Why? WHY?The sroryline of the thread has been like a bad C-grade science fiction movie at times over the past few weeks. You run like a crazy person from spike to spike to resonance to oscillation, to diode to no diode like a chicken with its head cut off. Every time you find a new fixation you can sense the tension in the air lest someone disagree with you.Your abject fear makes you make "Twilight Zone" statements like .99, myself, TK, Hoppy, and others are "not qualified" when any person reading the forum would CLEARLY SEE that we do know what we are talking about. This is such a disconnect from reality that I question your overall makeup as a person. You are a powder keg of cognitive dissonance. What the f*ck is going on with you? On top of that, ANY person with a solid electronics or engineering background could read your postings and look at your clips and quickly come to the realization that you are just slightly past the beginner stage when it comes to electronics. They would also notice that you are prone to making grand statements about things that you may know the buzz words for, but in fact barely understand what they really mean. Your pronouncements about various aspects of the circuit are mostly incorrect, and it is beyond me how you make these leaps of faith and continuously push the envelope with respect to your true capabilities.You deleted my last few comments and for all I know you are on a rampage deleting everything else. You need to chill out and take it easy. You also need to decide if you are going to up your electronics skills by reading a book or taking a few courses and start trying to engage with people and try to learn from them, or forever be this tragi-comic character pushing the latest electronic "free energy" circuit like some uneducated goon.I am going to do a copy paste of your big posting with your litany of complaints and that will be it. Let the discussion continue as time progresses. You can't play the big mean boss anymore threatening to pull the plug anymore and there is nothing that you can do to stop the crosspolination between threads so enjoy the ride. You are in for a shock when the results come in, it is starting to look a bit like a Sterling-Mylow road show. Guess whose shoes you fit in?MileHighFrom Wikipedia:Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. For example, a belief in animal rights could be interpreted as inconsistent with eating meat or wearing fur. Noticing the contradiction would lead to dissonance, which could be experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states. When people's ideas are consistent with each other, they are in a state of harmony, or consonance. If cognitions are unrelated, they are categorized as irrelevant to each other and do not lead to dissonance.A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would likely reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.
-
Johan
that patent would not load for me yesterday
from Lost Bro's post here
Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY
« Reply #12628 on: March 09, 2016, 09:00:45 PM »
http://overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/12615/#.VuFXhHnSldg (http://overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/12615/#.VuFXhHnSldg)
anybody else have that problem ??
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat20100059692.pdf
-
http://overunity.com/3068/the-return-of-the-hungarian-free-energy-from-wave-fields/#.VuFT14QvtE4
-
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lmdtem.htm
-
A tuned 2-stroke is 7 pcs of JouleThief, behind each other!
But don't grape just a 3055, choose and test, TIME, test, sorry dirty hands!
-
Johan
thank you for the patent link
-
Standing wave is coming back out of the: .............................. Exhaust!
But why is the tuned 2-stroke Ignition, so short before TDC at that 16-18K rev/min?
Why Honda: Water Injection in the Exhaust??
Why Yamaha YPVS, EXUP, Kawasaki KIPS, Honda HPCxx, ................. merde!!!!
-
Johan
thank you for the patent link
and yes Zoltan [the other link]
is not being Dropped here.
thank you
THANK you 2, and mine pleasure! ;-))
Harmony between ...............
Chain Brad, let him read feel the SHIT!
Also Bill/Pirate & Minnie, the both FAT + POINTS, thanks!
Entertaining: http://overunity.com/profile/milehigh.20740/area/showposts/start/6255/#.VuFc6oQvtE4 (http://overunity.com/profile/milehigh.20740/area/showposts/start/6255/#.VuFc6oQvtE4)
-
A specially for Bill / Pirate, its about sound & feelings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALJtkogKY-Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALJtkogKY-Q)
Or 'On the PIPE'!!!!!!!!!, like Adele can do!
Did have such a One, during the fake Oil crise in the '70's, uses fuel 1 ltr on only 8 km, with a silly-putty frame, getting cold here, why ...........
MamboJambo, sorry for mine grammatical disorder, almost no lust anymore, and time!?
-
MileHigh said
resonance plays no Part in ICE designs and any body stating this was Clueless and obviously had no grasp on resonance... .
here is the simplest which any loud mouth clueless Putz should know
cavity resonance engine design
THE BUZZ BOMB
Ignition of the Argus pulsejet was accomplished using an automotive type spark plug located about 76 cm (2.49 ft) behind the intake shutters, with current supplied from a portable starting unit. Three air nozzles in the front of the pulsejet were at the same time connected to an external high-pressure air source that was used to start the engine. Acetylene gas was typically used for starting the engine, and very often a panel of wood or similar material was held across the end of the tailpipe to prevent the fuel from diffusing and escaping before ignition.The V-1 was fuelled by 625 l (165 US gal) of 75 octane gasoline.
Once the engine had been started and the temperature had risen to the minimum operating level, the external air hose and connectors were removed and the engine's resonant design kept it firing without any further need for the electrical ignition system, which was used only to ignite the engine when starting.
--------------------------
then Johan shares a 2 stroke which works on creating huge output based on similar [cavity resonance and a huge standing wave]
it is not an ancillary resonant system it is a complete resonant design.
which generates a Huge standing wave or ....simply doesn't work [work being defined here as 3-4 hp per cubic inch in a normally aspirated recip or Over unity from an engineering perspective]
creating this resonant standing wave between the carb intake and the tailpipe end is the holy grail of the design in its entirety .
3 to 4 HP per cubic inch
stop with your moving the goal posts MH
you outright stated that resonance plays no Part in ICE designs and any body stating this was a BS'r and Clueless and obviously had no grasp on resonance... .
WRONG
don't keep pointing to others... Look at what you said
YOU ARE WRONG ...PERIOD
just like you are completely wrong about your Intimations here that Brad and Smokey are Guru Posers
and clueless about resonance and many other things you try to say
stick to what you know.... you are good at that .
but please stop commenting on things which you are clueless about .
and resonance in mass and how it may effect energy harvesting is NOT YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE !!
YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS
ZILCH
but that does not stop you from calling people that do seek anomalies in resonance or resonant Mass
posers and frauds and Nonsensical and Bs'ers etc etc etc ad nauseum .
you know nothing about it ..just like your ignorant resonance and engine design statement.
but yet you flap your lips with the greatest of ease...
you lost a lot of ground [credibility] in this thread so far.
grab your shovel MH I am quite certain you are not done pointing to others and digging that hole
but one thing I can assure you of
if I was lookin to change this world and seek new energy sources... your two targets here would be way ahead of you on most peoples short list of assets towards that goal.
and yes I know its very easy to throw stones at guys outside the Box
I watch you do it all the time.....
you self righteous PUTZ
Bow your head !!!!!!!
Chet,
You are going off your rocker. I have yet to see the true scientific and engineering definition for resonance being used in an ICE and that's what we are talking about here and my statement was made from that perspective. I made it very clear that I am not an expert on gas engines so what's your problem? If people could communicate effectively and articulate a point properly and explain the full context then things would be very different, wouldn't they?
What the hell does a buzz bomb have to do with anything? Are you "showing me up" by talking about a bloody buzz bomb? The answer to that is no, you are making yourself look unhinged.
Right now Brad and Smoky2 can't answer the two questions, so what are you going to do? Beat me up in a crazy rant posting?
MileHigh
-
A specially for Bill / Pirate, its about sound & feelings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALJtkogKY-Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALJtkogKY-Q)
Or 'On the PIPE'!!!!!!!!!, like Adele can do!
Did have such a One, during the fake Oil crise in the '70's, uses fuel 1 ltr on only 8 km, with a silly-putty frame, getting cold here, why ...........
MamboJambo, sorry for mine grammatical disorder, almost no lust anymore, and time!?
All that I asked you to do was explain what your supposed resonance was for the first motorcycle engine revving clip you posted. If it's some kind of tuned inlet port or tuned exhaust port with some kind of standing wave, I asked you to explain it with a detailed description, a mechanical schematic, and an annotated timing diagram.
You have done nothing of the sort. I wanted to see if whatever "resonance" you were alleging had any relationship with the true scientific and engineering definition of resonance but I have zero information from you to work with.
And now you are going crazy posting all sorts of stuff, including old quotes from me.
MileHigh
-
HelmHotz is working, but mostly only used as a correction related to design of space mismatch.
Look behind the cilinder, the Brown-Stainless bump on the exhaust-pipe:
-
All that I asked you to do was explain what your supposed resonance was for the first motorcycle engine revving clip you posted. If it's some kind of tuned inlet port or tuned exhaust port with some kind of standing wave, I asked you to explain it with a detailed description, a mechanical schematic, and an annotated timing diagram.
You have done nothing of the sort. I wanted to see if whatever "resonance" you were alleging had any relationship with the true scientific and engineering definition of resonance but I have zero information from you to work with.
And now you are going crazy posting all sorts of stuff, including old quotes from me.
MileHigh
So you're asking for the breast?
-
So you're asking for the breast?
More crazy.
-
Well
since Mags point that everything gets buried in a thread where MH plants himself is the one truth the stands the test of time
I can't find his initial "ICE and engines don't use resonance BS" statements [with a thousand variants since honed to other meanings]
here is the simplest which any loud moth Putz should know
cavity resonance engine design
THE BUZZ BOMB
Ignition of the Argus pulsejet was accomplished using an automotive type spark plug located about 76 cm (2.49 ft) behind the intake shutters, with current supplied from a portable starting unit. Three air nozzles in the front of the pulsejet were at the same time connected to an external high-pressure air source that was used to start the engine. Acetylene gas was typically used for starting the engine, and very often a panel of wood or similar material was held across the end of the tailpipe to prevent the fuel from diffusing and escaping before ignition.The V-1 was fuelled by 625 l (165 US gal) of 75 octane gasoline.
Once the engine had been started and the temperature had risen to the minimum operating level, the external air hose and connectors were removed and the engine's resonant design kept it firing without any further need for the electrical ignition system, which was used only to ignite the engine when starting.
--------------------------
then Johan shares a 2 stroke which works on creating huge output based on similar [cavity resonance and a huge standing wave]
it is not an ancillary resonant system it is a complete resonant design.
which generates a Huge standing wave or ....simply doesn't work
creating this resonant standing wave between the carb intake and the tailpipe end is the holy grail of the design in its entirety .
3 to 4 HP per cubic inch
stop with your moving the goal posts MH
you were completely wrong in your initial statement about resonance and ICE engine design
you outright stated that resonance plays no Part in ICE designs .
WRONG
don't keep pointing to others... Look at what you said
YOU ARE WRONG ...PERIOD
just like you are completely wrong about your Intimations here that Brad and Smokey are Guru Posers
and clueless about resonance and many other things you try to say
stick to what you know.... you are good at that .
but please stop commenting on things which you are clueless about .
and resonance in mass and how it may effect energy harvesting is NOT YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE !!
YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS
ZILCH
but that does not stop you from calling people that do seek anomalies in resonance or resonant Mass
posers and frauds and Nonsensical and Bs'ers etc etc etc ad nauseum .
you know nothing about it ..just like your ignorant resonance and engines statement.
but yet you flap your lips with the greatest of ease...
you lost a lot of ground [credibility] in this thread so far.
grab your shovel MH I am quite certain you are not done pointing to others and digging that hole
but one thing I can assure you of
if I was lookin to change this world and seek new energy sources... your two targets here would be way ahead of you on most peoples short list of assets towards that goal.
and yes I know its very easy to throw stones at guys outside the Box
I watch you do it all the time.....
you self righteous PUTZ
Bow your head !!!!!!!
Post 512
Quote: Adjusting the timing of an ICE has absolutely nothing to do with resonance and there is no connection at all.
The connection here was that the timing has to be correct in both examples to gain maximum performance,energy conversion,and efficiency.
My reply to Mhs statement above was--If the timing is out on either,then in both cases you turn your fuel(energy)into heat,in sted of doing what it should be doing in each case.
You will see i did not mention resonance in an ICE at all,as i was refering to correct timing in each system.
MHs conversion process has now begun.
Quote post 514: No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever.
Post 516.
MH now has invented the internal combustion sewing machine
Quote; Just because a mechanical device like an ICE or a sewing machine has all sorts of adjustments that are related to the cycle timing, it does not necessarily mean that said device "resonates."
Look, an ICE runs over a wide range of speeds does it not? Meanwhile resonance happens at a single frequency. When a sewing machine is sewing a seam is it resonating or is it simply sewing stitches at a certain operating frequency? Note the sewing machine runs at variable speeds also.
The whole idea is simply wrong.
I have !as yet! not been able to find a resonant chamber on my wifes sewing machine.
Take note MH But as it turns out,the sewing machine dose indeed have,and can operate at a resonant frequency. ;)
Care to call me out on this one MH?.
Post 519-quote MH : I did not compare an ICE to a sewing machine, :o
Quote above: Look, an ICE runs over a wide range of speeds does it not?Note the sewing machine runs at variable speeds also.
::)
Post 519 again Quote: It's all moot because we are not talking about ICEs except to state that they have!! nothing!! to do with resonance.
Post 522
My quote--or the part MH decided to post,but forgetting the rest,as that go's against his cause here on this thread.
Quote: I would not think that MH could even grasp the fact that ICEs !do! operate best at resonant frequencies.
This is what MH used to try and imply that i was talking about the motor only. The fact that i clearly specify the word !frequencies! should have indicated that we were talking about multiple resonant frequencies within the ICE system as a whole,and not just one resonant frequency of the engine it self.
So here is the rest of the paragraph that MH decided to leave out,that was the rest of the information needed to define what i was referring to
Quote: If you ask him the reason for the large double cone shaped expansion chamber on a high performance two stroke engine,and what that has to do with the power band of the engine,he would be lost. He would not be able to explain as to how that !resonant! relationship between the expansion chamber of the exhaust and the engine actually sucks the exhaust gasses out of the cylinder at the right time,insuring that the cylinder is evacuated of all burnt fuels and gasses,and at the same time,draws in the next charge of fuel/air mix from the crankcase--there is a reason it is called the loop charge system.
Post 523 Quote MH: Well that's extremely curious considering that ICEs operate through a whole range of frequencies. Just that fact renders your discussion moot.
A clear indication that MH has no idea as to what a power band curve is in a tuned two stroke engine.
Quote post 523: I will repeat, we are talking about electrical resonance, and there is indeed a 100% equivalent to that in the form of mechanical resonance, and that mechanical resonance has nothing whatsoever to do with an engine moving gasses around - nothing.
Do you get that? There is true mechanical resonance and it has nothing whatsoever to do with tuning a gas engine and the operating parameters of an engine. Nor are you going to change the definition of resonance to suit your fancy. There will be no bait and switch when it comes to resonance.
I have not changed any definition of resonance. The examples given in regards to the two stroke ICE are by the physics definition of resonance.
MH also states time and time again,that no one has provided any such proof or working concepts that explain the resonant systems in an ICE.
Please see (way back) post 527.where i posted 3 link's ,along with brief explanations regarding the resonant systems of a 2 stroke ICE.
Post 540.
Here we get into what science,physics and engineering determine resonance as.
Quote MH: We are talking about electric circuits and the scientific and engineering definition of resonance.
Resonance: In physics, resonance is a phenomenon that occurs when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.
So what happens in a two stroke ICE.
The vibrating system,or the force that is external to the ICE itself,is the resonating exhaust and fuel intake system. The other system that is oscillating is the piston, conrod,crankshaft system. All we need now is a greater amplitude at a preferential frequency caused by the first oscillating system-and we have that. At a certain RPM (the preferential frequency) the secondary oscillating system(the piston, conrod,and crankshaft system) are sent into !greater amplitude! (increase in HP in the second oscillating system). The resonant systems in an ICE in this case comply with the physics and mechanical definition of resonance.
MHs question--How dose a wine glass resonate.
One of my answer's,as there can be a few due to how MH asked the question.
By receiving pulses of energy at the correct !time!<--time MH) at it's natural resonant frequency.
MHs response-Quote: There, finally. You clearly can't explain how a wine glass resonates
MH fails to understand that if the wine glass dose not receive pulses of energy timed correctly,and at the natural resonant frequency,the wine glass will stop resonating. If the wine glass dose not receive an initial energy pulse,it will not resonate at all.
MHs next comment on post 555
Now we get the full question
Quote: Here is my question in full:
How does a wine glass resonate? How is the resonant frequency determined?
Now we have two different questions,that have two different answers.
Quote MH: So the whole discussion has been in vain because you don't even know what resonance is.
Odd coming from some one that has two different questions that he calls one question.
To top it off we get this-Quote: man up and start communicating effectively and with purpose ::)
Post 557 Quote: Says the man that can't explain what resonance is in a wine glass. The discussion is over because it has all been in vain. Go get some books and read them and learn and understand what resonance actually is. You need to get to the point where you understand how a wine glass resonates. Also work on your personal integrity with that farce of a response from you about the resonant frequency of a wine glass.
This is from some one who is !as of yet! to give an answer him self. 4 to 8 weeks ;)
Post 580 Quote: Is that question asking you for specific values? The answer no. Now can you understand the question?
First MH wants to stick with the scientific definitions,and now he is happy with generic answers.
Webby picked up on this as well. Quote Webby: Firstly you require scientific or engineering answers,, and now you want a vague response
Post 616 from smOKy,also starting to see MHs ignorance as to what we are trying to achieve here.
-->the resonant frequency is determined, primarily, by a materials constant of the glass, the physical dimensions of the wine glass,
as well as the materials property (as a factor of density) of the medium inside the glass. (water, oil, etc)
in a ferrite core, the "medium" outside the core dimensions, is that of the permeability of air.
When all factors are accounted for, you will see that these two examples are rather synonymous.
Now - what happens to the resonance of the glass, when your finger-vibrations are sporadic?
or are caused to be interfering with the frequency of the wine glass?
the glass does not resonate as intensely, does it?
This is the same as switching a JT , in an incoherently digital manner.
I know you "get it"... you cannot "not get it" at this point in the discussion.....
Why, then, do you insist on propagating this "apparently" ignorant viewpoint?
Is it just for the fun of conflict? Do you want to deter this line of thinking for some other goal?
or is it that you are truly that indoctrinated, that you cannot allow yourself to see what is right in front of you?
Here is the one i love most. MH has really put him self on the firing line here.
He is about to show us his smarts. :D
Post 633 Quote: How do you determine the maximum speed of your car in simple terms?
The answer is the maximum speed of the car is determined from where the maximum horsepower that can be output by the engine is in balance with all of the air friction and various other friction forces.
Here we have MH making only reference to horse power and frictional forces. This is enough for him to determine the top speed of the car :o
The fact here is,he has missed one major value that is needed in order to make any sort of determination as to the cars top speed.
I have now asked him on several occasions to tell us what that missing value is--->i have had no response so far,and so,i must conclude that he dose not know,and that he cannot infact determine the top speed of the car as claimed.
So there you have it Chet--the short version of what has happened to this thread.
Brad
-
Brad:
What is resonance in scientific terms.
Quote:In physics, resonance is a phenomenon that occurs when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.
Apparently this dose not fit in with MHs terms and conditions for resonance--but too bad.
All that definition does is describe an attribute of resonance. It has very limited scope. It doesn't even touch what the two wine glass questions are all about. So, to answer those two questions you have to go deeper and truly understand what resonance is and how it works for the wine glass.
MileHigh
-
More crazy.
Lost trac with you, like most others, and pity you the most with yourself!
Spoon feeding, aloud or not, a dancing Goal & Laws!
Where is you back mate, name .............. marcy, meckye ............ sorry age!
Talking about: Disorders, you don't recognise them in front of the mirror.
Going to the circuit, with a: YZ250, Pirate & Minnie, Welcome here!!
-
Brad:
The fact here is,he has missed one major value that is needed in order to make any sort of determination as to the cars top speed.
I have now asked him on several occasions to tell us what that missing value is--->i have had no response so far,and so,i must conclude that he dose not know,and that he cannot infact determine the top speed of the car as claimed.
I already told you that as far as I am concerned that whatever it is that you are holding back may actually be nonsensical. I also told you that we are talking about a supposed "Joule Thief in resonance" and the true scientific and engineering definition of resonance.
The simple fact is that I don't care about the issue of determining the top speed of the car and any possible missing piece of information. I really do not care, it has nothing to do with the thread. It was just a "learning tool" for you so that you could see that you could answer questions with concepts only, and not with specifics. It's me bending over ass-backwards in an attempt to communicate with you.
The rest of that posting is just plain silly as far as I am concerned. It's a mish-mash rehash that has no value.
MileHigh
-
Hey All,I am going to respond to Aaron's kicking me off of the forum, but I promise you that I am not championing a cause or anything. Just closing the loop.Aaron: You are so paralyized by fear that it is bad for your mental health. Anytime anybody has tried to correct you, the proper usage of your scope comes to mind right away, you instantly go on the defensive and will go to almost any length to feign that you were not wrong. Even when it is very obvious, you stick to your story. I am telling you, there is something wrong there. You try to stick to what you think is right, and the proper information almost has to be pounded into your head before you will accept it. You are acting like a petty despot dictator that is "infallable." Instead of trying to assimilate the opinions of others that are often more knowledable than you with respect to electronic circuits, you create a shield of defensiveness and hostility around yourself. The easiest way out when you can't respond to questions to defend your point is to call the other person an idiot. You are the author of your own misery.You are afraid to admit that you are wrong, Aaron. You are afraid to demonstrate a willingness to learn from the "other side" and at least give the new information some thought and consideration. You paint yourself into a corner and are afraid to step on the fresh paint. To you the fresh paint looks like burning coals. Why? WHY?The sroryline of the thread has been like a bad C-grade science fiction movie at times over the past few weeks. You run like a crazy person from spike to spike to resonance to oscillation, to diode to no diode like a chicken with its head cut off. Every time you find a new fixation you can sense the tension in the air lest someone disagree with you.Your abject fear makes you make "Twilight Zone" statements like .99, myself, TK, Hoppy, and others are "not qualified" when any person reading the forum would CLEARLY SEE that we do know what we are talking about. This is such a disconnect from reality that I question your overall makeup as a person. You are a powder keg of cognitive dissonance. What the f*ck is going on with you? On top of that, ANY person with a solid electronics or engineering background could read your postings and look at your clips and quickly come to the realization that you are just slightly past the beginner stage when it comes to electronics. They would also notice that you are prone to making grand statements about things that you may know the buzz words for, but in fact barely understand what they really mean. Your pronouncements about various aspects of the circuit are mostly incorrect, and it is beyond me how you make these leaps of faith and continuously push the envelope with respect to your true capabilities.You deleted my last few comments and for all I know you are on a rampage deleting everything else. You need to chill out and take it easy. You also need to decide if you are going to up your electronics skills by reading a book or taking a few courses and start trying to engage with people and try to learn from them, or forever be this tragi-comic character pushing the latest electronic "free energy" circuit like some uneducated goon.I am going to do a copy paste of your big posting with your litany of complaints and that will be it. Let the discussion continue as time progresses. You can't play the big mean boss anymore threatening to pull the plug anymore and there is nothing that you can do to stop the crosspolination between threads so enjoy the ride. You are in for a shock when the results come in, it is starting to look a bit like a Sterling-Mylow road show. Guess whose shoes you fit in?MileHighFrom Wikipedia:Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. For example, a belief in animal rights could be interpreted as inconsistent with eating meat or wearing fur. Noticing the contradiction would lead to dissonance, which could be experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states. When people's ideas are consistent with each other, they are in a state of harmony, or consonance. If cognitions are unrelated, they are categorized as irrelevant to each other and do not lead to dissonance.A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would likely reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.
Do not be sad or feel any guilt at all for being kicked of Aaron the rookies forum. Any time you try and correct him,he simply shut's you down--much like MH dose here,only he cant shut you down,so he resorts to other tactic's-like trying to discredit you by way of deception.
Anything you say that would go against Aaron the rookie making a buck through book and DVD sales,will soon take you into the realm of the forbidden. His(and Lindermanns)books are all just junk. The books full of secrets that just are not there. The books that will deliver the answer to OverUnity pulse motors--that no one to this date has ever been able to replicate.
Aaron is a dictator -period.
You either believe what he say's,or your out.
Do not dare have any thoughts of your own,unless they agree with his.
I got the same treatment when i debunked UFOpolotics bogus OU motor bullshit.
But Aaron seen dollar signs flashing by,and so i was ejected.
This was after i posted several video's showing DUFO's ballsed up prony brake test-at great expense to my self,in way of costs to buy all the needed measuring equipment,and materials to build an accurate pronybrake machine.
Never prove anything wrong over there at Energetic that might lace Aarons pocket with a few more dollars.
Brad
-
Lost trac with you, like most others, and pity you the most with yourself!
Why don't you just explain what attributes of the two-stroke engine in the clip you showed relate to resonance like I asked you?
-
Do not be sad or feel any guilt at all for being kicked of Aaron the rookies forum. Any time you try and correct him,he simply shut's you down--much like MH dose here,only he cant shut you down,so he resorts to other tactic's-like trying to discredit you by way of deception.
Bullshit about the deception, and the first part of that posting about Aaron also describes your behaviour when you do something on the bench. You clearly have some behaviours in common with Aaron.
-
Brad:
I never once claimed that the ICE it self was in resonance. What i said that there were various resonant systems that exist within an ICE that improve both performance and efficiency.
Is this not what the whole !resonance! ordeal is about?--showing how resonance can increase efficiency. You stated that there was no resonance at all associated with an ICE,and i provided the resonant systems that do indeed reside within a two stroke ICE.
I get it now, you can use resonant cavity systems to improve cylinder charging and cylinder scavenging. Now if you only said that in a clear and effective way when you first mentioned the stuff about an ICE and resonance then there wouldn't be a trail of 200 postings to debate it now, would there?
Nonetheless, this stuff is only slightly related to the standard engineering and scientific definition of resonance for electrical circuits or the wine glass.
So far,your track record and knowledge is far to low to be making any such judgement on who is correct ,and who is not.
When are you going to stop the ridiculous trash talking? The simple fact is for years around here I get referred to as one of the "smart people" in a somewhat cynical fashion when people are on the defensive. The simple truth is that for years around here that people respect that I can quite often bring insights and offer value and analyze things that your average forum experimenter can't do. And I am perfectly honest about my limitations also.
So you are just making yourself look like a stupid jackass when you trash talk like that. Your behaviour is absolutely awful and you have shown the world your true colours and they aren't pretty at all.
Your wisest course of action would be to stop this foolishness now.
MileHigh
-
Why not throw in a bit of limbic resonance or perhaps a
bit about delocalisation energy with respect to chemistry?
-
What I want to know is in a JT. is the series impedance of the two elements
at a minimum and the parallel impedance at a maximum?
Poynt99 or Koala or someone with a bit of a clue will know this.
John.
-
Brad:
The rest of that posting is just plain silly as far as I am concerned. It's a mish-mash rehash that has no value.
MileHigh
I already told you that as far as I am concerned that whatever it is that you are holding back may actually be nonsensical.
As you have said MH--it's time to use your own brain,and not be expected to be spoon fed.
I also told you that we are talking about a supposed "Joule Thief in resonance" and the true scientific and engineering definition of resonance.
So post your definition of true scientific and engineering resonance.
What do you have to gain from holding back information you deem to be of great importance?.
The simple fact is that I don't care about the issue of determining the top speed of the car and any possible missing piece of information. I really do not care, it has nothing to do with the thread.
But it was you that bought this (nothing to do with the thread)into the thread ::)
It was just a "learning tool" for you so that you could see that you could answer questions with concepts only, and not with specifics.
MH
Can you not see what you yourself is writing?. Look at what your saying.
All that definition does is describe an attribute of resonance. It has very limited scope. It doesn't even touch what the two wine glass questions are all about. So, to answer those two questions you have to go deeper and truly understand what resonance is and how it works for the wine glass.
Quote: It was just a "learning tool" for you so that you could see that you could answer questions with concepts only, and not with specifics
You want the specifics understanding of resonance,but described by using non specific concept's. :o
If that was your learning tool MH,then you are teaching the incorrect.
Why is anyone going to listen to what you have to say,after they have read this thread.
It's me bending over ass-backwards in an attempt to communicate with you.
Rubbish MH
You have done nothing but try to discredit and belittle me. Time and time again,you have disagreed with what i have said-just for the sake of doing so. Never have i seen such a display of willful ignorance from some one who once held my respect. Time after time i have had to spend my own time correcting your incorrect statements toward me.
The resonant systems in an ICE
The operation of the cool joule circuit
The !determining the top speed of a car! saga-->which i still cannot believe you do not know what you missed--->you are proclaiming to be the teacher here-remember?.
The operation of a JT at low voltage-which you did not even try and attempt to work out.
There are those here that wish to go further than the standard model-to do all that we can do-and be all that we can be. But you just bring nothing but disruption--that is all you have done to date on this thread alone. Im not even going to start to mention other threads,where you have done the same thing.
I (and many others here) have shown you your mistakes,and yet you still insist it is the rest of us that do not know what we are talking about.
How sure are you that there is nothing special in todays 2 stroke ICE's. How well do you know thermodynamics--> not the laws based around systems of the past,but of those that exist today-those like the two stroke ICE that have perfected resonant systems that have increased there mechanical power output by huge amounts.
I am going to leave you with this to contemplate.
For this we will go back 20 years,and look at the 2 stroke ICE of that era.
Lets say the efficiency of the ICE back then was 32%-meaning 32% mechanical HP energy out,and the remaining 68% percent as waste heat energy output. This as you know is in relation to the contained energy within the fuel supplied to the ICE,and we have accounted for 100% of that energy contained within the relative fuel amount.
Now,!!try! and leave the current laws out of this,and think hard about what i am about to say/ask of you.
Lets now move to this date,and look at the 2 stroke ICE's we have this day,and there use of resonant systems to increase both efficiency and output power.
How is it that some high end 2 stroke engines of today can produce far more HP,and also more waste heat,but still use the same amount and grade of fuel that our 20 year old predecessor did.
How is it that we accounted for all the energy input in our older design 2 stroke engine,in the way of HP and waste heat output,and yet todays engines produce far more HP and waste heat output,for the same energy input.
Where has all this extra energy come from in the new ICEs,when we had already accounted for 100% energy conversion in the ICEs of 20 years ago?.
We can discount wasted/unburnt fuel from the earlier ICEs,as even back then,the high end engines lost very little in the way of unburnt fuel. So this small amount(less than 5% of todays )of unburnt wasted fuel can in no way account for such high power increases.
We can also eliminate any major changes in the ICE unit alone,as even 20 years ago,we were already using things like chrome bores,high quality ring's,high compression ratio's and extremely well balanced cranks.
The only real advancements has been in the resonant chambers/resonant systems incorporated in those ICEs.
To add to this,go try and find any test data that refers to the questions above about todays 2 stroke ICEs. Data that shows us that the energy conversion from fuel in to HP and waste heat out,is still only a 100% conversion.
I have not included vibrational and sound wave energy in the above,but they must also be included in the output energy calculations--something overlooked quite often,but small in relation to the HP and heat output.
Brad
-
Brad:
Can you not see what you yourself is writing?. Look at what your saying.
All that definition does is describe an attribute of resonance. It has very limited scope. It doesn't even touch what the two wine glass questions are all about. So, to answer those two questions you have to go deeper and truly understand what resonance is and how it works for the wine glass.
Quote: It was just a "learning tool" for you so that you could see that you could answer questions with concepts only, and not with specifics
You want the specifics understanding of resonance,but described by using non specific concept's.
There is absolutely no conflict in what I am saying. So you are either trash talking again or you have to work on your English comprehension skills.
You still bring up the Cool Joule circuit but it has already been discussed. "Miller capacitance" does not explain it. You have to do a timing diagram and really explain it, not do a "drive by" fake explanation. Like I told you before, you would be sliced to pieces on any serious electronics enthusiast forum. You have to teach yourself to effectively communicate a concept.
I can't comment on the evolution in the efficiency of two-stroke engines because I know next to nothing about that and I never claimed I knew anything about it. It's not the subject of this thread. We are talking about true resonance and a hypothetical Joule Thief in resonance.
You can rant and rave and stomp your feet and turn blue and trash talk and it won't make a single difference. Give it your best shot at the wine glass questions and to do that you should do some research and stop and think about it and come up with the proper answers. Because right now you are incapable of answering the two questions about the wine glass. Instead of useless trash talk that just makes you look very ugly, you should be embracing the challenge.
MileHigh
-
Brad
MH can't go back on this [in his world]
he called you a clueless poser and many other things regarding you stance [and knowledge ] on an ICE.
which to all who can read and comprehend the written word has been shown quite clearly in your Harvest
of SOME of his quotes.
but he is sliding the goal posts in every imaginable Sqwirmy way to deny you your Truth and continue his assault
on you [making himself some victim of ignorance]
the stomach turns.
he will never apologize ,he would chew his own nose off to spite his face...
You however Brad have apologized many times here ,and I know they were not easy times.
MH has taught us a great deal here !
-
You are just a hapless biased groupie Chet.
-
let your audience read post 831 MH
I completely understand your position ,I have seen many children deny the words that just came out of their
mouth .
but here you attack a man ! well actually ,many men .
you have bitten off a very big piece of your "Karma" and it will choke you unless you
spit it out and do the right thing.
rechewing it hoping it will swallow is a very bad idea ..
and thinking your readers will swallow it for you ??
even worse !
apologize
I am certain a man like Brad will do what he does and move past that .
-
@MH and others
Wine glass shmine glass. You ask about resonance without defining the resonance type. Audible resonance, resonance to the point of fracture, resonance to the point of being reduced to dust and there are others as well. If you are only looking for a universal answer, then the wine glass will resonate at every known frequency, it is only that not all the atoms in the wine glass will resonate at the same frequency. That's what resonance is.
If the wine glass could act like a cameleon changing colors as you sweep frequencies you would see colors appearing in some spaces and disappearing at others. Every frequency will have an effect.
Appropriately the process is an analog to voting. A candidate rises and talks and we ask all the atoms in the glass, "how many of you vote for this candidate?". Not many, so bring in candidate #2, #5000, #199,999 and so on. Each one will attract a certain number of votes, but only a few will really get the greatest votes. But unlike real elections where the winner is above the 50% mark, in our present state of technology and perceptions we accept that the greatest number of votes will never be more then 3-5%, but that is more then enough to see the effects that we see on our benches of all those votes and we all raise our hands exclaiming, "we have a leader". But big deal man. And as usual, thereafter we will only concentrate on the leader and the number of votes but quickly forget the voters themselves. The important question to ask is "What are those majority resonant atoms (voters) trying to tell you?". Like true politics this question is never asked because they rarely care about the people once in power (hehehe), never considered, never enters your mind. It's just resonance, with nothing to say, nothing to show, nothing to learn from. It is only resonance so move on.
The question the way you asked it is in fact an intellectual trap so you using this as a measuring stick to determine who knows what is just disingenuous and does not become you at all. You have done way better then this and that is why I and many here have always respected your EE acumen while also realizing over the years that you also are badly handicapped in assisting anyone past the Standard EE to enter the OU spectrum. But this is OK man. We all have our strengths. If I started to open up a little more you would be pulling out your hairs trying to cope with where to store these new notions of energy. And I respect that difficulty because it was very difficult for me as well going from the Standard EE mode into this really expanding world of Spin Conveyance.
You know I have a high tolerance for precision and I will look into anything until it makes sense. That's what I get paid for in my water treatment profession. When others cannot find the problem, they call me, even some of my competitors and all of my suppliers. I have proven more then once that I can find faults in many devices. I only exercised the same diligence towards EE and soon found it failed and failed and failed again. The measuring was not the problem. Nor the formulas. Unfortunately for OUers, EE uses the electron and the field in everything. So for OUers, the base EE concepts should be considered as wrong but not the data. The data is always priceless but only if you know exactly how it was derived. That's why I'm asking for the full wire amps table data. How was it derived? Not the final amps. That tells me nothing because you are leaving all the other factors as variables that mean nothing. There is no such thing as variable wire. A wire is a wire OK. When they did these tests they used a length of wire. What was the length, voltage applied, amps applied? How can there not be this information in a world that has info up to our arses. We need this information otherwise it has to be done to know it once and for all. Anyone who can find this will have found a key item in our OU toolbox.
You first understand the maximum amount of power your wire can output. Let's say the wire in your secondary coil has a rated maximum power output of 200 watts before the wire collapses. You then do resonance works and quickly see that even though you are at a high resonant point showing high scope peaks, the actual loadable power is 5 watts. Congratulations, for the first time in EE history you can now equate your output in terms of a percentage of active atoms in your coil. In this case a whopping 2.5% of your wire is active and you just invented a new basis called Resonance Optimization because now you have a comparative basis. So a new science is born and that is, "how can we work with copper wire to increase the percentage of active atoms" and we can then spend critical time on these questions. But if you think resonance is just resonance, then good luck taking step 2. You will never get there. So if you need ways to do this, just ask.
You all, including you @MH have no clue man. All you know is what is in between those cement walls that have been erected to keep your mind in league with the majors. If I asked you to give me a precise atomic explanation of resonance where the famous electron and the field do something somehow to cause such a high rise in voltage (resonance) all while those electrons are whizzing along and the field is churning everything up and up, what would it be? hahaha Don't even try because I will have to take out my violin to accompany you while I am really a classical guitar player. The most basic precepts are missing from EE, missing or better said ignored or more conveniently set aside as a hot issue so techies will never consider what's really going on in our coils. I have recently shown and will show more about Half Coil Syndrome and soon will show Coil Bypass that I could never have realized under standard EE. You just cannot because EE is clouded on all sides with unrealistic constructs.
In a few hundred paragraphs, I can render all of your present causational concepts of EE obsolete. In a few days, the field and the electron would already be in a place in your mind that automatically deploys simultaneous comparatives of EE and this new concept and your mind will start to tally the SC wins and always losses on the EE side. This is what happens when a new "working" construct hits the beaches of EE Island. The inhabitants of this island who are long isolated while they never see it as isolation, start to realize there is a world away from this island and it works and it makes thousands of times more sense in every effect that we will realize.
So be very careful before you dismiss anything and especially the guys here that do the bench work and are here for OU activities should never be exposed to this type of exchange, that is, if your intent is to educate, or demean, or using parcels of each. OU bench guys are rare. How many out of 7 billion? Surely there are more priceless diamonds around then those guys so they should be considered as more precious then a diamond, some in the rough, some more polished, yep some really cracked up or tainted or tinted and some.........even fake.
So you then define your maximum car speed. That is great to know because now you can relate your present speed as a percentage of total power to speed capability. Like Scotty yelling at Kirk, "Captain the Dylithium crystals are only at 13%". These are the signals or signs resonance is trying to tell us. Y'a y'a lot's of volts because there always has to be a line from source to load but those atoms are twitching real fast (higher voltage output) but the active line in the wire is so thin there is no amps. Resonance is trying to tell you OK man, you have a good number of us in a row but be are still a very small minority so you NEED TO FIND WAYS TO CONVINCE OTHER ATOMS TO BE ACTIVE AS WELL. In this regard, I can help as well. But I cannot do it all and spoon feeding you guys is not an option.
You and all here need to be very critical of everything you think you know. All these talks so full of present certitude is just a joke where serious men take it very seriously to be fact.
Here is a fact. When Tesla invented AC, he just proved electron flow (EF) is impossible. You cannot have EF if you have AC. The simple reason is your neutral is always grounded so at every half cycle when the hot side is supposed to alternate to the other wire (neutral) you just created a short circuit. So simple but during the next 10 decades, not a peep on this very simple fact. There is no alternation. The alternation HAD TO BE INTRODUCED IN ORDER TO SELL YOU THE EF CONSTRUCT. Take that one to the bank because it is worth its letters in gold. But just by chance, AC can be perfectly explained with SC because it has no moving electrons, only spinning, swaying, swinging, staying, showing and shooting nuclei that always stay in the same place in the wire but convey signals from one to the other down the wire. So they can have one HOT wire changing nuclei swing direction while never causing a short circuit on the neutral side. Based on this simple bit of info, this should already have made you fall on the sofa and ready for that high priced psychiatrist because of course it will be painful for many to absorb. My Half Coil Syndrome video #1 explains how AC works in our wires. We think the negative part of the waveform makes current flow backwards but it does not. That's what we should call impossible. But on the contray, we believe the impossible as fact and then wonder why our toys don't go beyond our designs.
Ya ya I know long post, lot's of words, sounds crazy so just forget this and move on right. hahaha Little do you guys know.
But just to say something else. @MH, I still have to thank you and @verpies and @Poynt99 and @TK and other dedicated EEers here who have still provided the basic notions. I have passed this level into a new level and am looking for ways to show this that will not create undue misunderstandings. It is not easy. I am not an academic or a teacher to know how best to prepare this so I am just doing my best as I go along. I need my personal Maxwell to churn up some new formulas. Please do not try to "set me straight". It is pointless because you will never be able to remove SC from my being. Not with all the rediscovery it is providing and the potential it has to change the world. Just take what I say with a grain of salt. Let some of it sink in slowly. Use your visual mind and put those small actors in their positions and yell "action" and let them show you in your mind how things work. If you cannot do that with your present constructs, then you know there is a problem because human logic is where all this came from. Humans can be wrong for centuries while they munch on their Big Macs so being wrong is not that bad. It's just not good enough to migrate to OUville.
wattsup
-
Brad:
MileHigh
There is absolutely no conflict in what I am saying. So you are either trash talking again or you have to work on your English comprehension skills.
My English is fine thanks MH--but yours needs major work.
If you cannot see how your questions could have different meaning's,then i am sorry for you.
You still bring up the Cool Joule circuit but it has already been discussed. "Miller capacitance" does not explain it. You have to do a timing diagram and really explain it, not do a "drive by" fake explanation. Like I told you before, you would be sliced to pieces on any serious electronics enthusiast forum. You have to teach yourself to effectively communicate a concept.
An absolute joke coming from some one that refuses to post answers to his own questions for idiotic periods of time.
You can rant and rave and stomp your feet and turn blue and trash talk and it won't make a single difference. Give it your best shot at the wine glass questions and to do that you should do some research and stop and think about it and come up with the proper answers. Because right now you are incapable of answering the two questions about the wine glass. Instead of useless trash talk that just makes you look very ugly, you should be embracing the challenge.
I have wasted all the time i am going to waste on your questions-questions you your self cannot and will not answer any differently than to that of what i have already posted.
Is it the friction thing again MH?--is that your big reveal?.
If so,i would think very carefully about that--unlike your car top speed determination boundary set.
What determines the resonant frequency of a wine glass.
The resonant frequency is determined by the frictional/resistance value of the system as a whole.
This frictional resistance that exist between each molecule of the crystalline structure of the wine glass,along with the existing frictional resistance of the medium that the wine glass resides in,will determine the resonant frequency of the wine glass,where it will impede on/or cause resistance against the vibrational motion of the wine glass.
But i dont like the word friction in there,so lets leave it out.
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by the value of the resistance in the system as a whole,where that resistance is seen as acting against/or limiting the frequency of the oscillations of the wine glass.
This resistance could be seen as being much the same as a governor system on an ICE,where the resistance governs(limits) the rate of change in the wine glass,and where a governor in an ICE governs(Limits) the RPM of that. ICE,where the oscillations would be denoted as the motion of the pistons.
So now we await your long winded ,idiotic time period MH,and see if you will be victorious,or fall flat on your face.
Oh-this could also be MHs correct term for--what is resonance
Resonance is the balanced result of oscillating/alternating energy and the effective resistance acting against that oscillating/alternating energy.
I guess it all comes down to how you interpret your questions MH.
We could go on for many more pages if we follow your path MH. So now i am just going to carry on with my experimenting ,and leave you with your 4 to 8 week time delay.
Brad
-
I consider getting kicked off of EF the same as being banned from Peswiki...it is a badge of honor and shows that you actually have some intelligence.
Bill
-
@MH and others
Wine glass shmine glass. ...
wattsup
Best reading I've had on these forums in a while.
Bob
-
Brad:
If your English is fine how come you say "meaning's" when you should say "meanings?" The joke is your "explanation" for the operation of the Cool Joule, which you avoided mentioning. Yes, you are going to wait for the answers. Karma is a biatch considering you brought that one onto yourself. However, you can use that as an opportunity to teach yourself instead of being spoon fed the answers.
I can't resist commenting on this doozy from you:
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by the value of the resistance in the system as a whole,where that resistance is seen as acting against/or limiting the frequency of the oscillations of the wine glass.
You are basically saying this,"The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by ... the frequency of the oscillations of the wine glass."
Take note again of what I said to you: You have to teach yourself to effectively communicate a concept.
MileHigh
-
Wattsup:
You are welcome, and as long as you are stimulated and interested in what you are doing then I think that is a good thing. However, there is a wide gulf between the way you think and people like Poynt99, Verpies, TK, Picowatt and myself and many others think. I actually watched your recent clips and to comment on the non-technical side of things, I can see that you are a really good guy.
Also, we are just talking about the natural self-resonant frequency of the wine glass. Simple, basic stuff - no frequency sweeping.
Anyway, I am curious to see what you will eventually have to say about the wire business, but don't be surprised if I comment that it will be the "same old - same old."
MileHigh
-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resonance
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/resonance
The concept of Resonance is a quite simple. Resonance was known about well before the use of electricity, and in fact it originally applied mainly to sound, the word resonance = to resound, the word has it's origin in Latin so it's that old. The electrical application of the word is fairly recent by those terms. It applies to electrical and mechanical vibration as well as sound because the action is virtually the same.
There is nothing free in resonance. It's an addition or a series of additions which cause a kind of amplification or magnification of a vibration of some kind, basically. Neither amplification nor magnification have anything directly to do with OU.
Resonance is a means to an end, or an operating state ect. All resonant systems that I can think of, have for all intents and purposes a continuous input, and losses as one of the main outputs.
I don't think we all need to be learning the stuff of Engineers or Physicists to be experimenting, but I think it does pay to be quite skeptical of our own results and those of others until such time as there is replication or proper analysis of any "claims".
I don't think there is much about a JT that is resonant unless the HV output has a sine wave form to it some how. I've built small tuned Tesla type coils with top loads that are resonant and did produce near perfect sine waves. And with pulsed DC input and using both a feedback oscillator as well as using a fixed frequency DC primary driver with a tuning method applied to the many turns secondary. I have achieved some interesting results with various set ups but probably the more interesting results do not come close to OU, they are interesting for other reasons.
..
-
pre-101 again :)
Since by definition the resonant frequency is when the amplitude increases,,
What do you call it when the frequency increases?
I would call that a change in conditions or physical properties that alter the natural resonating frequency. ie. a reduction of Inductance or capacitance in an electrical resonant circuit due to operation. Or the heating of the glass in the case of a resonating glass.
..
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476978#msg476978 date=1457636005]
MileHigh
If your English is fine how come you say "meaning's" when you should say "meanings?"
That's it ?--that's the best you have MH ?.
If you know what i should have said,or how i should have said it,then you must of understood it-Yea?.
The joke is your "explanation" for the operation of the Cool Joule, which you avoided mentioning.
A generic answer MH,as you want in regards to your questions.
No point in talking too much to a horse,when the horse is dead.
Yes, you are going to wait for the answers. Karma is a biatch considering you brought that one onto yourself.
Sorry !God!,but i will not be waiting for you to deliver any miracles.
We will see how you end up going with your Karma soon enough-->oh,that's !bitch! by the way,not biatch.
However, you can use that as an opportunity to teach yourself instead of being spoon fed the answers.
I do teach myself MH,and that is why i do not have to be swayed by babble like yours when it comes to experimenting.
I can't resist commenting on this doozy from you:
."
I see your up to your old tricks again MH--missing the rest of the post me thinks :D
It is clear that you do not understand English,or you just choose to be stupid.
My complete answer--The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by the value of the resistance in the system as a whole,where that resistance is seen as acting against/or limiting the frequency of the oscillations of the wine glass.
This resistance could be seen as being much the same as a governor system on an ICE,where the resistance governs(limits) the rate of change in the wine glass,and where a governor in an ICE governs(Limits) the RPM of that. ICE,where the oscillations would be denoted as the motion of the pistons.
You did not think to hard about your smart ass answer either-did you MH.
Quote: You are basically saying this,"The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by ... the frequency of the oscillations of the wine glass
You just cant think past your own silly little ideas inside your head,as you are dead set on trying to discredit me instead of thinking about what is actually taking place with the resonating wine glass.
A question for you MH.
We have an ICE that is fitted with a governor,and this governor is set to engage at a set RPM
The piston is moving back and forth/up and down(depending on motor design) in the cylinder--this is our oscillations.
What will determine the frequency of those oscillations (our RPM)?. The answer is the governor of course.
Now,here is my question to you--> what is it that determines when the governor will activate ;)
So have another look at your smart ass comment MH--The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by ... the frequency of the oscillations of the wine-->and try to see a little further than your nose.
Take note again of what I said to you: You have to teach yourself to effectively communicate a concept.
You have to read the whole paragraph,instead of doing a MH choppy choppy job on it.
-
Your answer about the resonant frequency is off by a country mile, and your sentence was nonsensical. It was just like saying that the mechanism of resonance in a wine glass is when you hit it at its resonant frequency and it starts to resonate. The model of the speed governor for an ICE has no relation at all with how the wine glass resonant frequency is determined.
Instead of plowing ahead like a steaming bull that's snorting fire and insisting that you are right, why not just spend some time learning about resonance? You may indeed have a "Eureka!" moment, you never know. Or someone else will answer the two questions. This is supposed to be a challenge to encourage you to learn and apply your knowledge, not an insane Mad Max battle in the desert.
P.S.: I spelt it as "biatch" intentionally.
-
Excellent vid on resonance. Covers the wine glass and sets in front of a speaker and does a stroboscope on the glass so you can see the glass oscillate. Very good vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9gr4w_U9Qs
Mags
-
In this vid, what you read when it starts is something we should keep in mind. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w
Mags
sorry just put in the yt link as I had forgot ::)
-
I really enjoy Dr. Lewin's videos. I had not seen this one so, thanks.
Bill
-
I really enjoy Dr. Lewin's videos. I had not seen this one so, thanks.
Bill
Welcome. Me Either on that one. Funny, when you search the word resonance on YT, there are all these animation/anime things with some vids like that. So I refined the search and got those 2.
Gotta go home n sleep tonight. Played a little with the jt to recreate something I had seen earlier and been thinking about n take a couple scope shots to show...
When the resistor is at 33ohm, there is some good pull down of the battery with 1 shorted winding, not killin it too fast but anyway... when its at that point, the blue trace is across the battery to monitor it. When the transistor switches on, the batt is flat line with ever so slight downward trend till the transistor releases and the winding discharges into the led, led across coil not transistor. Look at the battery when the transistor is off. The batt oscillates. Its not across any coils other than through the (off) transistor. Now if the windings were somehow producing that oscillation across the batt while the coil is discharging through the led, we would most likely see that in the led (on) trace. The oscillation is 1.273mhz. So if it is the battery oscillating, then maybe that freq is what we should aim for with the rest of the circuit, or a lower multiple, etc, because if we can have 'all' components in sync, that would be what Smoky was saying that the whole shmine glass resonates. ;)
Just thinkin. ;D
Mags
-
Your answer about the resonant frequency is off by a country mile, and your sentence was nonsensical. It was just like saying that the mechanism of resonance in a wine glass is when you hit it at its resonant frequency and it starts to resonate. The model of the speed governor for an ICE has no relation at all with how the wine glass resonant frequency is determined.
Instead of plowing ahead like a steaming bull that's snorting fire and insisting that you are right, why not just spend some time learning about resonance? You may indeed have a "Eureka!" moment, you never know. Or someone else will answer the two questions. This is supposed to be a challenge to encourage you to learn and apply your knowledge, not an insane Mad Max battle in the desert.
P.S.: I spelt it as "biatch" intentionally.
Your continual insistance of everyone being wrong, while you have provided nothing in the way of answers, is now considered as nothing but unfounded babble.
As you offer no counter argument, that is backed up with proof, you are seen to be no better than those that also try to peddle free energy devices for self gain.
You are a phoney MH--thats all you are, and not worthy of anymore of my time.
You provide endless talk, but you never back up your own claims.
Brad.
-
Your continual insistance of everyone being wrong, while you have provided nothing in the way of answers, is now considered as nothing but unfounded babble.
As you offer no counter argument, that is backed up with proof, you are seen to be no better than those that also try to peddle free energy devices for self gain.
You are a phoney MH--thats all you are, and not worthy of anymore of my time.
You provide endless talk, but you never back up your own claims.
Brad.
Yeah Brad. Its best to jump that ship. It aint goin nowhere. ;) It will always be demands that you provide to prove, but he never has to do anything of the like. And it will continue 'EXACTLY' like this for as long as you reply. look back 10 days ago. Same shit. 20 days ago. Same. It is what is was and it is what it is. Ever see the movie Boondock Saints?
"Where you goin? NO WHERE. " ;D
Heh. found clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdP2avo-Mfg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdP2avo-Mfg)
Just spend the posts on our work n make projects. ;D
Wiping down the bench tomorrow and work on this. ;)
Also, that last post with the shots, I had 4 disk caps across the batt on the board I forgot of not thinking of their affect there. Without them the freq increases and less noticeable. But with the 4 disks its swinging, so Ill go with that.
Mags
-
snip...
NOT total system resonance, which is a prerequisite for resonant electronic circuits.
For your circuit to be considered "resonant",
It must fit the wine glass analogy.
snip..
Total system resonance is not a prerequisite for resonant electronic circuits. Where on earth did you get that idea from.?
A simple am radio receiver is a compound circuit (a total system) that relies on tunable resonance in one minor portion of the total circuitry only, that is, the tunable antenna system, which resonates in 'tune' with the radio carrier frequency being 'tuned' for. The rest of the circuit need not display any resonant activities whatsoever. The rest of the compound circuit is designed to separate the amplitude variations in the carrier signal (the audio frequency signal that's superimposed on the carrier) from the carrier frequency itself (for which the antenna system has been tuned to resonate with), and then amplify the separated electrical audio frequency, before converting it to sound via the speaker.
Resonance is not required in the separation, amplification and conversion stages of the circuit.
Cheers
-
Yeah Brad. Its best to jump that ship. It aint goin nowhere. ;) It will always be demands that you provide to prove, but he never has to do anything of the like. And it will continue 'EXACTLY' like this for as long as you reply. look back 10 days ago. Same shit. 20 days ago. Same. It is what is was and it is what it is. Ever see the movie Boondock Saints?
"Where you goin? NO WHERE. " ;D
Heh. found clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdP2avo-Mfg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdP2avo-Mfg)
Just spend the posts on our work n make projects. ;D
Wiping down the bench tomorrow and work on this. ;)
Also, that last post with the shots, I had 4 disk caps across the batt on the board I forgot of not thinking of their affect there. Without them the freq increases and less noticeable. But with the 4 disks its swinging, so Ill go with that.
Mags
Perhaps MH would like to go and argue with all these other guy's that say the very same thing i have said,in regards to !what is resonance! ,instead of doing nothing other than providing nothing. :D
I find it hard to believe in some one that works in such ways,and either gets many things wrong,or misses vital required information when posting in reference to making determinations.
MHs top speed of a car example is a good example of required missing information to make such a determination.
Quote: How do you determine the maximum speed of your car in simple terms?
The answer is the maximum speed of the car is determined from where the maximum horsepower that can be output by the engine is in balance with all of the air friction and various other friction forces.
Although simple,it is incomplete,and a determination of the car's top speed cannot be made from the information provided as MH has clearly stated.
You can see he has only included frictional forces,while leaving out one other force that is vital in determining the top speed of the vehicle. This missing force provides the needed information about the environment in which the car will be traveling in,and without it,the determination cannot be made.
The problem we have here is very large,and can quite easily be seen as disinformation.
This is one of the reasons many people just give up,and one of the reasons man has not progressed any further than he has today. The problem being so called guru's trying to tell you that you are wrong,and are going about things the wrong way--you do not have the correct understanding to progress any further than you have--until you listen to me. These sort of comments come from people that have nothing to show to back up there claim's.They cannot even put together a completed,self presented example of making a simple determination that works. They do not even practice the art them self. They do not even see the effects in existing system's of that they are trying to preach.
These are time waster's,and are here only to make life hard.
They are people that cannot and do not answer there own question's--and yet expect others to answer these questions within days,and to be answered in the same twisted way that the presenter of the questions wants them answered in.
Mag's
I am spending the weekend down the coast a ways,on the boat. But i have begun work on a duel core resonant circuit,and should have it finished around mid week,next week.
Time to move on,as most of us have a grasp on what resonance is,and how it can reduces losses/increase efficiency's in all manor of different systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzHajoDf1fg
Brad
-
Total system resonance is not a prerequisite for resonant electronic circuits. Where on earth did you get that idea from.?
A simple am radio receiver is a compound circuit (a total system) that relies on tunable resonance in one minor portion of the total circuitry only, that is, the tunable antenna system, which resonates in 'tune' with the radio carrier frequency being 'tuned' for. The rest of the circuit need not display any resonant activities whatsoever. The rest of the compound circuit is designed to separate the amplitude variations in the carrier signal (the audio frequency signal that's superimposed on the carrier) from the carrier frequency itself (for which the antenna system has been tuned to resonate with), and then amplify the separated electrical audio frequency, before converting it to sound via the speaker.
Resonance is not required in the separation, amplification and conversion stages of the circuit.
Cheers
I agree hoptoad-you will never get every component in a switched electromagnetic circuit to be in resonance.
You only need the transmitting to receiving part of the device to be in resonance.
Brad
-
TinMan
while you soakin your tootsies in the beautiful oceans that abound in your part of the world.
contemplate Total resonance in a system [ICE} a Huge standing wave, 8 HP per cubic inch normally aspirated
the standing wave coming out the tail pipe and injecting water after the tail pipe into "that " standing wave ??
it would be nice to know how much fuel is used to do this ,and as you mentioned.. how much heat is given off by the whole system [to add to energy calcs]
and How to do this in on the Bench with circuits and wire ??[as Johan hinted ...seemed cascading JT's ???
I actually am not certain that Robby's 50 CC 24 HP motor is doing this [water injection after the tailpipe.
nor am I understanding his cascading Jule thiefs ?
will have to Give Johan a ring on the weekend.
Have fun on the boat !
-
Mags
I brought you a Thing...if you haven't seen this thing ,,,your gonna Luv it
thanks to Franco for posting it .
http://www.lafucina.it/2014/09/01/esperimento-acqua-e-suono/
takes the salt shaker sound pattern vid to the next level..I wonder if cavitated water [zillion fine bubbles] in an aquarium
or rain drops in an aquarium ?? would show the salt shaker waves you posted in 3 D ...or maybe smoke in an aquarium ??
what a wild place we live in !!
-
Your continual insistance of everyone being wrong, while you have provided nothing in the way of answers, is now considered as nothing but unfounded babble.
As you offer no counter argument, that is backed up with proof, you are seen to be no better than those that also try to peddle free energy devices for self gain.
You are a phoney MH--thats all you are, and not worthy of anymore of my time.
You provide endless talk, but you never back up your own claims.
Brad.
This is just a bunch of sour grapes from a sore loser. I am not insisting on anything, I was just telling you that your responses were wrong. You have said a ton of stuff in this thread that was babble, and you were told straight up that it was babble. That's much better than being in a continuous "affirmation environment" no matter what you say or do. That just coddles you and makes you comfortably numb.
More whining and complaining about no counter-argument. When you don't know something you are used to being told the answer within 15 minutes of not getting it. There is no instant answer, there is no multiple choice, there is no trophy for every single child on every single team in the soccer league. Instead you have to study and work it out yourself.
Calling me a "phony" is just another cop-out to make you feel better. Brad isn't wrong, he's just dealing with a phony - my ass. The endless talk has come from you. Instead of having a debate like a rational person, all that you could do was insist that you were right on just about every point, or call me a liar, even if it meant you had to say the same thing 20 times over. You are so used to being coddled, that hearing the straight goods from someone was enough to make you freak out.
Time to move on,as most of us have a grasp on what resonance is,and how it can reduces losses/increase efficiency's in all manor of different systems.
You clearly don't have a grasp on what resonance is in a wine glass. Resonance is not some kind of "magic increasing efficiency effect" like you are trying to allude to. These things have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. And I don't give a rat's ass about the speed of the vehicle and I would not be surprised if your "missing ingredient" actually turns out to be phony baloney like I already told you. There is no point in bringing up the same thing over and over.
If you want to take another shot at answering the wine glass questions, go ahead. If they remain unanswered, they will be answered later.
MileHigh
-
Although simple,it is incomplete,and a determination of the car's top speed cannot be made from the information provided as MH has clearly stated.
You can see he has only included frictional forces,while leaving out one other force that is vital in determining the top speed of the vehicle. This missing force provides the needed information about the environment in which the car will be traveling in,and without it,the determination cannot be made.
I will give you an example of Brad's potential phony baloney, retarded logic, whatever you want to call it.
The "one other force that is vital in determining the top speed of the vehicle" is gravity. If the car is on a downhill slope, it will have a higher top speed compared to if the car is on a flat surface. If the car is on an uphill slope, it will have a lower top speed compared to if the car is on a flat surface.
Wow, such profound insights - NOT. That would be a laughable "MileHigh is WRONG!" argument from Brad.
Whether it really is the "missing gravity factor" or not, I don't really know. I am just using the example of gravity to illustrate the possibility that Brad is full of phony baloney and bizarre thought processes about this issue and not thinking straight.
-
Perhaps MH would like to go and argue with all these other guy's that say the very same thing i have said,in regards to !what is resonance! ,instead of doing nothing other than providing nothing.
Here is another example of an illogical thought process from Brad. I am not arguing with anybody about what resonance is at all. That's just another Brad stream-of-consciousness ricochet going off somewhere in his head. I asked two simple questions about resonance for the case of a wine glass and I specifically requested short, simple answers of four sentences or less in the person's own words - no copy/paste. I haven't seen those two questions answered properly yet, and if nobody gets it then the answers will be provided later.
-
Perhaps MH would like to go and argue with all these other guy's that say the very same thing i have said,in regards to !what is resonance! ,instead of doing nothing other than providing nothing. :D
I find it hard to believe in some one that works in such ways,and either gets many things wrong,or misses vital required information when posting in reference to making determinations.
MHs top speed of a car example is a good example of required missing information to make such a determination.
Quote: How do you determine the maximum speed of your car in simple terms?
The answer is the maximum speed of the car is determined from where the maximum horsepower that can be output by the engine is in balance with all of the air friction and various other friction forces.
Although simple,it is incomplete,and a determination of the car's top speed cannot be made from the information provided as MH has clearly stated.
You can see he has only included frictional forces,while leaving out one other force that is vital in determining the top speed of the vehicle. This missing force provides the needed information about the environment in which the car will be traveling in,and without it,the determination cannot be made.
The problem we have here is very large,and can quite easily be seen as disinformation.
This is one of the reasons many people just give up,and one of the reasons man has not progressed any further than he has today. The problem being so called guru's trying to tell you that you are wrong,and are going about things the wrong way--you do not have the correct understanding to progress any further than you have--until you listen to me. These sort of comments come from people that have nothing to show to back up there claim's.They cannot even put together a completed,self presented example of making a simple determination that works. They do not even practice the art them self. They do not even see the effects in existing system's of that they are trying to preach.
These are time waster's,and are here only to make life hard.
They are people that cannot and do not answer there own question's--and yet expect others to answer these questions within days,and to be answered in the same twisted way that the presenter of the questions wants them answered in.
Mag's
I am spending the weekend down the coast a ways,on the boat. But i have begun work on a duel core resonant circuit,and should have it finished around mid week,next week.
Time to move on,as most of us have a grasp on what resonance is,and how it can reduces losses/increase efficiency's in all manor of different systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzHajoDf1fg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzHajoDf1fg)
Brad
"These are time waster's,and are here only to make life hard."
Im with ya there 100%. ;)
"They are people that cannot and do not answer there own question's--and yet expect others to answer these questions within days,and to be answered in the same twisted way that the presenter of the questions wants them answered in."
I think there is more to it than that, but thats all Ill say. For now. ;)
Mags
-
Mags
I brought you a Thing...if you haven't seen this thing ,,,your gonna Luv it
thanks to Franco for posting it .
http://www.lafucina.it/2014/09/01/esperimento-acqua-e-suono/ (http://www.lafucina.it/2014/09/01/esperimento-acqua-e-suono/)
takes the salt shaker sound pattern vid to the next level..I wonder if cavitated water [zillion fine bubbles] in an aquarium
or rain drops in an aquarium ?? would show the salt shaker waves you posted in 3 D ...or maybe smoke in an aquarium ??
what a wild place we live in !!
That was really cool. Thanks ;D
here is the direct YT link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uENITui5_jU
Mags
-
That was really cool. Thanks ;D
here is the direct YT link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uENITui5_jU
Mags
I agree - very cool.
But oh dear, frequency altering the effects of gravity? My my. Maybe there really is something to this resonance thing :)
Bob
-
"They are people that cannot and do not answer there own question's--and yet expect others to answer these questions within days,and to be answered in the same twisted way that the presenter of the questions wants them answered in."
I think there is more to it than that, but thats all Ill say. For now. (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
Mags
There is nothing more to it than that. I can answer my own questions, Brad is talking nonsense. There is nothing twisted about my straight forward questions, more nonsense.
If you have something to say, go ahead.
What I can see is that you are doing some searching on resonance because this discussion has given you the motivation to inform and educate yourself instead of just being on cruise control.
Have you ever disagreed with Brad in your life? I have a feeling that you haven't, it's the good old straitjacket effect. I am sure that you have read stuff that he has posted that you disagree with strongly, but you stay mute. It just promotes stagnation.
Why don't you answer the questions yourself? I have to assume that you can't either. So we have a trio of "resonance researchers" that can't answer a few simple questions about a resonating wine glass. That should make you all want to try to get better and more informed, and not to whine and complain like Brad.
MileHigh
-
I agree - very cool.
But oh dear, frequency altering the effects of gravity? My my. Maybe there really is something to this resonance thing :)
Bob
Frequency also makes propellers on airplanes spin slowly backwards and yet the planes fly forwards. :)
-
"These are time waster's,and are here only to make life hard."
Im with ya there 100%. ;)
"They are people that cannot and do not answer there own question's--and yet expect others to answer these questions within days,and to be answered in the same twisted way that the presenter of the questions wants them answered in."
I think there is more to it than that, but thats all Ill say. For now. ;)
Mags
Yes,and they laugh at things they dont understand,like-->
The "one other force that is vital in determining the top speed of the vehicle" is gravity. If the car is on a downhill slope, it will have a higher top speed compared to if the car is on a flat surface. If the car is on an uphill slope, it will have a lower top speed compared to if the car is on a flat surface.
Wow, such profound insights - NOT. That would be a laughable "MileHigh is WRONG!" argument from Brad.
The thing is,gravitational force is indeed the missing factor needed in order to make a correct determination of the cars top speed. But it would seem that MH has decided that the gravitational force is determined or !included in! the total frictional forces in his master piece.
I also remember him referring to a sewing machine,where he decided that a sewing machine has no resonant frequency at all--another bumbled attempt at trying to dismiss resonant frequencies in everyday machines. Well i'm calling him out on this one as well,as the sewing machine dose indeed have a resonant frequency that in directly inline with the scientific model of resonance--you only have to look at the mechanical workings of the sewing machine,and Tesla's earth quake machine,where you have a very small oscillating weight,that when the oscillation frequency is at the correct frequency,larger secondary masses will begin to oscillate at large amplitudes.
Everything this !!teacher!! has said so far -in this thread alone,has been incorrect-->and yet his insistence on us being wrong continues.
We now see remark's like--you cannot have a reasonable debate about the subject ::)-->this of course coming from some one that is yet to put forward any explanations toward this discussion-and refuses to do so. So how do we have a debate when only one side has been putting all the effort into answering questions asked ? How is it that these answers could be deemed wrong by the questionnaire,when he has put forward no answers toward this debate that he insist we should be having?--not to mention that he has been wrong on every occasion so far.
There is also the fact that this list of incorrectness is growing for said teacher as the thread go's on.
This list i expect to continue to grow--we will see how he go's with the gravitational force in regards to his top speed of a car determination,and whether or not he will become the first to work out what the force of gravity is--is it just resistance :o I dont expect an answer to be forth coming on this one.
Then there is his sewing machine saga,where the sewing machine was suppose to be some sort of distorted representation of a 2 stroke engine that would disprove resonant systems within the 2 stroke ICE. I am saying that the sewing machine dose indeed have a point of opperating speed where a resonant frequency is reached--> i will await said teachers response on this one as well--but i also expect that there will be none now that he has had time to think about his silly little statements.
So continue your attack on me MH,and i will continue to defend myself by way of exposing every mistake you have mad so far on this thread alone.
Summery
The sewing machine dose indeed have a resonant operating frequency.
Gravity !IS! the missing vital piece to your attempt at determining the top speed of a car--and it is not a frictional force.
ICEs do have resonant systems that do increase the efficiency of that ICE.
A debate cannot happen when only one side is putting forward there thought's,while the other side refuses to put forward there thought's.
The "one other force that is vital in determining the top speed of the vehicle" is gravity. If the car is on a downhill slope, it will have a higher top speed compared to if the car is on a flat surface. If the car is on an uphill slope, it will have a lower top speed compared to if the car is on a flat surface.
Wow, such profound insights - NOT. That would be a laughable
So man up MH,and lets see who has the last laugh.
Lets see you prove that the gravitational force is accounted for in your !total friction and engine HP! is all that is needed to make the top speed of a car determination.
You want to debate a subject?--then lets start with this one,as we cannot debate the wine glass questions until you actually put forward some sort of counter claim.
Once we have sorted the !top speed of a car! debate,we can start off on the sewing machines resonant frequency curve ball you threw in there,in some wacky attempt to dismiss resonant operations in an ICE.
One by one we will put an end to your rubbish and disinformation you are plastering all over this thread for some reason :o---along with your !so far! failed attempt to discredit me.
Brad
-
There is nothing more to it than that. I can answer my own questions, Brad is talking nonsense. There is nothing twisted about my straight forward questions, more nonsense.
If you have something to say, go ahead.
What I can see is that you are doing some searching on resonance because this discussion has given you the motivation to inform and educate yourself instead of just being on cruise control.
Have you ever disagreed with Brad in your life? I have a feeling that you haven't, it's the good old straitjacket effect. I am sure that you have read stuff that he has posted that you disagree with strongly, but you stay mute. It just promotes stagnation.
Why don't you answer the questions yourself? I have to assume that you can't either. So we have a trio of "resonance researchers" that can't answer a few simple questions about a resonating wine glass. That should make you all want to try to get better and more informed, and not to whine and complain like Brad.
MileHigh
Its just the simple fact that you have been spending most of your time here bashing, bashing and more never ending bashing. You say it is to save others from spending money on nonsense. lol the parts required for a joule thief is next to nothing. Where is the big savings??? They can take an old pc power supply and get what they need other than an led and a AA. And probably dead ones from the junk drawer. ::) Even radioshack with say $20 max in parts. Dang, little kids are going to be starving because of it all. ::)
You have said a few times here so far that you were done and were going to leave us to our work. Thats not going to happen. ::)
So you do what you gotta do, for how ever long you wanna do it. I will probably put you on ignore soon. When thats done, it kinda screws thing up due to seeing replys to you without your input, but my pages will be less of a hassle to go through.
Your here to discredit. To make us look like we cant do anything. Move along readers.
You say you have 3500 hours on the bench 30 yrs ago. What is that? Lets see, 5 days a week, 52 weeks, eight hours a day, 2080 hours. Maybe all 3500 hrs in say 2 years. I spent 4hrs a day, 5 days a week at votech 10th through 12th grade. 2 years at electronic institute of Pittsburgh. 6 years fixing vcrs, camcorders, amplifiers and most everything other than TVs, professionally at 2 different shops over that period. Also countless hours working on mechanical and electronic stuff here since what, 2008?
I got you beat pretty bad there. I even had to tell you that a red led wont light up with just a 1.5v batt like you described it would in Larskros motor. If you deny that I will hunt down that page of posts for all to see. Thats what 30yrs off the short time on the bench does. Cant remember everything in accurate detail, but you profess that you got it all in that head of yours and fight tooth n nail, and tell us allll about your couple years on the bench 30 yrs ago, and at times, use that for an excuse for not knowing something when someone finally proves your wrong, just like you did in that thread we argued about with Larskros motor. :o
I remember it pretty clearly. You had drawn up or modified Larskros schematic showing the motor being activated with the reed switch from the battery and showing the led as being powered by the battery alone when the reed closed, completely ignoring the fact that the coils field collapse was capable of firing the led when in was across the coil like larskro had shown it. ;)
Thats a very accurate memory of it. Go ahead. Deny it. Ill plaster every page of it right here so the 'readers' can see what you are all about. ;)
Try me. ;)
Magluvin
-
Why don't you answer the questions yourself? I have to assume that you can't either. So we have a trio of "resonance researchers" that can't answer a few simple questions about a resonating wine glass. That should make you all want to try to get better and more informed, and not to whine and complain like Brad.
MileHigh
Im just waiting for this BIG reveal to occur. So what, 6 weeks maybe, being what, 2 weeks ago you stated 4 to 8 weeks? Cant wait for the big event. ::)
Im not going to be coerced into that never ending crap. Others can continue on with you if they want to, but ive been through this before a few times and dont have time for this.
Mags
-
Brad:
The thing is,gravitational force is indeed the missing factor needed in order to make a correct determination of the cars top speed.
You have got to be absolutely out of your mind. All this time you have been ragging me about the "secret" and it's bloody gravity. Yet again, you are making a fool of yourself.
Why don't you go join these two automotive forums:
http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/ (http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/)
http://ls1tech.com/forums/ (http://ls1tech.com/forums/)
Make a posting that says, "We need a new test for a car's top speed. We need a level track, an uphill track, and a downhill track and we need to quote three top speeds for every new car."
Watch the posters there slice you to pieces and make mincemeat out of you and think that it is an early April Fool's joke. You are unbelievable, or should I say beyond unbelievable.
I also remember him referring to a sewing machine,where he decided that a sewing machine has no resonant frequency at all--another bumbled attempt at trying to dismiss resonant frequencies in everyday machines.
More retarded nonsense. A sewing machine is not designed to resonate. If you hit some kind of resonant mode in a sewing machine something might start shaking too much and ruin the machine's ability to sew. In other words, a sewing machine will not operate "better through resonance." Any mechanical machine or system will have all sorts of resonant modes and by design they are normally to be avoided or they are intentionally damped out. Smoky2 even made reference to it. I am pretty sure that he was talking about the mechanical resonant frequency of an entire engine block assembly. The last thing you want to have is an engine revving at the fundamental resonant frequency of the engine block assembly because the thing might shake itself into destruction.
Everything this !!teacher!! has said so far -in this thread alone,has been incorrect
I will call you out on this - you are completely full of shit. You are showing your critical flaw. "Everything" I said? All that you are doing is showing that when you are stressed from a debate is that you will lie through your teeth as it suits you. Therefore, when you get into this state, nobody should be surprised if you pick and choose when to lie to advance your cause. You simply can't be trusted when you get into a heated debate, and for all practical intents and purposes you completely lose your decorum and become a temporary pathological liar.
So man up MH,and lets see who has the last laugh.
That has already been decided.
One by one we will put an end to your rubbish and disinformation you are plastering all over this thread for some reason (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)---along with your !so far! failed attempt to discredit me.
Just read what I stated above and think about it a long hard time.
There is no point in this kind of debate since you seem to lack common sense and you simply cannot be trusted like I sate above.
The only thing I am interested in is closing the loop on is the two questions about the resonating wine glass.
MileHigh
-
Magluvin:
The only interest at this point is to close the loop on the resonating wine glass. Your buddy's bad karma is the reason you are going to wait, such is life.
I didn't know the voltage drop on an LED, I admit it. I am pretty sure I saw that funky pulse motor in a Revolution Green article about frauds and scams, go figure. For what it's worth, I don't recall you ever finishing that particular pulse motor project.
I am not here to bash people but I will stand my ground also. Surprise surprise, you have seen a lot of other bashing going on and said nothing about it. It's like you and Chet are bondage twins.
It's all useless water under the bridge at this point in time. My only interest is to close the loop on the wine glass. I would love to see one of you guys get it but I am not counting my chickens. On top of that, I am not really interested in commenting on people building pulse motors and stuff like that and it's highly unlikely I will do that again, especially for what Brad does. He can delude himself just fine without me. Nor am I here to discuss any bench work you may do with your "resonant Joule Thief" I have made that perfectly clear many times now. No kidding a Joule Thief costs less than ten bucks.
MileHigh
P.S.: The real reason I joined this thread was to try to get you guys to educate yourselves and get you to ask yourselves some critical questions about a Joule Thief and resonance. Is a Joule Thief designed to resonate? What does it mean for a Joule Thief to resonate? Should I just presume that a "resonant Joule Thief" will give me better performance before I take a long and hard look at that idea? Are we truly talking about resonance or it is something that looks like resonance? Before I look for resonance in a Joule Thief can I explain it and describe it for a common everyday example of resonance? How am I going to define better performance?
And I have been partially successful at getting you guys to do some critical thinking about what the whole thing means.
-
What the hell does a buzz bomb have to do with anything?
Frankly, the Buzz Bomb Pulse-Jet is a really good example of
resonance. Rather like the way a whistle resonates. :o 8)
As this discussion has illustrated, resonance has acquired
additional meanings as our time-line has progressed forward.
Resonance can even be applied to human traits and actions
or emotions. In fact Miles, it would seem that the tenor of this
discussion gets you "resonating" at a pretty good pitch! :) ;)
FarmHand offered some good food for thought to help clear things
up. (http://overunity.com/8341/joule-thief-101/msg476985/#msg476985)
If it oscillates then it could be said to resonate or be in resonance. ::)
Whaddya think Miles? Are you resonating with this? ;D
The Human Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste.
-
Yes indeed, Farmhand's posting was great.
I suppose there is some merit in what you have to say but there was more than one person resonating. There is a very familiar resonant drone about the magical benefits of resonance. It's a drone that has been sounding for years, people going in circles. I tried to destabilize the "harmony of going in circles." So the question is will people continue to drone on walking around in the same old circles, or will somebody break free?
-
Well why not make a thread about the subject you want to prove with the wine glass? If nobody shows up, then you will know how many people are interested in the subject? ;) And all the page after page, day after day will be dead on topic and most everything on resonance with a wine glass will be there. ;)
Here it is about joule thief basics. 101. So maybe if its all here on the basics, I dont see a problem with adding more to those basics, as it is a joule thief circuit we are dealing with.
But just because someone says that we can reach resonant freq with these and they light the leds longer that way, doesnt mean you have to push prod and never ending pestering of others here to do your bidding.
You try to belittle Brad for a missing hyphen in a word. For what?? Shall I go back and find some of your misspellings and point them out to, who? The readers? Or were you just trying to make Brad feel bad??? What was your intention there, really? ??? ??? ? What was the goal you had in pointing that out? ??? ??
I see just a couple posts back you use the word 'retarded' and not in the meaning of timing of an ICE. What if someone here has someone in their family that has problems that can be associated with that word, like down syndrome, etc. Do you believe that word is socially correct these days? Do you not know that you could be offending others here?? Anywhere?? Maybe you have more to learn about communicating with people properly than most everyone here. ;)
I just pm Stefan about a moderated thread and I told him my main reason for the request. I cannot let you in that thread to do what you do. Cant work like that. Make a thread where you can make comments or whatever about my thread. But you wont do it in mine. ;)
Well thats all the time I have for this back and forth tonight. Got bench? :P ;D
Mags
-
We need balance, now do a rant about Brad and Chet. ;)
The debate is essentially over, and the wine glass came up in the discussion. You definitely should want to understand how a wine glass resonates, especially considering how simple it is.
You don't need a moderated thread, because I won't post on any thread you start.
-
P.S.: The real reason I joined this thread was to try to get you guys to educate yourselves and get you to ask yourselves some critical questions about a Joule Thief and resonance. Is a Joule Thief designed to resonate? What does it mean for a Joule Thief to resonate? Should I just presume that a "resonant Joule Thief" will give me better performance before I take a long and hard look at that idea? Are we truly talking about resonance or it is something that looks like resonance? Before I look for resonance in a Joule Thief can I explain it and describe it for a common everyday example of resonance? How am I going to define better performance?
And I have been partially successful at getting you guys to do some critical thinking about what the whole thing means.
"The real reason I joined this thread was to try to get you guys to educate yourselves and get you to ask yourselves some critical questions about a Joule Thief and resonance."
But maybe nobody had done that before here. Maybe nobody was even looking for it. Maybe if the led wasnt lighting with higher resistances, then they just lowered the resistance till it lit to their liking, not fathoming that there could be a resonant freq in the transformer that could be reached by scanning that no light from the led area of the resistor scan. And maybe someone said they have done it finally. Says they will help in getting us to see it happen. But your distraction is fogging the whole idea into a wine glass contest. Do I have to count the pages let alone the posts? There are sooo many other threads that people are reading and putting money into experimenting blowing way more of their poor old sucker dollars than in this thread. Yet, and do I have to quote you, you do it here to help the readers save money. But certainly not their time as they read on day after day. Have you seen the readership in this thread? ;)
Again. Im waisting time. Got Bench? :o ;D
Mags
-
I am a member of Bench Experimenter's Anonymous. ;) The money issue is a straw man argument. I never said anything about that. It takes more than one person to post in a thread - balance balance balance. Good luck on your research and the wine glass questions stand and anybody is welcome to give it a shot.
-
P.S.: The real reason I joined this thread was to try to get you guys to educate yourselves and get you to ask yourselves some critical questions about a Joule Thief and resonance.
Just reading over my post, I have one more thing to say.....
The only thing you had to say in the beginning was that the is no resonance available in a JT. Then it was that the capacitance in the windings is insignificant. Not at the freq smoky was telling us of. ;) We can learn a lot more about resonance as a team by experimenting together and each happening on different things and ways of going about it.
But you will not let that happen. You want the thread to go in your direction. Misdirection that is. How can I look at it all these past weeks and think any differently? Its all so visibly clear that you dont want us to do the job. And as long as we try you will be there with pages of posts separating everything that has to do with the job making it a huge mess to read over.
Got Bench? :o ;D
Mags
-
Actually
Farmhand
your a motor head ,have you ever seen 8 HP per cubic inch on a normally aspirated recip ?
yes it can be argued that the rpm is taking normally aspirated out of the equation.
so what ?? it takes a cavity resonant system to a whole new level and should not be possible [in the books]
And sea Monkey as far as the Buzz bomb engine goes ..there is no engine without the resonance
that is the sole defining operating principle ..and one of the simplest ICE's there is ?
which is exactly why I showed MH the Monstrous hole in his "Brad your an idiot for saying resonance has anything to do with an ICE " argument.
and to be perfectly Clear just one of many holes...
MANY !!
and Johans point is that these huge resonant pressure waves are opening new paths to understanding
and just getting started .
resonance and good ICE design go hand in hand
will MH apologize for his ignorant attack on Brad
calling him all manner of insults for claiming this ??
that will never happen ....
something to do with Karma ??
*
I see mh's post below about scrapping
you call him all manner of insults because of YOUR ignorance on resonance
publicly use this to try and humiliate him
YOUR IGNORANCE ??
and you wonder why he's upset ?? and wants to get all Footbally on you ??
you self righteous Putz
-
You want the thread to go in your direction.
Brad wanted to scrap like a football hooligan and just this one time I decided to stand my ground. That's what determined the direction of the thread. The truth behind people's true character comes out in times like that.
So, time to move on and do your thing.
-
Brad wanted to scrap like a football hooligan and just this one time I decided to stand my ground. That's what determined the direction of the thread. The truth behind people's true character comes out in times like that.
So, time to move on and do your thing.
Ok. And thanks ;)
Mags
-
calling him all manner of insults for claiming this ??
When arguments are presented in the course of a
discussion I never take what some would think an
"insult" seriously or personally. People get excited and
often say the darndest things. Banter can be very
colorful indeed. In most cases it is just a matter of
good friends throwing colorful language at each other.
Sailors and Marines do that constantly. It's all in good
spirit and just a show.
By the way, I agree about the reciprocating engine. It
is an oscillator and it does resonate. A tunable variable
frequency oscillator. In fact there may be more than one
resonance at work at any given time as the engine is
running. Some have built in anti-resonance dampers to
minimize the stresses.
-
OK
About the wine glass. There are still a lot of variables unaccounted for.
For example:
Is the woman holding the wine glass pretty? Is she married or available? Is she of average weight or packing "a few extra pounds"?
What is her hair color? Is that her natural color? Is that actually her hair?
Now for the wine:
Is this a red or white wine?
Is it vintage? Or did it come out of a box? Was it dry or sweet? Is it a blended wine?
Now for the environment:
Was it raining outside? What was the humidity? Dew point? Barometer reading? Was it hot? Or freezing cold?
Now for the stimulus to break the wine glass:
Was it Ella Fitzgerald? Was it a Memorex tape? If you could not tell the difference, would you buy a Memorex tape?
MH's question about the wine glass is no where as simple as people might think. We have not even discussed the composition of the glass...
was it crystal? Or just cheap lead glass? Had this glass ever received any impacts to its surface that might compromise its structural integrity? ( ie was it ever dropped or scratched?)
Anyway, I am not sure why we are discussing wine glasses when the topic of the day is JT resonance...is it possible? Is it desirable? If so...why?
Bill
-
OK
About the wine glass. There are still a lot of variables unaccounted for.
For example:
Is the woman holding the wine glass pretty? Is she married or available? Is she of average weight or packing "a few extra pounds"?
What is her hair color? Is that her natural color? Is that actually her hair?
Now for the wine:
Is this a red or white wine?
Is it vintage? Or did it come out of a box? Was it dry or sweet? Is it a blended wine?
Now for the environment:
Was it raining outside? What was the humidity? Dew point? Barometer reading? Was it hot? Or freezing cold?
Now for the stimulus to break the wine glass:
Was it Ella Fitzgerald? Was it a Memorex tape? If you could not tell the difference, would you buy a Memorex tape?
MH's question about the wine glass is no where as simple as people might think. We have not even discussed the composition of the glass...
was it crystal? Or just cheap lead glass? Had this glass ever received any impacts to its surface that might compromise its structural integrity? ( ie was it ever dropped or scratched?)
Anyway, I am not sure why we are discussing wine glasses when the topic of the day is JT resonance...is it possible? Is it desirable? If so...why?
Bill
"Anyway, I am not sure why we are discussing wine glasses when the topic of the day is JT resonance...is it possible? Is it desirable? If so...why?"
Well Im hoping to find out what resonance here will do. What Im imagining is when we turn the resistor down, below the point of the led being lit at all, that as we see the trace on the scope becoming less and less, down to the point of it being a sine wave, as Smoky claimed and I have reached so far, that if we hit the resonant freq of the winding/transformer, its ring at the resonant freq will be much stronger than we see on the trace above or below the resonant freq.
Like if we put a small speaker say an inch above a guitar strings and drive the speaker at the freq of one of the strings, that string will vibrate. Change the freq to another string and that string will vibrate. So what we will look for is getting the JT circuit to try and run at a freq the transformer/winding/core likes to ring at and hopefully it is enough to run the led at the cost of lower input compared to ho the JT works as we know it now.
Like a standard wall transformer 120v to 12v. It doesnt operate at a resonant freq. But if it was run at resonant freq, would there be a difference in efficiency if we used that transformer at its resonant freq, of which will always be some freq above 60hz, and more like way above 60hz. But a standard transformer has too many losses, especially at high freq with the laminated cores.
Anyway, back to work. ;)
Mags
-
Something ive been thinking about for some time. It fits the topic because it is involved with the transformer function.
If we have a rod core, with say the primary on one end and a secondary on the other, where the pri and sec are not overlapped, when we put an ac input to the primary, loading the secondary should have the secondary producing an opposing field to the primary. No?
So with a toroid core, with primary on one side of the core and the secondary on the other side, when the primary induces the loaded secondary, and the secondary produces an opposing field, there is no longer a loop of field in the core as there should be both windings having their N pole fields facing each other in the core, and likewise the S pole fields opposing at the other end of the core in the open face of the core between the ends of the primary and secondary windings.
So it wouldnt be that the core is just saturated by increasing continuous loop of field in the core, it is sort of separating the core field holdings and we should be able to see field leakage N at one side of the core between the 2 windings ans S at the other during a half phase of operation, and the opposite happens at the open spaces of the core between the 2 windings.
Maybe im just tired. ;D If it is so, it would seem we didnt know that before? ???
Mags
-
Well, I appreciate your research efforts.
As far as resonance goes...what will resonate? The toroid? the coil windings on the toroid? The entire JT circuit?
I do not pretend to know the answer. I have now learned that when I was tuning my simple JT circuits, it was not to resonance, but to a sweet spot, which evidently is different. What I really think is going to happen is....just like the 2 stroke motor hitting resonance using a tuned exhaust pipe, we might see that the JT circuit hits resonance with a small part of the circuit just as the exhaust is only a small part of the gas engine.
As far as a tank circuit goes, we have made JT circuits (Thanks to Gadgetmall) with a cap at the base of the transistor. Would this make a "tank" circuit then? (I really do not know, I am asking) I just watched a good video last night done by Colin's Lab (From Adafruit) where he showed how energy was stored in an inductor...like in a capacitor so, does that mean that when using an inductor that we now have capacitance and therefore, resonance might play a part in efficiency? I do not think that anyone here is claiming O.U. from resonance in a JT circuit...however...I can feel MH's pain as you do not have to go very far on Youtube to see resonance listed as a KEY to OVERUNITY.
I think, and I am not speaking for him, this is my opinion, that MH is a bit sensitive to the resonance claims because, most of the time, the are linked to overunity, and he knows better. The arguments going on here now are a bit different but, I will say that the word "resonance" has been abused here on this forum, on Youtube, Peswiki, and many other forums that you could name.
I do not think that Tinman, Smokey, or anyone else here has claimed that resonance is the key to overunity...just added efficiency. (Which I agree with) So, it does not matter if it is a wine glass, ICE, toroid, or something else, we just need to move on and discuss things that might help us move forward.
Am I saying wineglass schmimglass?
Yes, I guess I am.
Bill
-
Well, I appreciate your research efforts.
As far as resonance goes...what will resonate? The toroid? the coil windings on the toroid? The entire JT circuit?
I do not pretend to know the answer. I have now learned that when I was tuning my simple JT circuits, it was not to resonance, but to a sweet spot, which evidently is different. What I really think is going to happen is....just like the 2 stroke motor hitting resonance using a tuned exhaust pipe, we might see that the JT circuit hits resonance with a small part of the circuit just as the exhaust is only a small part of the gas engine.
As far as a tank circuit goes, we have made JT circuits (Thanks to Gadgetmall) with a cap at the base of the transistor. Would this make a "tank" circuit then? (I really do not know, I am asking) I just watched a good video last night done by Colin's Lab (From Adafruit) where he showed how energy was stored in an inductor...like in a capacitor so, does that mean that when using an inductor that we now have capacitance and therefore, resonance might play a part in efficiency? I do not think that anyone here is claiming O.U. from resonance in a JT circuit...however...I can feel MH's pain as you do not have to go very far on Youtube to see resonance listed as a KEY to OVERUNITY.
I think, and I am not speaking for him, this is my opinion, that MH is a bit sensitive to the resonance claims because, most of the time, the are linked to overunity, and he knows better. The arguments going on here now are a bit different but, I will say that the word "resonance" has been abused here on this forum, on Youtube, Peswiki, and many other forums that you could name.
I do not think that Tinman, Smokey, or anyone else here has claimed that resonance is the key to overunity...just added efficiency. (Which I agree with) So, it does not matter if it is a wine glass, ICE, toroid, or something else, we just need to move on and discuss things that might help us move forward.
Am I saying wineglass schmimglass?
Yes, I guess I am.
Bill
From what I got from this is that possibly hitting the resonance of the windings, what ever their inductance, and their capacitance, which can ring and have a resonant freq that is determined by those values. These freq are up there in the mhz. And possibly get the core to resonate of which is a much higher freq.
So I believe we aim for those goals to see what we see.
What I was getting at with the guitar was if the speaker is at a freq of the first string, the others will remain relatively still in comparison to the first string. So all that sound energy from the speaker will move the other strings, but no where near their tuned freq. So if we play the speaker at C note and we have 1 string on the guitar and it is tuned at A, there would be a lot of wasted energy from the speaker if our objective is to move the string with the speaker. But if we play the speaker at the strings tuned freq, then our objective is achieved in a big way with the same input power.
Now we look at the transformer. If we hit the primary up with 60hz, and the secondary has a 1mhz resonant freq, then we must be wasting lots of power trying to get the secondary to provide output. Where if we were to input the resonant freq of the secondary, there should be more activity in the secondary than at 60hz. Seems to make sense. No? ;D Im just getting a grip on it more recently.
Mags
-
Something ive been thinking about for some time. It fits the topic because it is involved with the transformer function.
If we have a rod core, with say the primary on one end and a secondary on the other, where the pri and sec are not overlapped, when we put an ac input to the primary, loading the secondary should have the secondary producing an opposing field to the primary. No?
So with a toroid core, with primary on one side of the core and the secondary on the other side, when the primary induces the loaded secondary, and the secondary produces an opposing field, there is no longer a loop of field in the core as there should be both windings having their N pole fields facing each other in the core, and likewise the S pole fields opposing at the other end of the core in the open face of the core between the ends of the primary and secondary windings.
So it wouldnt be that the core is just saturated by increasing continuous loop of field in the core, it is sort of separating the core field holdings and we should be able to see field leakage N at one side of the core between the 2 windings ans S at the other during a half phase of operation, and the opposite happens at the open spaces of the core between the 2 windings.
Maybe im just tired. ;D If it is so, it would seem we didnt know that before? ???
Mags
One more thing and i gotta git
Im just trying to straighten this out in my head so Im not lost in that area. And if what I think is correct, there may be something good here. Got an idea. ;)
Now lets say we have a primary and secondary wound overlapping the whole core. Wind the sec first all the way around 1 time, 1 layer. Then wind the primary over top of that as a secondary layer, all the way around once. Now we add an AC input to the primary and its field is in the core in a loop, changing polarity for each phase of the AC input. Fine and dandy, I agree on that. Now load the secondary. It will produce and opposing field compared to the primary and they should be canceling in the core, depending on the currents for each.
If that the case, then when the primary and secondary are able to produce equal amounts of field opposing each other, then there would be littlle field in the core as compared to just the primary with input and sec not loaded.
Strange. Sort of belittles the meaning of saturation of the core, in my mind as to what I thought it meant, when the max in and out are achieved and fields cancel at full power compared to what I had normally thought, and there is more flux in the core at idle with no load on the sec?
K. Im nuts Need sleep :-[ ;D
Mags
-
Just a minor wine glass update: I am assuming that after the big reveal that there will be a lot of challenges, whining, moaning, complaining, resistance, disbelief and showboating. The simple truth is that I did all of the "analysis" in my head - just in my head. I didn't have do any Google searches or do any research at all - I just used my background and my wits. Of course if I said that and just left it at that there would be no end to it, and it would devolve into more reams and reams of trash talk and drive Magluvin nuts. So I did my Googling and after 20 minutes I have a bullet-proof backup for my upcoming reveal, and it is exactly like I knew it would be. That will put a stop to the insanity and shut it down.
-
One more thing and i gotta git
Im just trying to straighten this out in my head so Im not lost in that area. And if what I think is correct, there may be something good here. Got an idea. ;)
Now lets say we have a primary and secondary wound overlapping the whole core. Wind the sec first all the way around 1 time, 1 layer. Then wind the primary over top of that as a secondary layer, all the way around once. Now we add an AC input to the primary and its field is in the core in a loop, changing polarity for each phase of the AC input. Fine and dandy, I agree on that. Now load the secondary. It will produce and opposing field compared to the primary and they should be canceling in the core, depending on the currents for each.
If that the case, then when the primary and secondary are able to produce equal amounts of field opposing each other, then there would be littlle field in the core as compared to just the primary with input and sec not loaded.
Strange. Sort of belittles the meaning of saturation of the core, in my mind as to what I thought it meant, when the max in and out are achieved and fields cancel at full power compared to what I had normally thought, and there is more flux in the core at idle with no load on the sec?
K. Im nuts Need sleep :-[ ;D
Mags
Mags here is a link to a good guide for transformers. The clipping below explains what your post above says.
http://sound.westhost.com/xfmr.htm
Preface
One thing that obviously confuses many people is the idea of flux density within the transformer core. While this is covered in more detail in Section 2, it is important that this section's information is remembered at every stage of your reading through this article. For any power transformer, the maximum flux density in the core is obtained when the transformer is idle. I will reiterate this, as it is very important ...
For any power transformer, the maximum flux density is obtained when the transformer is idle.
The idea is counter-intuitive, it even verges on not making sense. Be that as it may, it's a fact, and missing it will ruin your understanding of transformers. At idle, the transformer back-EMF almost exactly cancels out the applied voltage. The small current that flows maintains the flux density at the maximum allowed value, and represents iron loss (see Section 2). As current is drawn from the secondary, the flux falls slightly, and allows more primary current to flow to provide the output current.
-
author=sm0ky2 link=topic=8341.msg476908#msg476908 date=1457600937]
And what is the wine glass analogy smOKy ?--is it MH approved?.
apparently not, since after I posted nearly 4 pages about the physics concerning such event, I am still accused of
"not answering the two questions"......
Show me a system(an electrical circuit such as a JT type circuit) where every component of that system operates at it's natural resonant frequency.
Brad
to begin I would cite all the works of Edwin Armstrong, and Nikola Tesla
after those who we first deny are forced to concede.
I shall send you to school for the remainder of the evening.
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/EddyCurrents/Instrumentation/resonantcircuits.htm (https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/EddyCurrents/Instrumentation/resonantcircuits.htm)
http://www.brats-qth.org/training/advanced/techasp10a.htm (http://www.brats-qth.org/training/advanced/techasp10a.htm)
after which time, we can begin your Jedi training.
once an understanding of basic concepts are gained, we can move on to more advanced circuit designs,
and the works of other inventors in this arena.
-
Total system resonance is not a prerequisite for resonant electronic circuits. Where on earth did you get that idea from.?
A simple am radio receiver is a compound circuit (a total system) that relies on tunable resonance in one minor portion of the total circuitry only, that is, the tunable antenna system, which resonates in 'tune' with the radio carrier frequency being 'tuned' for. The rest of the circuit need not display any resonant activities whatsoever. The rest of the compound circuit is designed to separate the amplitude variations in the carrier signal (the audio frequency signal that's superimposed on the carrier) from the carrier frequency itself (for which the antenna system has been tuned to resonate with), and then amplify the separated electrical audio frequency, before converting it to sound via the speaker.
Resonance is not required in the separation, amplification and conversion stages of the circuit.
Cheers
Yes,. you are correct, that in standard practices, total circuits are NOT designed to be resonant.
And as long as the feedback is blocked from interfering with the resonant portion of the circuit,
then it should operate properly.
However, I would argue that these are not truly resonant.
only partially resonant.
What I am talking about are circuits designed to be entirely resonant, among each of its' parts.
-
OK MILE HIGH I TOTALLY HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR YOUR ABILITY TO SORT THE BULLSHIT FROM THE REAL SHIT.
NOW A CHALLENGE FOR YOU ..IF I WIND A TRANSFORMER AS PER BELOW ILLUSTRATED WILL IT BE MORE EFFICIENT..
-
If we go back to the mechanical example.
whether just a simple mechanical oscillator, operating at resonance,
or the large bridge that tears itself apart.....
Suppose for an instant, we placed some sort of "dampeners" against these oscillations, to siphon off some of the built-up energies.
rather than creating situations that simply disrupt and dissipate it.
Would this be a better scenario, than just letting the build-up energies go to waste?
If your answer be a yes or a no,
think about how this would apply to the electronic analogy.
-
OK MILE HIGH I TOTALLY HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR YOUR ABILITY TO SORT THE BULLSHIT FROM THE REAL SHIT.
NOW A CHALLENGE FOR YOU ..IF I WIND A TRANSFORMER AS PER BELOW ILLUSTRATED WILL IT BE MORE EFFICIENT..
I don't see a transformer and I don't know what you mean when you say efficiency.
-
Oops.
-
Mags here is a link to a good guide for transformers. The clipping below explains what your post above says.
http://sound.westhost.com/xfmr.htm (http://sound.westhost.com/xfmr.htm)
Thanks farmhand. Its been buggin me for some time. We see all these diagrams/drawings of toroid and other closed core transformers that do not depict this. And the idea that the core would leak due to an over abundance of field when the transformer is working hard, calling it over saturation.
Ok. Question answered in the best way. ;)
Thanks again ;D
Mags
-
Thanks farmhand. Its been buggin me for some time. We see all these diagrams/drawings of toroid and other closed core transformers that do not depict this. And the idea that the core would leak due to an over abundance of field when the transformer is working hard, calling it over saturation.
Ok. Question answered in the best way. ;)
Thanks again ;D
Mags
yes. In fact, in engineering, the self-resonant frequency of the ferrite inductive core is understood to be
the frequency at which saturation peaks at a maximum (with no oversaturation) in the minimum time.
It is kind of a funny way of looking at things, but this is what occurs at that freq.
When the ferrite reaches saturation, it can hold no more field. (all else is wasted EMF radiation)
When the switching occurs right at this point, the resultant field collapse is precisely timed with the oscillations.
1/2T + 1/2T = T
In the case of undersaturation - there is a shorter charging time of the core material (or correspondingly weaker field)
clean waveforms can be transferred in this case, however it is not "resonant" with the ferrite.
In the case of oversaturation - there is a longer charging time of the core material, and a shorter discharge.
this leads to an imbalanced (asymmetrical) waveform. Also not "resonant" with the ferrite.
There are certain nodal frequencies in the case of undersaturation, where resonance can occur.
Not the case with oversaturation.
These conditions are in addition to what has been stated about the resonant frequency of the ferrite in previous posts.
It is not often looked at from this perspective, except by those that manufacture ferrite materials.
-
I don't see a transformer and I don't know what you mean when you say efficiency.
I second this position.
What I see is two coils wound around the same core, (in series-parallel-ish)
such that their corresponding N and S poles are on the opposite sides of the core.
meaning one coil is would in the opposite direction(-ish?)
I would expect something similar to this, to occur:
with the field biased towards the green arrows, due to the unclosed loops on the inside.
We would need a second coil to do any sort of "efficiency" measurements, or calculations.
unless we are measuring the induced magnetic field strength through the core.
and "efficiency" being the energy used to saturate the core material.
seems kind of vague, and would be difficult to measure.
-
Was going through my toroid cores. If you take a ferrite bead, most have seen, a medium dark grey, and use an ohm meter, you dont get any resistance reading. So they would appear to have the least amount of eddy currents and would be best for high freq operation. At least ones available locally or from a scavenged device.
Some cores do have continuity. Ones that are coated in various colors, if you scrape away some of the coating in 2 different places then measure, you would be surprised at what you find. Some may be 0ohm. Some like one I just checked, 214ohm, one at 1.4mohm. Ones that measure very low down to 0ohm, you can see they are shiny after scraping the coating, like if it is just solid iron. Probably used for low power/freq requirements.
So Im going for the known 'ferrite' core this round. Will do 11 turns, windings on opposite sides of the core. I have a bunch of the blue coated 1.4mohm cores that I want to try something leaning towards EMjunkys opposing coils by winding 2 identical transformers, but one has 1 winding wound in the opposite direction to see it that affects things with the circuit. Naturally I will have to reverse the polarity connection on the EMj winding to make it work. But just interested in what might happen, if it affects freq, etc.
Mags
-
In my post above I made a mistake and corrected it. Where you see 'ferrite' I had '0ohm' which would have not been the core I intended to use after posting all that. ::) ;D
Mags
-
Mags:
Yes, the colored ones are powdered iron. I always got better results with ferrite...with a high permeability if possible. It all depends upon the goal.
Bill
-
Hey Smoky
Started winding this thing and it hit me. You said you spent time winding as neat as possible, something like that. Too many pages to go through. ::)
So I thought, each winding needs to be perfect in respect to neighboring wires so the capacitance is the same so all the loops are tuned to 1 freq?
Having a sloppy winding will cause different resonances within the winding and not have max effect at 1 freq. So I presented 2 depictions of how I could wind it according to your advice. Which would you like me to do? I only did 3 turns as an example.
Thanks
Mags
-
Like should I force side by side alignment of the turns or let it follow the core being smaller diameter in the middle and larger outside diameter.
Mags
-
NOW YOU MUST SEE A TRANSFORMER..
-
Brad:
MileHigh
You have got to be absolutely out of your mind. All this time you have been ragging me about the "secret" and it's bloody gravity. Yet again, you are making a fool of yourself.
I am not kidding MH.
Please show us in your post(any of them) where the top speed was to be determined on a flat road.
Please show us where you posted !at what altitude! your speed test was to be done.
Another fail on your behalf MH,as you failed to include all the environmental conditions related to your determination test. Might as well leave out resistance when calculating P/in and P/out.
Make a posting that says, "We need a new test for a car's top speed. We need a level track, an uphill track, and a downhill track and we need to quote three top speeds for every new car."
Nope--just need all the relevant information in order for you determination to be correct,and then you would have covered all three above.
What you going to tell an uphill racer,when he asks what the top speed of your car is up a 30* incline?--I dont know,we only know flat road speed ::)
Why don't you go join these two automotive forums:
http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/ (http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/)
http://ls1tech.com/forums/ (http://ls1tech.com/forums/)
Why dont you go and join,and explain to them (using your formula) how to determine the top speed of there car's,and see how you go with that.
How do you think top speeds of vehicles are determined at the end of the day MH--the accurate determination? .Just like the resonant frequency of the wine glass--they bloody measure it. There are no MH wonder solutions used to make the final determination of a vehicles top speed.
Watch the posters there slice you to pieces and make mincemeat out of you and think that it is an early April Fool's joke. You are unbelievable, or should I say beyond unbelievable.
So go ahead MH,go try your luck with your skill set,and see how you go.
Go give them your formula for top speed,and we'll see who is laughed out of the arena.
More retarded nonsense. A sewing machine is not designed to resonate. If you hit some kind of resonant mode in a sewing machine something might start shaking too much and ruin the machine's ability to sew. In other words, a sewing machine will not operate "better through resonance." Any mechanical machine or system will have all sorts of resonant modes and by design they are normally to be avoided or they are intentionally damped out.
Oh--nice back peddle there MH. You have gone from !no resonance! in a sewing machine (in your crazy attempt to eliminate resonant systems in an ICE) to nearly every device having resonant node's lol.
Smoky2 even made reference to it. I am pretty sure that he was talking about the mechanical resonant frequency of an entire engine block assembly. The last thing you want to have is an engine revving at the fundamental resonant frequency of the engine block assembly because the thing might shake itself into destruction.
And so was born the counter balance shaft.
I will call you out on this - you are completely full of shit. You are showing your critical flaw
My only flaw so far in this thread,would be wasting my time continually putting a stop to your own bullshit MH--and i have done that ;)
"Everything" I said? All that you are doing is showing that when you are stressed from a debate is that you will lie through your teeth as it suits you.
Did you just call me a liar MH?
Show me these lie's MH.
You are a coward-there is no two ways about that.
Therefore, when you get into this state, nobody should be surprised if you pick and choose when to lie to advance your cause. You simply can't be trusted when you get into a heated debate, and for all practical intents and purposes you completely lose your decorum and become a temporary pathological liar.
There is no debate MH,as you have not put forward anything that relates to !what resonance is,or !how is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined. Instead you play your silly little !4 to 8! weeks game--truly pathetic.
I am not going to call you a liar MH,as i think it is more a case of you just not knowing what the hell it is you are talking about.
That has already been decided.
Lol--not yet--4 to 8 weeks :D
Just read what I stated above and think about it a long hard time.
I am happy with what i know,and how i have learned what i know-->and that is why i can correct your mistakes all the time.
Just read that Mag's had to teach you some simple stuff on LED's as well ;)--at least you are still learning MH.
There is no point in this kind of debate since you seem to lack common sense and you simply cannot be trusted like I sate above.
The debate issue again.
OK MH-how many times have i put forth answers to your question's?
And how many times have you put forward or presented a counter argument toward this !!!debate!!! you so much want?.--->Idiot.
The only thing I am interested in is closing the loop on is the two questions about the resonating wine glass.
Grammar error ?-dose not seem to make sense. Is there a spare !is! in that sentence MH ?.
Your not interested in that at all,or you would have presented !your! answers in this !!DEBATE!!! long ago. What is very clear(to everyone here),is you are more interested in seeing how much of a disturbance you can make in this thread. Your continual !!failed!! efforts in dismissing resonant systems that increase efficiency's ,has be exposed.
You are only here to disrupt--and that is very clear.
I am not a liar MH-->you are a fraud.
Brad
-
Brad wanted to scrap like a football hooligan and just this one time I decided to stand my ground. That's what determined the direction of the thread. The truth behind people's true character comes out in times like that.
So, time to move on and do your thing.
What i wanted to do MH,was expose you for who you really are--and that is a bullshit ex-spurt---ex being a !has been!,and a spurt being a !drip under pressure! .
In nearly every thread on this forum,if it dose not fit your !determination! of correctness,you just start your same old crap.
This was/is a good thread,and with good intention's. But here you are,once again, trying your best to dis inform people. Once again,you are trying to call! rubbish!--without having anything to contribute--4 to 8 weeks ::).
When you start saying crap like-there is no resonance at all-in any way,shape,or form,in an ICE that increases the efficiency of an ICE--then i am going to stop you in your tracks--stop your bullshit-->and thats what i did.
But you got your knickers in a twist,and for no other reason than it was me that corrected you--and you did not like that.
So yea--your right. When i seen you start with your incorrect babble,in an effort to turn people away from these experiment's,you got the big rugby tackle from me,and i put you on your ass.
So why dont you put your ass on a plane,and come and tell me face to face that i am a liar,in stead of hiding behind your keyboard--ya gutless little weasel.
Brad
-
author=sm0ky2 link=topic=8341.msg477158#msg477158 date=1457800303]
apparently not, since after I posted nearly 4 pages about the physics concerning such event, I am still accused of
"not answering the two questions"......
We are all in the same boat smOKy.
No one is MH approved here.
to begin I would cite all the works of Edwin Armstrong, and Nikola Tesla
after those who we first deny are forced to concede.
I shall send you to school for the remainder of the evening.
Is Nikola Tesla MH approved?
Maybe NT had it all screwed up as well.
Brad
-
If we go back to the mechanical example.
whether just a simple mechanical oscillator, operating at resonance,
or the large bridge that tears itself apart.....
Would this be a better scenario, than just letting the build-up energies go to waste?
If your answer be a yes or a no,
think about how this would apply to the electronic analogy.
Suppose for an instant, we placed some sort of "dampeners" against these oscillations, to siphon off some of the built-up energies.
rather than creating situations that simply disrupt and dissipate it.
Indeed.
And this is what the high end ICEs do. They load the engine so as they do not self destruct-well in the older one's anyway. Now day's we have things like Rev limiters to stop over revving,and self destruction.
-
Just a minor wine glass update: I am assuming that after the big reveal that there will be a lot of challenges, whining, moaning, complaining, resistance, disbelief and showboating. The simple truth is that I did all of the "analysis" in my head - just in my head. I didn't have do any Google searches or do any research at all - I just used my background and my wits. Of course if I said that and just left it at that there would be no end to it, and it would devolve into more reams and reams of trash talk and drive Magluvin nuts. So I did my Googling and after 20 minutes I have a bullet-proof backup for my upcoming reveal, and it is exactly like I knew it would be. That will put a stop to the insanity and shut it down.
Well lets hope it work's out a little better that your !no resonance what so ever in an ICE! did. ;)
Resistance you say?
I seem to remember you laughing at me mentioning resistance as being one of the determining factors. I wonder what it is that causes the wine glass to ring down,and stop resonating when you give it one quick sharp tap with a fork or something similar.
Brad
-
I AM SORRY TINMAN I WILL NEED TO INVOKE MY MOTHER IN LAW PICS IF YOU TwO DO NOT MARRY AND MAKE UP..
-
Just a minor wine glass update: I am assuming that after the big reveal that there will be a lot of challenges, whining, moaning, complaining, resistance, disbelief and showboating. The simple truth is that I did all of the "analysis" in my head - just in my head. I didn't have do any Google searches or do any research at all - I just used my background and my wits. Of course if I said that and just left it at that there would be no end to it, and it would devolve into more reams and reams of trash talk and drive Magluvin nuts. So I did my Googling and after 20 minutes I have a bullet-proof backup for my upcoming reveal, and it is exactly like I knew it would be. That will put a stop to the insanity and shut it down.
:D
-
Brad:
A while back you took on the strategy of "since he is telling me I am wrong about stuff, I will tell him he is wrong about everything and heap it on." It's painful to watch. The stuff about the car's top speed is ridiculous and painful to watch. I brought up that to give you a simple analogy to show you that you could answer the question about determining the resonant frequency of the wine glass without measuring it (ridiculous) or having any specifics. These are concepts that a 15-year-old will easily understand so why can't you? The car speed and the wine glass resonant frequency are two examples of you disrupting the thread. Both of them should not even be issues at all yet 10 or more pages have been devoted to these non issues. You are making people cringe.
The big fat lie is to say, "Everything this !!teacher!! has said so far -in this thread alone,has been incorrect." You are preposterous and there are other outright lies and I am sure many people have spotted them. You have really dug yourself into a hole, your brain is frying. You have been having one good long tantrum in this debate, and it's an ugly spectacle. You are the main cause of the disturbance in this thread because I decided to treat you as a 100% normal person that had to understand normal things that other normal people understand. Getting you to accept a question that a normal person would not have any issue with and not giving you a "special pass" led to you ranting and raving and disturbing the thread.
When you start saying crap like-there is no resonance at all-in any way,shape,or form,in an ICE that increases the efficiency of an ICE--then i am going to stop you in your tracks--stop your bullshit-->and thats what i did.
But you got your knickers in a twist,and for no other reason than it was me that corrected you--and you did not like that.
That example is just you with an inability to express yourself properly, which is another major problem in this thread. I get it now, an ICE can have Helmholtz resonators on the air intake and exhaust to improve the air flow into and out of the cylinder. I get it, I learned something new, and I acknowledge it. I never claimed to be an expert about car engines, and if you had just explained yourself properly it would never have been an issue in the first place. It's not an issue anymore. It's too bad that you can't do that.
ya gutless little weasel
Look in the mirror and see Brad's brain fry and kiss my ass. Pull yourself together and do some research and try to answer the two questions. The answers are ridiculously simple. The only thing I want to hear from you are answers to the two questions. Anything else at this point would be useless and just disrupt the thread.
MileHigh
-
THAT IS IT YOU TWO I HAVE INVOKE MY MOTHER IN LAW..
-
Hey
Screaming Fisherman
please remove this.... it has no place here !
EDIT
maybe Bill likes it ???
I see it passed his moderation below ?
classy place indeed !
-
Holy Crap!
Bill
-
Only 5 min., Dutch 20 years guy, old and 2 times World-Champion,
look same driver fast driving on a 2- and on 4-stroke machine,
so good / nice to hear the different resonance's!
Begin is 4-stroke, and at 3 min comes the 2-stroke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU0aSrdyHnk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU0aSrdyHnk)
--------------------------------
Please: Lets talk about: 0.2-0.3 volts JT with a tor and a resonator!!!
-
I'll bet she's got a natural resonant frequency when she's jogging!
-
I'll bet she's got a natural resonant frequency when she's jogging!
Probably has many of them, ha ha.
Bill
-
Who'd a thought it, Einstein and a mate patented a refrigerator.
-
Only 5 min., Dutch 20 years guy, old and 2 times World-Champion,
look same driver fast driving on a 2- and on 4-stroke machine,
so good / nice to hear the different resonance's!
Begin is 4-stroke, and at 3 min comes the 2-stroke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU0aSrdyHnk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU0aSrdyHnk)
--------------------------------
Please: Lets talk about: 0.2-0.3 volts JT with a tor and a resonator!!!
Very cool. I know the 2 strokes have the power/weight advantage but, I still like the sound of a 4 stroke engine better.
Here is a photo of my 4 stroke 49cc scoot. It does not pull wheelies but it gets over 100 mpg.
Bill
PS It has over 4,500 miles on it.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg477227#msg477227 date=1457882725]
A while back you took on the strategy of "since he is telling me I am wrong about stuff, I will tell him he is wrong about everything and heap it on." It's painful to watch.
What i took on MH,is to put an end to your negativity and incorrectness,in a hope that others will not give up based around the falsehoods you present.
The stuff about the car's top speed is ridiculous and painful to watch. I brought up that to give you a simple analogy to show you that you could answer the question about determining the resonant frequency of the wine glass without measuring it (ridiculous) or having any specifics.
I understand that MH,but you dont seem to understand that if you are going to make such presentations about simple analogies,then they have to be complete in order to be correct. Your analogy is incorrect,as you have included an assumption that others using it will assume that the road surface the car is to be traveling on is level/flat. For it to be complete and correct,then you simply add the gravitational factor in,and everything is accounted for.
I bet you cannot show me one of your books that says assumptions are ok in making accurate determinations.
These are concepts that a 15-year-old will easily understand so why can't you?
Any 15 year old will know that a car will go faster down hill than it will on a flat road,and so there go's your accurate determination of the cars top speed.
The car speed and the wine glass resonant frequency are two examples of you disrupting the thread. Both of them should not even be issues at all yet 10 or more pages have been devoted to these non issues. You are making people cringe.
What i am doing,is showing people that you cannot think things through properly or completely,and that your word is in no way a determination of how things will turn out.
The cars top speed was your input,and yours alone,and i pointed out your required missing data.
The big fat lie is to say, "Everything this !!teacher!! has said so far -in this thread alone,has been incorrect." You are preposterous and there are other outright lies and I am sure many people have spotted them.
No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever.
Thats what i would call a lie MH.
You have really dug yourself into a hole, your brain is frying. You have been having one good long tantrum in this debate, and it's an ugly spectacle.
MH
I can assure you that i am having no such tantrum. What i am trying to do is make people aware of your way's--and it seems you are helping me do so.
You are the main cause of the disturbance in this thread because I decided to treat you as a 100% normal person that had to understand normal things that other normal people understand
Well it seems that i understand !!normal!! things a little better than you do MH,and that much is evident in this thread. I am also seeing no others here agreeing with you as of yet.
Getting you to accept a question that a normal person would not have any issue with and not giving you a "special pass" led to you ranting and raving and disturbing the thread.
What i see here MH,is people answering your questions (myself,smOKy,ETC) with our own thought's,and then backing up those answers by way of research (google),and you saying we are all wrong. Then i read that you answered your own questions by way of your own thoughts,and then did some 20 minute google research,and your answers are correct. So how is it that all of our thought's and google research are incorrect,but your thought's and google research are correct?.
I get it now, an ICE can have Helmholtz resonators on the air intake and exhaust to improve the air flow into and out of the cylinder. I get it, I learned something new, and I acknowledge it.
This is good MH--we are slowly teaching you ;)
I never claimed to be an expert about car engines, and if you had just explained yourself properly it would never have been an issue in the first place. It's not an issue anymore. It's too bad that you can't do that.
I explained myself very clearly MH,but some how you got timing confused with resonance.
Remember MH--it was you that got confused with the difference between timing and resonance,and it was because of your mistake that the resonance issue in ICEs came about.
My exact words were Quote post 510: I dont think you grasp the reasoning behind resonance. The reasoning being much the same to that of having the timing correct in an ICE engine-done for best performance.
So am i incorrect MH?,is the timing not critical in both cases in order to achieve best performance/efficiency?.
Look in the mirror and see Brad's brain fry and kiss my ass
My brain is fine thank you MH. But it appears that yours is starting to take on a little more--learning is a good thing.
Pull yourself together and do some research and try to answer the two questions.
As far as im concerned,my answers are correct--along with smOKy's,as his are much the same as mine ;)
The answers are ridiculously simple.
As were the resonant factors in an ICE,and the determination of a car's yop speed--but you got both them wrong MH.
The only thing I want to hear from you are answers to the two questions. Anything else at this point would be useless and just disrupt the thread.
You have my answer's--many of them--and that's all you get.
The only disruption MH,is you and your silly 4 to 8 weeks posting !your! answer's,and then having the balls to say--we should be debating this. How do we have a debate when you do not provided any input toward the debate?.
Please point out where i have been wrong in this thread MH--that is backed up with actual proof,and not a MH assumption.
Brad
-
Brad:
I am not going to deal with your nonsensical BS and parroting and mirroring of what I say anymore.
Here are the two questions:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
Nobody has gotten the answers correct yet. I am requesting simple answers of four sentences or less in your own words. It would be a very worthwhile thing to understand mechanical resonance considering you want to look for resonance in a Joule Thief.
You will indeed wait for the answers if nobody gets them, and the wait is due to your own bad behaviour coming back and biting you in the ass. Karma is a bitch.
MileHigh
-
Anyway....
Here is my new wrap. Used 26awg, 11 turns on each side. Used that new glue they show on tv that cures with the UV flashlight. Not the same brand as the flashlight looks like a lil maglight and the glue is in a separate bottle. The stuff would never fix the broken cable to pull that truck on tv, but it is cure on demand not like super glue.
but it was great for this to keep the windings in place.
Mags
-
Brad:
MileHigh
I am not going to deal with your nonsensical BS and parroting and mirroring of what I say anymore.
Besides the fact that it is not nonsensical BS,i agree. I simply do not have the time to go around and correct all your mistakes and misdirection attempts anymore MH.
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
Both answered.
But what happened to the other question MH?--!What! determines the resonant frequency of a wine glass?. I mean,wasn't that what your bungled attempt at determining a cars top speed all about?.
Nobody has gotten the answers correct yet.
How have you determined this?.
Where is your scientific method that precedes that of what the rest of us used to answer your question's.
It would be a very worthwhile thing to understand mechanical resonance considering you want to look for resonance in a Joule Thief.
I think i understand it better than you think MH,and that is why i was able to correct your incorrect answer about the resonant systems within an ICE.
I think maybe it is you that needs a higher understanding of what resonance is MH--not the rest of us here.
You will indeed wait for the answers if nobody gets them,
MH
I am sorry to inform you,but i am waiting for nothing from you. Your track record here in this thread is way down,and your knowledge about what resonance is, is lacking in scope.
I can assure you that i will be paying no attention to your answer--for many reasons.
You had no idea about resonant systems within an ICE,and how they increase efficiency.
You bungled up your own example of determining a cars top speed.
You told us all that we are all wrong,and based that on your own thought's--only after did you go have a google(for a whole 20 minutes) to try and find something that may fit your own theory.
So i can assure you that i am not waiting for !your! answers MH,as we here on this thread already have the correct one's-->but thanks anyway.
and the wait is due to your own bad behaviour coming back and biting you in the ass. Karma is a bitch.
Oh come on MH,you put your foot in your mouth this time.
Onle a couple of pages back,you mentioned that you (later on) did a 20 minute google search,and found something that is suppose to back up your !theory!.
So it is clear that the 4 to 8 weeks thing is for the very reason i said it was for-->it gave you the time to try and find the answer's to your own question's--as all you had before was theories--your own thought's.
So stop with the bullshit MH,as you have really outsmarted your self on this one.
But even knowing that,you still continue to dig your self a deeper hole :o
Anyway,we are done MH--i have no more time for your idiocracies.
Brad
-
That's just another round of the same old disingenuous poseur BS that we are all very used to by now. It's like you are a carny trying to sell yourself and hype your concession but the game is rigged. Stay tuned.
-
That's just another round of the same old disingenuous poseur BS that we are all very used to by now. It's like you are a carny trying to sell yourself and hype your concession but the game is rigged. Stay tuned.
MH
You may say what you like,but the proof is in the pudding ;)
It is clear as to who in this thread has a good understanding on what resonance is,and where it can be found. You on the other hand seem to be lagging behind a little,and i think when people like smOKy start to dish out the real mechanisms behind resonance,you fall flat on your face--and this annoy's you-the fact that you are being outdone. So you have come up with some sort of diversion to try and save face. Thats all good MH,but like i said,i am not interested in !your! answers,as i already have the answers i need.
So thanks-but no thanks MH.
Brad
-
So far after some time consuming resistance scanning in the sine zone of circuit operation, havnt found any resonant freq going on other than the battery with the 4 disk caps. 1.64mhz. Probably each battery has a diff inductance due to charge level affecting it, and other factors. Will look into that.
Below are scope shots of the coil shown today with 1 shorted winding trying to reach the freq of the battery with the caps. The first one is tuning the resistor just before the resonant freq. The second is at the resonant freq, and the 3rd is tuned after the resonant freq. You can see the yellow trace of the led is higher when at the battery/cap freq.
Mags
-
Hey Bill
What were some of the higher freq you remember from back then?
Looking at Lasersabers builds. Seems some details are left out like winding turns on some. He calls it the joule ringer. I winder if his are operating at some resonance in the transformers. He seems to have gone up to higher numbers of turns which should allow lower freq of operation. I just seem to not be getting there.
Im trying some new things Ive come up with and see what I get. Then I gota git.
Mags
Mags
-
Mags, how come you shorted the extra winding rather than place a cap across it ? If you have a shorted winding and you know it's inductance when open as well as the operating frequency then you should be able to determine the correct capacitor so as to create a "resonant tank" rather than short that winding. The battery cap wave is kinda cool.
..
-
Mags, how come you shorted the extra winding rather than place a cap across it ? If you have a shorted winding and you know it's inductance when open as well as the operating frequency then you should be able to determine the correct capacitor so as to create a "resonant tank" rather than short that winding. The battery cap wave is kinda cool.
..
Hey Farmhand
Seems Im only getting up to under 300khz without the shorted one and some other core/windings up to poss 800khz. The added shorted turn takes me at times just over 2mhz. Just did it to get up to the freq range of the battery with the caps. Like if the circuit were to be driven at a freq(a freq without the shorted winding) and then added the shorted winding, the switching circuit would not self adjust and the shorted winding would become an excessive load. But when the circuit reacts to just a lower inductance, the freq of operation jumps accordingly. Demo'd that earlier one when I jumped in here.
Tried the cap on the shorted winding, and it was too low of a freq compared to the 1 turn shorted. The shorted turn actually makes the led brighter at lower resistance at the base. More input also, but havnt tested if the increase in input is mostly to the led or the winding is soaking it up yet. Just throwing thoughts around with it. Only killed 1 led so far. 3904 keeps going.
The battery oscillating seems like a cool thing to add to the whole. If I can get the windings to ring with the battery/cap, things should be in total sync. Dunno yet
Mags
-
Would have to get a variable cap to tune a winding. lookin into it.
Mags
-
can anybody please verify if this type of winding a coil transformer is more efficient than the rest..
-
That does not look to me like it will be transforming anything. Are you looking for step-up? Or step-down?
This drawing appears to be able to do neither.
I am no expert however...
Bill
-
step up step down coil does not matter, the crunch is in the way this coil is wound..so for the sake of testing wind the coil for a joule thief my way and the normal way and see the difference..
-
for the less fortunate
-
step up step down coil does not matter, the crunch is in the way this coil is wound..so for the sake of testing wind the coil for a joule thief my way and the normal way and see the difference..
I do not think that would work for any JT circuit I have ever made. I mean, you don't need the toroid or the square if you are just going around the outside of it....right? The way the photo shows, it would mostly be an air core as very little wire goes around any of the core itself.
Unless I am missing something from your drawing?
Bill
-
yes you have
-
Before I left the shop the other night, I tried some things and was adjusting the resistor in the range where there wasnt anything to be seen on the scope at all that had to do with switching. This was without the shorted winding. I found a point that the sig appeared and the led lit at low level. But again, it was at the freq of the battery oscillating, not the windings or core. Sort of happy just getting that for now.
Mags
-
@ Mag's-and all.
I will be posting in the new thread from no on regarding these experiments.
First up is to design and build a variable capacitor with a value range between .1uf to 100uf.
http://overunity.com/16486/resonance-circuits-and-resonance-systems/msg477396/#new
Cheers
Brad
-
Wow
very nice idea !!
-
Here's another different form of resonance that I found very interesting to ponder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiLplTc8rQY
It would appear that life itself relies on resonance in one form or another.
Cheers
-
Why don't we just stick to something a bit more tangible?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGTI5DLM6gQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pM6uD8nePo
Clearly many people are not in sync with the concept of a resonating wine glass. The idea doesn't resonate with them. How the hell does a bloody wine glass resonate I wonder? What about a bridge?
-
@ mags
nice coils!!
sorry I was away for a few days so I missed your question regarding the two coil examples.
as intuitive at it seems, many do not get that until they actually try to wind a coil
then realize you can't make them "straight" as in your first example, because the core is round.
every coil has some 'pitch' to the coil next to it, and so on.
even if you completely fill the torroid with wire, there is some pitch.
in fact, the degree of this pitch plays a role in the inductance equations.
and is used to determine the electromotive force vector of the angular current.
-
Here's another different form of resonance that I found very interesting to ponder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiLplTc8rQY
It would appear that life itself relies on resonance in one form or another.
Cheers
as does the existence of matter itself.
and, to a much greater magnitude, entire areas of our known universe.
-
Look at this, vibrating reed tachometers, a.k.a. vibrating reed frequency meters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5wgwvT8boc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5wgwvT8boc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBfzPmrkFYo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBfzPmrkFYo)
They used to put them on big backup diesel generators for buildings with vibrating reeds spaced very close together in frequency. That way you could see how close your backup generator was to generating 60 Hz or 50 Hz AC mains frequency under load. For all I know they still use them for big backup generators unless they have been all replaced with electronic frequency counters with digital displays.
How do they do it? Judging by the 64 pages of this thread, nobody has a clue how they do it except for me.
-
Why don't we just stick to something a bit more tangible?
snip..
How the hell does a bloody wine glass resonate I wonder? What about a bridge?
Why don't you just do something tangible and provide answers to your own questions?
-
They will be answered in the not too distant future. Sorry, but right now I am giving anyone interested a chance to take up the challenge.
-
let us take a moment to ponder this situation...
nearly 1,000 posts
nearly 300 posters
nearly 150,000 readers
and not a single one understands resonance....
except for Milehigh, who has never built a resonant device in his life.
Be it mechanical, audible, optical, atomic, thermal, or electromagnetic......
Physics describes all 6 of these situations in the exact same manner,
all of which MH declares to be "wrong".
From this there seems to be only two possibilities to deduce....
1) MH has something revolutionary to the whole of science, which he will soon disclose to us.
or
2) He is completely full of himself.
Either way, it should be entertaining...
-
Smoky2:
You have to stop this business of either making a straw man or saying things about me that you can't possibly know. I could just as easily say that in the 1980s you worked as a male stripper on the Las Vegas strip and made good tips, but I can't possibly know that, can I? Stop the nonsense.
I am curious to know if you can cite an example of thermal resonance. The Google search is somewhat nebulous.
I have absolutely nothing revolutionary to offer. I asked for simple answers and you said that you couldn't do that. Your complex answers started to resemble a word salad. If you can't answer simple questions with simple answers, then for me that means that you don't have a fundamental and basic understanding of resonance. You are welcome to prove me wrong any time you want.
You can really do without the fake swagger. You are supposed to be "searching for resonance" with Magluvin with some kind of very simple Joule Thief circuit. I believe that Magluvin talks about a resonating coil that forms part of the standard Joule Thief transformer. So why don't you guys take whatever simple variant on a Joule Thief circuit that you are supposed to be working on and draw up a full voltage and current timing diagram for the circuit on paper that shows how the circuit is "supposed" to resonate and show where the benefits are. In theory you should be able to conceptualize this on paper and show what you are supposed to see and then implement it on the bench. Why not put your money where your mouth is?
However, I have a feeling that we are never going to see anything even remotely close to this. What probably will happen is that you are going to "hunt" for resonance on the circuit itself and try all sorts of variations and look for the "magic." It will probably end up like some kind of needle in a haystack search, an exercise in trial and error. Turn pots and hope for the best. Will we ever see any kind of timing diagram that clearly shows a "resonant Joule Thief" I wonder. At least I annotated the main part of the timing diagram for a standard Joule Thief and I could easily have added the approximate current traces myself.
MileHigh
-
Sooo
MH
did you ever build a resonant anything ? {Please In one word ...or less
where tryin to cut Bandwidth Costs around here ]
A side note to All
Happy Saint Patty'''s Day .
and don't be breakin the Wifes Crystal !
-
Chet:
In another life I probably did an electronics lab on parallel and series LC circuits.
What about you?
MileHigh
-
and what is the challenge milehigh ? ...
-
let us take a moment to ponder this situation...
nearly 1,000 posts
nearly 300 posters
nearly 150,000 readers
and not a single one understands resonance....
except for Milehigh, who has never built a resonant device in his life.
Be it mechanical, audible, optical, atomic, thermal, or electromagnetic......
Physics describes all 6 of these situations in the exact same manner,
all of which MH declares to be "wrong".
From this there seems to be only two possibilities to deduce....
1) MH has something revolutionary to the whole of science, which he will soon disclose to us.
or
2) He is completely full of himself.
Either way, it should be entertaining...
What you are going to find smOKy,is MH will just post a very short explanation of what we have already stated. It will be much like his !! only 1 true JT circuit!! palava. If and when the big reveal come's,you will just say to your self--what an idiot--all that continuous dribble and demands for an answer like that. Something like !!resonance is harmonic vibration!!. It will be plain and dumb,and it would already have been covered by use here on this thread.
MH is at a point now where being the winner is all that matter's,and he will not care how he dose it.
I really think the doctor has short changed MH on his med's,and this is why we are seeing this idiotic game he is playing.
So dont expect much in the way of something that we have not already explained in a much more scientific manner.
Mag's and myself have a moderated thread now,so as to eliminate junk like this happening again.
Brad
-
Brad
The Old Rock on the MountainTop did see the error of his ways
and consulted the Oracle so as not to gain more Egg on face.... or Crow on table top !
MH
Quote
So I did my Googling and after 20 minutes I have a bullet-proof backup for my upcoming reveal, and it is exactly like I knew it would be. That will put a stop to the insanity and shut it down.
============
When using one'''s Own words... [the challenge he presented to Mortals here]
it is best For his Highness to hone his presentation and bend the rules in his favor ..
lest the minnions see the Horror of his nakedness...
MH
You are truly a self-righteous Putz extraordinaire !!
-
What you are going to find smOKy,is MH will just post a very short explanation of what we have already stated. It will be much like his !! only 1 true JT circuit!! palava. If and when the big reveal come's,you will just say to your self--what an idiot--all that continuous dribble and demands for an answer like that. Something like !!resonance is harmonic vibration!!. It will be plain and dumb,and it would already have been covered by use here on this thread.
MH is at a point now where being the winner is all that matter's,and he will not care how he dose it.
I really think the doctor has short changed MH on his med's,and this is why we are seeing this idiotic game he is playing.
So dont expect much in the way of something that we have not already explained in a much more scientific manner.
Mag's and myself have a moderated thread now,so as to eliminate junk like this happening again.
Brad
Brad, you clearly have not been able to answer the two questions in your own words at all, not even close. The only reason I did this exercise was because of the fatigue in seeing your continuous push-back in trying to have a debate with you about resonance. Brad lives in a fake dream world where he can never be wrong and will push back to extreme levels of irrationality, willful ignorance, and willful stupidity - in a vain attempt to prove he is never ever wrong. Big Brad the man knows everything and nobody can debate with him or tell him anything - he already knows. So I called your bluff and asked you two basic fundamental questions about resonance and you fell flat on your face and all that you have been able to do since then is grovel in the mud. Then your brain did the only defense mechanism it could find and went whackadoo by trying to feign that everything that I have been saying is wrong. You have been shown up to be a hapless poseur that is not perfect by a million miles.
Something like !!resonance is harmonic vibration!!.
The quote above is basically you shooting yourself in the foot because it's very close to your "explanation" of how a wine glass resonates which was something ridiculous like, "A wine glass resonates by when you hit it at its resonant frequency and it starts to resonate."
The whole point of this exercise beyond it being a learning experience about resonance, is the justly-deserved principle of calling your bluff and trying to make you realize that you can't just insist that you are right all the time when many times you are clearly dead wrong. Just you insisting that you are right and sticking your head in the sand does not make you right. It's to stop your completely idiotic games.
The junk is you spewing out a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo and insisting that you are right all the time because if not you are going to turn blue and have a tantrum.
MileHigh
-
Brad
The Old Rock on the MountainTop did see the error of his ways
and consulted the Oracle so as not to gain more Egg on face.... or Crow on table top !
MH
Quote
So I did my Googling and after 20 minutes I have a bullet-proof backup for my upcoming reveal, and it is exactly like I knew it would be. That will put a stop to the insanity and shut it down.
============
When using one'''s Own words... [the challenge he presented to Mortals here]
it is best For his Highness to hone his presentation and bend the rules in his favor ..
lest the minnions see the Horror of his nakedness...
MH
You are truly a self-righteous Putz extraordinaire !!
You are a big fat putz because you are acting like a mindless drone going after me and pretending Brad is an angel when he clearly is no angel. I don't need your little rhetorical technical questions. When I bounce a little rhetorical question back at you you clam up shut and don't have a single thing to say. Where are your bench experiments dude? How is working the phones going these days? Mr. "honest broker" lining up curious forum regulars with shady scam artists. You are going to change the world one day. You barely have a single qualifying bone in your body.
Putz you.
MileHigh
-
Miles
actually your words explaining your experiences are all I was looking for ,and seeing how they will apply to
your big revelation later on ?[Twas rhetorical after all]
Hypocrite !!
thanks for the call reminder tho , I have some cold calls to make !!
sure you don't want to Plug a few of your scams Here ?? [MH feels the itch as he bites his lip ,with his fingers twitching at the keyboard of Karma...
Like they say ...
there's no such thing as bad advertising !!
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg477518#msg477518 date=1458220538]
MileHigh
Lol.
Brad, you clearly have not been able to answer the two questions in your own words at all, not even close.
Only in your opinion MH.
The only reason I did this exercise was because of the fatigue in seeing your continuous push-back in trying to have a debate with you about resonance.
The old debate card again hey MH. Hard to have one(a debate) when only one out of the two are providing any input.
Brad lives in a fake dream world where he can never be wrong and will push back to extreme levels of irrationality, willful ignorance, and willful stupidity in a vain attempt to prove he is never ever wrong.
No MH. I am just putting an end to your bullshit and inability to know where resonant systems exist and produce the required outcome--EG,the ICE engine.
Big Brad the man knows everything and nobody can debate with him or tell him anything - he already knows.
MH.
For the last time.you cant play the debate card,as you refuse to have any input toward the answers you ask for. So at this point in time,myself(and everyone else here except you) have posted both the correct scientific terms,and also answers in my own words.
So I called your bluff and asked you two basic fundamental questions about resonance and you fell flat on your face and all that you have been able to do since then is grovel in the mud.
I have answered correctly MH,along with everyone else here. You on the other hand have answered nothing at all. So as it stands MH,you are incorrect,and so far it is you licking the mud from your lip's.
Then your brain did the only defense mechanism it could find and went whackadoo by trying to feign that everything that I have been saying is wrong. You have been shown up to be a hapless poseur that is not perfect by a million miles.
And so far i am right--you have been the only one here that has been wrong. We have proven this beyond doubt--the ICE saga,and your failed attempt at defining the top speed of a car,Oh and dont forget about the sewing machine flop you posted-that was in relation to the ICE-Some strange MH way ::)
After all this time(days and days),you still cant read post correctly. I cant wait to see what your 20 minute google research turned up--wonder how much you chopped and joined all that googling to make it fit your need;s--much like you have done here ,time and time again.
The whole point of this exercise beyond it being a learning experience about resonance, is the justly-deserved principle of calling your bluff and trying to make you realize that you can't just insist that you are right all the time when many times you are clearly dead wrong. Just you insisting that you are right and sticking your head in the sand does not make you right. It's to stop your completely idiotic games.
Well so far MH,i have been right about resonant systems on this thread,and so far you -um--well you havnt posted a god darn thing that is correct yet--you got it all wrong,and we here on this thread had to educate you a little on resonant systems--ones that actually exist.
The junk is you spewing out a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo and insisting that you are right all the time because if not you are going to turn blue and have a tantrum.
No MH,i am not right all the time--but when i am ;)
Now--MH--i have told you i dont have tantrums lol,--in fact,i think this is quite funny-watching you get all tied up in knots lol.
ATM this is actually some form of comical relief for me,after dealing with governmental idiots of a different bread for weeks on end. You see MH,you are small fry in regards to the path i am trying to take at the moment,and the things i am trying to bring forward. You were left behind way back when--and thats a long way back.
Sooner or later MH,you will find out what resonance really is,and where it can be found. In fact,it would be far harder for you to find things where resonant systems are not found.
I have some questions for you MH,and i want you to think very hard about them. We are using permanent magnets for these questions.
1- What is the magnetic force ?.
2- Is that force an alternating force,or a direct force.
3-If a direct force,why do people continue to try and power a device that requires an alternating force in order to operate,by using a source of energy that delivers only a direct force?
4- What device converts a direct force into usable power that dose not react against the magnetic force.?-->Of course you will need to know what the magnetic force actually is before you can answer that question-or even begin to understand it.
But who know's--maybe smash out another 20 minutes on google,and you have all the right answers :D
Brad.
-
Debate,,
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/debate
but where is the other side?
This was posted at one time,,
Saying "you are wrong" repeatedly is not a debate, saying "you are wrong" is a statement that must be proved,, not at some future time but at the time the statement is made.
Bingo Webby ;)
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg477521#msg477521 date=1458221425]
.
Putz you.
MileHigh
Brad is an angel when he clearly is no angel
Hell no.
I do not even believe in God--he's just another book MH,one where you will never find the truth,and one that brings nothing but bloodshed.
You are a big fat putz because you are acting like a mindless drone going after me and pretending
Well some one is pretending,but i dont think it is Chet ;)
I don't need your little rhetorical technical questions. When I bounce a little rhetorical question back at you you clam up shut and don't have a single thing to say. Where are your bench experiments dude? How is working the phones going these days? Mr. "honest broker" lining up curious forum regulars with shady scam artists. You are going to change the world one day. You barely have a single qualifying bone in your body.
So little you know MH.
What are your qualifications MH?. Your not a hair dresser by any chance?
Brad
-
Miles
actually your words explaining your experiences are all I was looking for ,and seeing how they will apply to
your big revelation later on ?[Twas rhetorical after all]
Hypocrite !!
thanks for the call reminder tho , I have some cold calls to make !!
sure you don't want to Plug a few of your scams Here ?? [MH feels the itch as he bites his lip ,with his fingers twitching at the keyboard of Karma...
Like they say ...
there's no such thing as bad advertising !!
Chet:
Enough of your nonsense. I have debated countless circuits and free energy propositions and shown my stuff. Don't try to feed me this BS line that goes like this, "If you haven't built a "resonance device" than you can never talk about resonance." That is utterly ridiculous, take your duct tape and put it back in your suppression and thought control bag, then burn the bag.
Show me three resonance-based devices that do something "special" that was done on one of the free energy forums. And I mean things that have been proven to work with solid data backing up the claims. Go ahead, I am waiting.
Don't go into irrational whackadoo land and try to imply that I have ever done any scams. Pull yourself together.
Before you cold call some other likely criminal to become their magic enabler to facilitate the changing of the word, why don't you answer the wine glass questions? I remember seeing you make a quasi-orgasmic posting once about **!!resonance!!!** a few years back so why don't you take a crack at it?
MileHigh
-
Man,solar panels are getting cheap
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/12V-200W-Solar-Panel-Kit-Home-Generator-Caravan-Camping-Power-Mono-Charging-PWN-/331639809484?hash=item4d3745e5cc:g:eZ0AAOSwDuJW0L51
-
Miles
for the time being
at your request ..
the magnifying glass is on you .
later [in some other life] we can debate how offers to investigate and properly measure claims ..
makes me part of a Scam ??
You Triple Mutant Putz...
-
Brad:
Only in your opinion MH.
No, I am telling you with absolute certainty that you are dead wrong. I know what I am talking about.
No MH. I am just putting an end to your bullshit and inability to know where resonant systems exist and produce the required outcome--EG,the ICE engine.
Total nonsense because I never made any claims about being an expert in engines and otherwise what you are suggesting in that statement is just bullshit spinning.
So at this point in time,myself(and everyone else here except you) have posted both the correct scientific terms,and also answers in my own words.
You clearly haven't done that at all. The two questions were posed such that I won't comment except to say if you are right or wrong. The questions will be answered later and only then will you be able to see how wrong you were. All that you have to do is demonstrate competence in your own words and as of now you can't do it.
And so far i am right--you have been the only one here that has been wrong. We have proven this beyond doubt--the ICE saga,and your failed attempt at defining the top speed of a car
What's highlighted above is you making a complete and utter idiot of yourself and everybody knows it. Everybody has enough common sense to know that you measure a car's top speed on level ground. So you know this too and you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative in pathetic attempt to say I am wrong, or, you are so lacking in common sense and common everyday understanding that it's a wonder you can even tie your own shoes. It's truly embarrassing for everyone to read your nonsense about the top speed of the car. If you had any common sense and self-respect you would stop it right now.
How can anybody take you seriously or want to debate with you when you drone on about my "mistake" about the top speed of a car? It is truly, truly embarrassing for all concerned to read what you say about this.
wonder how much you chopped and joined all that googling to make it fit your need;s
More embarrassing stuff for all where you unabashedly show how morally bankrupt you can be and how low you will stoop and how you will say _anything_.
well you havnt posted a god darn thing that is correct yet
You are still in your reality distortion zone and showing the whole world that you don't give a damn about compromising your own personal integrity in the worst way possible. I don't think you can go any lower and you are advertising to the world that you can't be trusted one bit. You can go haywire.
You see MH,you are small fry in regards to the path i am trying to take at the moment,and the things i am trying to bring forward. You were left behind way back when--and thats a long way back.
The Napoleon of single-transistor circuits. How is your design of the iPhone 7 coming along?
MileHigh
-
Brad:
What are your qualifications MH?. Your not a hair dresser by any chance?
What do you think after reading me for six years?
One more time, all that you are doing is compromising your integrity and showing that when push comes to shove, you can't be trusted one bit.
Remember you commented that a Joule Thief needed a variable base resistor? I asked you why and asked you to explain and you avoided the question and never responded. It's because you in fact can't write out a few comprehensible paragraphs discussing electronics in a serious manner to back up your claim about the need for a variable base resistor on a standard Joule Thief. So you have some serious limitations.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
The Napoleon of single-transistor circuits.
MileHigh
No, I am telling you with absolute certainty that you are dead wrong. I know what I am talking about.
Like with the ICEs,top speed of a car determination,the sewing machine?.
20 minutes on google is all you needed to defy physics :D
Total nonsense because I never made any claims about being an expert in engines and otherwise what you are suggesting in that statement is just bullshit spinning.
If you are no expert,then how do you make a claim like this?-->No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever
You clearly haven't done that at all. The two questions were posed such that I won't comment except to say if you are right or wrong. The questions will be answered later and only then will you be able to see how wrong you were. All that you have to do is demonstrate competence in your own words and as of now you can't do it.
You are going on the assumption that you are correct,and that is yet to be proven.
When you post your answers,then we(myself,smOKy,Mags) will debate with you on your answers,and then decide if they are correct. Im sorry MH,but you just dont get to decide whether you are correct or not--we all do. We will then see if your answers resemble those that we have already supplied.
What's highlighted above is you making a complete and utter idiot of yourself and everybody knows it. Everybody has enough common sense to know that you measure a car's top speed on level ground.
Says who?.--you? ::)
How many cars drive only on level ground?
How many race cars drive on level ground?
Sorry MH,but once again you are wrong. In order for your determination to be 100% correct in all circumstances,you must include the gravitational force-you know,the scientific method,and not the petrol heads method-->this is what you yourself have insisted in.
So you know this too and you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative in pathetic attempt to say I am wrong, or, you are so lacking in common sense and common everyday understanding that it's a wonder you can even tie your own shoes.
Your pathetic MH
First you want the scientific method,and then you can just change to the rev head method as you please. Your all over the show like a headless chook.
It's truly embarrassing for everyone to read your nonsense about the top speed of the car. If you had any common sense and self-respect you would stop it right now.
Nope.
What you can do,is stop picking and choosing when you want to use the scientific method,or the general method--not chop and change as you please to suit your needs.
How can anybody take you seriously or want to debate with you when you drone on about my "mistake" about the top speed of a car? It is truly, truly embarrassing for all concerned to read what you say about this.
I;d say more so embarrassing for you MH,as you know im right.
And what about the torque of the engine,as HP is not torque. I mean,i could have a car that has less HP but far more torque,that has a higher top speed than a car with more HP but less torque.
Fact is MH,you missed quite a bit in that attempt to show us your stuff lol.
More embarrassing stuff for all where you unabashedly show how morally bankrupt you can be and how low you will stoop and how you will say _anything_.
Says the man that called me a liar.
I say what needs to be said--and you have had it coming MH. People here really are done with your negative attitude,and incorrect bullshit. So i decided to put a stop to it by correcting your incorrectness.
You are still in your reality distortion zone and showing the whole world that you don't give a damn about compromising your own personal integrity in the worst way possible. I don't think you can go any lower and you are advertising to the world that you can't be trusted one bit. You can go haywire.
You really dont like being proven wrong--do you MH.
Love ya work though--trying to switch your mistakes over to some one else.
Do you not realize that it is all here on this thread,and that people cane read for them self what has taken place.
Repost something i have gotten wrong on this thread MH=--and i dont mean your yet to be proven wrong questions on the wine glass.
How is your design of the iPhone 7 coming along?
I think it hit resonance while talking to my wife,and the components couldnt handle the power surge.
-
Miles
for the time being
at your request ..
the magnifying glass is on you .
later [in some other life] we can debate how offers to investigate and properly measure claims ..
makes me part of a Scam ??
You Triple Mutant Putz...
Okay Chet, so you can't point to a single project that demonstrates anything "special" about resonance on the free energy forums. Of course many con artists that you work the phones with will pitch that their unproven systems use resonance to produce over unity. So you are running on blind faith, at least we have established that. Why don't you call Bill Alek and chat him up about his magic resonant battery charging system and the Photoshopped picture of a bike that is two or three years late?
There is no magnifying glass on me, the only thing we are waiting for is a successful "resonant Joule Thief."
Your mother wears army boots.
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg477533#msg477533 date=1458227054]
MileHigh
Remember you commented that a Joule Thief needed a variable base resistor?
Think you got me mixed up with some one else again,as i said i design my JTs (and the likes) to run with the least amount of resistance as possible.
I asked you why and asked you to explain and you avoided the question and never responded.
As above.
It's because you in fact can't write out a few comprehensible paragraphs discussing electronics in a serious manner to back up your claim about the need for a variable base resistor on a standard Joule Thief. So you have some serious limitations.
MH
Can you please repost said claim,along with post number?.
One more time, all that you are doing is compromising your integrity and showing that when push comes to shove, you can't be trusted one bit.
As i said,can you please find said post, ;)
What do you think after reading me for six years?
That you dont know as much as i thought you did.
Brad
-
@ MH
1- What is the magnetic force ?.
2- Is that force an alternating force,or a direct force.
3-If a direct force,why do people continue to try and power a device that requires an alternating force in order to operate,by using a source of energy that delivers only a direct force?
4- What device converts a direct force into usable power that dose not react against the magnetic force.?-->Of course you will need to know what the magnetic force actually is before you can answer that question-or even begin to understand it.
-
Brad:
If you are no expert,then how do you make a claim like this?-->No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever
Guess what? After that I acknowledged that Helmholtz resonators can be used on the air intake and the exhaust. So how many times are you going to repeat that? An ICE itself excluding the intake and exhaust doesn't make use of resonance.
Im sorry MH,but you just dont get to decide whether you are correct or not--we all do. We will then see if your answers resemble those that we have already supplied.
In this particular case I can. The only answers that count are the ones that you state in your own words because that demonstrates that you understand. Mass Google pasting is not an answer, period.
How many cars drive only on level ground?
How many race cars drive on level ground?
Sorry MH,but once again you are wrong.
Stop making a complete fool of yourself.
MileHigh
-
@ MH
1- What is the magnetic force ?.
2- Is that force an alternating force,or a direct force.
3-If a direct force,why do people continue to try and power a device that requires an alternating force in order to operate,by using a source of energy that delivers only a direct force?
4- What device converts a direct force into usable power that dose not react against the magnetic force.?-->Of course you will need to know what the magnetic force actually is before you can answer that question-or even begin to understand it.
1. Go look up the quantum theory definition if you want because that's not something I know much about. Don't say the same old line if you are in the same boat as me and you can't answer it either.
2. Both.
3. The question is awkward and poorly defined so you are not going to get an answer.
4. There is not enough information in the question so you are not going to get an answer.
-
MH:
Better to look for what Tesla was talking about. Quantum theory is not the same thing. Nor will it ever explain WHERE the extra energy is coming from, nor will our text books, or what we heard in school.
FE is not based on the quantum theory, but on tapping the Aether. As Tesla mentioned many many times.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg477533#msg477533 date=1458227054]
MileHigh
Think you got me mixed up with some one else again,as i said i design my JTs (and the likes) to run with the least amount of resistance as possible.
MH
Can you please repost said claim,along with post number?.
As i said,can you please find said post, ;)
Brad
There you go sounding like a rocket scientist saying, "i design my JTs (and the likes) to run with the least amount of resistance as possible."
Quoting you from your post #504:
Do you need an answer to understand the need for a variable base resistor MH?-or will your batteries simply remain at the rated voltage of 1.5 volt's?.
That was a bit of a silly statement by your self MH.
Quoting myself:
Remember you commented that a Joule Thief needed a variable base resistor? I asked you why and asked you to explain and you avoided the question and never responded. It's because you in fact can't write out a few comprehensible paragraphs discussing electronics in a serious manner to back up your claim about the need for a variable base resistor on a standard Joule Thief. So you have some serious limitations.
So let us know precisely why a Joule Thief needs a variable base resistor.
MileHigh
-
MH:
Better to look for what Tesla was talking about. Quantum theory is not the same thing. Nor will it ever explain WHERE the extra energy is coming from, nor will our text books, or what we heard in school.
FE is not based on the quantum theory, but on tapping the Aether. As Tesla mentioned many many times.
Nick:
Many times I have asked free energy researchers to set up a controlled experiment that shows getting extra energy from coils and they have never responded. The same question could be posed about magnetism or tapping the alleged aether and you could expect a similar response. Can you set up a controlled experiment to back up your claim? Can you demonstrate the existence of the alleged aether?
I have often read people that claim to know Tesla's writings saying that he never talked about getting any energy from the aether or from magnetism, so they would challenge you on that statement. Your toaster doesn't run on blind faith, it runs on brute force power.
MileHigh
-
Sounds as though YOU have never read up on Tesla, or anything other than conventional electronic practices.
You probably don't even think that what Tesla said and did is possible. Or maybe never care to look into it.
Tesla had hundreds of patents and inventions. And Tesla patented a design of a flying disk, with no external input source.
What did Einstein prove? Nothing. Words, he never got off his but to test nor prove any of his ideas.
Did he prove that there is no Aether. NO!
The answer to free energy is not to be found in our current science. This we already know.
To prove the Aether, is like proving that there are spirits, or even multi-dimentional beings, which able to appear and disappear at will. At this time there is NO way to prove the existence of the Aether. So, if we can't prove it, does it mean that it does not exist? I don't think so.
Please explain where the energy comes from when a magnet is passed by a coil. You can't! Neither can current science, so they invent an answer. Which is wrong. But, The Answer "is blowing in the wind".
Concerning the "amplification effect". That is exactly what we are working on. It will happen, but not overnight. If this were easy it would have been proven and shown working, long ago. But, we are not Tesla, nor have his special mental capabilities.
In any case we are giving it a go. Are you?
Why are you here if you don't believe FE even possible. Or do you?
-
Please explain where the energy comes from when a magnet is passed by a coil. You can't! Neither can current science, so they invent an answer. Which is wrong. But, The Answer "is blowing in the wind".
You are trapped in a belief system. The energy that you get out of the coil comes from the mechanical work it takes to move the magnet past the coil - it's not a freebie, and it is all explainable.
-
Brad:
Repost something i have gotten wrong on this thread MH
Post #157:
Set up a bifilar coil with a steel laminated core,where the core is two separate halves -1 half will see the flow of charge into the magnetic center,and the other half will see the flow of charge out from the magnetic center. Set up a simple self oscillating circuit,and run the LED off the two core halves,where you two core halves act like capacitor plates,and are charged every pulse. this way you can bring your frequency up to a resonant state,where the amplitude is at maximum,and power draw at a minimum.
What is this electronics gibberish talk? "Flow of charge into the magnetic center" and "flow of charge out from the magnetic center" doesn't even make any sense. "Run the LED off the two core halves" doesn't even make any sense.
The whole thing is ridiculous incomprehensible fantasy electronics baby talk and it's hard to take you seriously about electronics when you talk like some character reading off bad lines in a 1952 low-budget science fiction movie.
Like I told you elsewhere in this thread, you have said some things that are "not even wrong." In other words they are so wrong as to be so completely baffling that you can't even make sense of them if you are given a lot of leeway and your bizarre prose is passed through a "untwist Brad's comments and fill in the blanks" filter.
You asked for it so I am just responding.
MileHigh
-
MH:
You are the one trapped in an unproven science. Just like Einstein.
PROVE to us that the movement of the magnet is the CAUSE of where the energy is coming from. Don't just repeat what you've heard, like a parrot. You are trying to explain it by material corporal causes. Energy like light it's not a particle, and is not dependent on physical causes, it's the other way around.
Field effects, are the cause. As Tesla mentioned. And where do these "field effects" come from? The combination of the Aether combined with voxtexial fields. No Aether, no vortexes, no material universe. Matter doesn't make matter, without the presence these fields.
You wouldn't be here or on the Kapandze thread, if you didn't believe there's more to it than what we've been told.
-
It is nice to know that MH does not know what a capacitor is.
If you know your stuff it is not very difficult to decipher "gibberish", it may get a little taxing at times but not overly difficult.
I have known many technicians over the years,, good parts changers but bad diagnosticians.
I sure as hell know what a capacitor is. This is just stupid gratuitous attacking of me, stop it please.
Go ahead and explain what Brad is talking about then, explain it all for the viewing audience.
What does this really mean Webby?
Set up a bifilar coil with a steel laminated core,where the core is two separate halves -1 half will see the flow of charge into the magnetic center,and the other half will see the flow of charge out from the magnetic center. Set up a simple self oscillating circuit,and run the LED off the two core halves,where you two core halves act like capacitor plates,and are charged every pulse. this way you can bring your frequency up to a resonant state,where the amplitude is at maximum,and power draw at a minimum.
Let us know.
-
Guess what? After that I acknowledged that Helmholtz resonators can be used on the air intake and the exhaust. So how many times are you going to repeat that? An ICE itself excluding the intake and exhaust doesn't make use of resonance.
Google pasting is not an answer, period.
Helmholtz, is only working on normal aspirated engines, with a calculated Air-Box.
But every TD constructor, would take effect from the driving wind, above the helmet of F-1, and so lost complete this Helmholtz induction solution!
--------------------
A high Tuned 2-stroke, is Resonant in every single Cavity, and on the 'Power-band' or 'On the Pipe' it Resonate's between the serie fluide Resonant cavity's, this last also like I described in my first explanation.
The Reed / I-disc, is a Fet, the Crankshaft case and Cilinder is a ................ ?
Why is a 4-stroke far over 100 degrees Celsius, and a optimum 2-stroke only 55-60 degrees Celsius with a exhaust over 250 degrees Celsius?
Still outstanding: Did you find / goegle the right timing for a 2-STroke, and why so late?
Demanding like a slave princess, but not delivering!
YOUR own line: Stop making a complete fool of yourself with Engine goegle from the past, books are always behind the hand-on hands!
-
Smoky2:
You have to stop this business of either making a straw man or saying things about me that you can't possibly know. I could just as easily say that in the 1980s you worked as a male stripper on the Las Vegas strip and made good tips, but I can't possibly know that, can I? Stop the nonsense.
I don't need to make this stuff up. you already told us yourself, that you have never built a device intended to be resonant.
Also, that you have never built a Joule Thief circuit.
The only nonsense here is that which you spout out about things you clearly do not understand.
I have absolutely nothing revolutionary to offer. I asked for simple answers and you said that you couldn't do that. Your complex answers started to resemble a word salad. If you can't answer simple questions with simple answers, then for me that means that you don't have a fundamental and basic understanding of resonance. You are welcome to prove me wrong any time you want.
If the simplest answers to your complex questions look like "word salad" to you, then perhaps there are basic fundamental aspects of science, physics, and perhaps life itself that you have yet to grasp.
As such would be required to gain an understanding of much more complex aspects of the same science, physics, and life
- I can't tell you what is in your "salad".
But, if perhaps you could figure that part out on your own, I (or others) could help you choose the right dressing.
I don't need to prove you wrong, but rather I would help you find the right answers.
To me, it does not matter. you can continue on with your lack of understanding, and unwillingness to learn.
It's "everyone else" that's wrong right?
... I have a feeling that we are never going to see anything even remotely close to this. What probably will happen is that you are going to "hunt" for resonance on the circuit itself and try all sorts of variations and look for the "magic." It will probably end up like some kind of needle in a haystack search, an exercise in trial and error. Turn pots and hope for the best. Will we ever see any kind of timing diagram that clearly shows a "resonant Joule Thief" I wonder. At least I annotated the main part of the timing diagram for a standard Joule Thief and I could easily have added the approximate current traces myself.
MileHigh
what you an I consider "standard" are two completely irrelevant things.
To you a "standard JT" is some assume set of components related to the JT 'fad' that occurred much after its' invention.
To me, there is no "standard", there is only an intended function. What that function "is", cannot even be agreed upon in this topic,
or in the other 900 Joule Thief threads that exist out there.
Most will argue to the death that the entire point of this device is to "light an led".
Personally, i will tell you, the LED is about as relevant to this device, as is the color of a court jester's clothing.
The actual "load" is a secondary circuit, not included in the schematics of the "standard JT".
and here is why:
This was isolated in an earlier topic, from a series of self-resonant oscillators.
when the "load" was reduced to a single coil transformer,
with an 'indicator' LED, the "Joule Thief" was born.
Prior to that moment in history, the circuit as a whole, was a replication of a "micro-TPU" on Bruce's breadboard.
Despite all the claims to ownership over this crap, it was the collective evolution of an attempt to replicate
a simple looped-timing oscillator, that used the field collapse of the ferrite to charge a capacitor, which re-started the cycle.
the LED wasn't on the board at first, but the builders wanted to be able to "see" that it was on.
The load was originally drawn as a second part of the circuit, connected across the transformer.
The operation of the "joule thief" primary circuit, is not affected by the load in a direct manner.
The magnetic induction at self-resonance, is so great in comparison to the power levels through the electric coil,
that the magnetic drain represented on the load has so significant affect on the primary coil.
Thus the load needs not be present in the circuit diagram.
and the output, without this secondary load circuit:
can be simply depicted as the Waveform across the primary coil. (end to end, skip over the center tap)
Any transformer function, on a load circuit, can be determined by this signal, and thus it is not necessary to have the load present.
As, such I will not waste anyones time, presenting load circuits to attach to your JT.
But for aesthetics, One would do so as Mags has done in his homemade coil above.
Using one coil as the JT primary, and the other side to drive your "load", which can be whatever you choose.
In this manner, the load is magnetically coupled to the ferrite, and electrically isolated from the primary circuit.
And will operate just like any other transformer.
The Battery? - believe it or not, was added because the system being replicated no longer operated in self resonance, and thus there was no energy to store in the capacitor. The cap itself was also removed, for simplicity - leaving a battery driven switching circuit, that flashed an LED so rapidly, it looked like it stayed on.
"what is a joule thief"? a resonator that doesn't resonate? or did someone build it wrong?
I guess that is a matter of perspective.
@MH - I'm not sure how to speak in anything you wouldn't call "word salad".
Words are a necessary part of communication.
If the question is, can I describe advanced physics concepts, such as resonance, in the words of a 3rd grader?
No, I cannot. Maybe a 3rd grade teacher is more equipped for this sort of task.
Here is what you need to know and understand, first and foremost:
Frequency vs Wavelength
Physical Dimensions vs wavelength
Physical dimensions vs Frequency
live and breathe these fundamental relationships
understand them as simply as Ohm's Law, and then maybe the things I have stated previously will look less like salad.
Why and How something resonates, relates directly to this tri-functional relationship.
And inversely to the resistances applied upon the resonance by the materials properties of space and matter.
Most of these are constants that have to do with density, crystalline structure, elasticity, resistances to stress and strain, etc.
This is a summary of what I stated before, just without any reference to the mathematics involved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing "magic" about resonance. It is a natural event, that occurs everywhere, in everything.
All that exists, is our ability to disrupt this resonance. And at that, we have become experts.
There is no need to "hunt" for resonances in the Joule Thief. Simply stop destroying them.
The less thought that goes into their design, the less effort placed in intricicies, and perfection,
the less of the original device exists, and the less knowledge about it can be derrived by reverse engineering.
What would happen to a Tesla coil, if we tried to throw together a minimilist version, one could solder together in the palm of their hand?
Sure, we might be able to get something that made a spark, and it may look similar to the original.
But what happens to those sparks when the tesla coil goes out of resonance? What happens when we the coils are no longer perfect,
or the wrong # of turns for the device, or even something as subtle as ending the last turn 1/4 of a turn too early?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The way I see it, therere is 3 ways to go about this:
1) calculate the circuit, and choose your components to be resonant at a specific frequency.
My brother does this, for me that is way too much work, I can tell you how, but im not going to sit there and crunch numbers all day.
For someone using this method, they already know what size resistor to use for which ferrite, and which transistors etc. all they need is a few numbers off the side of the battery, a quick V check, and they can build a resonator in a few seconds, given a box of misc. components.
2) Measuring - This is where you take your scope channels and watch the images as you play around with every parameter you can find.
This is not really the best way to go about it, but probably the simplest if you want to "see" the results of the system operating near a resonant node. Keep in mind, you may have completely mismatched components, and may not be able to work.
So this method requires swapping components, and a lot of trial and error.
The result is, exactly that, a result with no understanding of what or how you got there.
But if this is your choice - you look for a 'clean' sinusoidal waveform, then within this range, you approach a node of maximum amplitudes.
and 3) a combination of calculation and forethought, going into the selection of components, that will operate within desired ranged.
Then a carefully measured and calculated adjustment of parameters, so as to approach a desired resonant node(s).
This is the method I myself choose to operate by. This allows me to both have a basic grasp of what is going on in the circuit, im terms of the switching function of the transistor(s), and the SRF of the ferrite while also allowing for imperfections on my part, and a degree of adjustability.
While at the same time, logging the parameters adjusted, so as to track changes in one part of the circuit, across another domain.
The first method is strictly for your Tesla's, Armstrong's, Mozart's' , those type of people.... Not everyone can sustain their entire attention in this manner.
The second method is more for the bench-top experimenter or technician, who doesn't want to waste energy on theory and math.
The 3rd method is more suitable for the engineer or physicist who likes both theory and experimentation.
All three paths can lead you to the same place.
-
You act like you are the professional who knows all,, YOU explain it.
Instead what you will do is the usual name calling and other such techniques to try and distract from your failures.
There is no shame in being wrong MH,, there is no shame in making miss-takes.
When I am wrong,, which is often,, I stand up for myself and will admit it, learn from it and move on.
P.S. often the phrase "acting like" is used to describe, not define.
P.P.S. sometimes things can have more than one meaning or usage :)
So you put on airs like it's comprehensible and when you are asked to explain it the truth comes out and you can't explain it at all. So you were just talking BS. I admit when I am wrong also.
Kiss my ass with the "your failures" line. You are just jumping into the propagandizing fray and talking trash.
-
Smoky2:
The only nonsense here is that which you spout out about things you clearly do not understand.
Kiss my ass with your propagandizing bullshit. Don't destroy your credibility by talking BS trash.
If the simplest answers to your complex questions look like "word salad" to you, then perhaps there are basic fundamental aspects of science, physics, and perhaps life itself that you have yet to grasp.
As such would be required to gain an understanding of much more complex aspects of the same science, physics, and life
- I can't tell you what is in your "salad".
But, if perhaps you could figure that part out on your own, I (or others) could help you choose the right dressing.
I don't need to prove you wrong, but rather I would help you find the right answers.
To me, it does not matter. you can continue on with your lack of understanding, and unwillingness to learn.
It's "everyone else" that's wrong right?
Instead of talking more trash, why don't you just answer the two simple questions with two simple answers? Just demonstrate that you truly know what you are talking about. That's all that I am asking you to do.
For all the rest of your talk, how about you just demonstrate something that actually works, and show the schematic and a complete and comprehensive and fully annotated timing diagram with a full explanation of the circuit operation? After all, you are the one making the big claims.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Post #157:
MileHigh
Set up a bifilar coil with a steel laminated core,where the core is two separate halves -1 half will see the flow of charge into the magnetic center,and the other half will see the flow of charge out from the magnetic center. Set up a simple self oscillating circuit,and run the LED off the two core halves,where you two core halves act like capacitor plates,and are charged every pulse
What is this electronics gibberish talk? "Flow of charge into the magnetic center" and "flow of charge out from the magnetic center" doesn't even make any sense. "Run the LED off the two core halves" doesn't even make any sense.
The whole thing is ridiculous incomprehensible fantasy electronics baby talk and it's hard to take you seriously about electronics when you talk like some character reading off bad lines in a 1952 low-budget science fiction movie.
Like I told you elsewhere in this thread, you have said some things that are "not even wrong." In other words they are so wrong as to be so completely baffling that you can't even make sense of them if you are given a lot of leeway and your bizarre prose is passed through a "untwist Brad's comments and fill in the blanks" filter.
You asked for it so I am just responding.
I asked you to post something i had gotten wrong.
My above post is correct--but you wouldn't know that,as you don't do bench work-you only do book work.
-
What you say in that post is utter rubbish. There is no such thing as a "flow of charge into a magnetic center."
-
What you say in that post is utter rubbish. There is no such thing as a "flow of charge into a magnetic center."
How little you know MH.
Again-What is the magnetic force?
Where would be the magnetic center of a magnetic field?.
Brad
-
Hey men! Have a look at a Magnetar if you want to broaden your
horizons a bit.
I looked into what the strongest magnetic field that could be achieved would be
and was amazed to discover it would disintegrate the material.
John.
Sciencequestionswithsurisinganswers.
-
How little you know MH.
Again-What is the magnetic force?
Where would be the magnetic center of a magnetic field?.
Brad
That posting of yours is complete and utter rubbish and you are showing that after six years you have barely left the starting gate. Your second question is nonsensical - you are not capable of posing a question properly.
-
Don't play the BS "magnetic force" game with me like Kenny the all tatted up guy. I already told you that I am not a quantum physics guy. I already told you to not ask me the question if you could not answer it yourself. Then you turned around and asked the question for a third time. Does that mean you can answer it? If so, go for it and answer it yourself.
-
Tarzan: "Tarzan know where Tarzan go"
Girl: "Tarzan does not know where Tarzan go"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=-lmw0d6S6jU
Mags
-
Don't play the BS "magnetic force" game with me like Kenny the all tatted up guy. I already told you that I am not a quantum physics guy. I already told you to not ask me the question if you could not answer it yourself. Then you turned around and asked the question for a third time. Does that mean you can answer it? If so, go for it and answer it yourself.
I have the answer to all 4 questions.
I will share those answers with you in 4 to 8 years.
My questiond were pretty straight foward MH, but I am not surprised that ! Once again! you failed to understand them.
It is odd that every time you fail to understand some ones comments or descriptions, you resort to the old ! Word salad! thing. Everyone here seems to have bulk salad-according to you.
Brad
-
Sure Brad, "charge flows into magnetic centers." That's a new one for the "Bizarro World Book of Brad's Electronics." LED's running off of "core halves." You were challenged on these crazy statements and made no attempt to explain yourself or offer any insight. All that you could say is that you were right. Another total fail and another case of don't go to the EEVBlog unless you want to be eaten alive.
You want to prove that you have learned something about real electronics over the past six years?
This:
Do you need an answer to understand the need for a variable base resistor MH?-or will your batteries simply remain at the rated voltage of 1.5 volt's?.
That was a bit of a silly statement by your self MH.
So let us know precisely why a Joule Thief needs a variable base resistor.
If you ignore that one more time and can't back up your own statements with a comprehensible and rational explanation that is rooted in real electronics, then that makes you a fraud. The assumption in this case would be that you can't answer it and refuse to state that fact. Thus making you ignorant about a lot of basic electronics and also a fraud. On the other hand if you answer it properly or simply admit that you can't answer it, then you are real and all is good.
I just find the fake three-dollar-bill aspect to you to simply be too much sometimes. Rest assured though that this is just a side-show to see if anything comes of the "Resonant Joule Thief." I won't be interested if you disassemble a dish washer motor to do more "Brad's Electronics."
MileHigh
-
hi all
-
that is me got hit by a stray bullet.
-
SoooMH
did you ever build a resonant anything ? {Please In one word ...or less where tryin to cut Bandwidth Costs around here ]
snip...
Chet:
In another life I probably did an electronics lab on parallel and series LC circuits.
snip...
So that's a no then.
-
[/size]
So that's a no then.
Go ahead and answer the simple questions about a resonating wine glass and show us your smarts.
-
Go ahead and answer the simple questions about a resonating wine glass and show us your smarts.
I've never said I could or would answer your questions, or even rise to the challenge of trying.
But I have asked you to answer your own questions. However I'm quite content to wait for your answers in 'X' many weeks.
Your response to ramset indicates you seem to be incapable of simple yes or no answers to questions that only require a simple yes or no
for an answer, so I'm predicting your explanation will be a word salad. It will be a nice surprise if you prove me wrong.
-
Yes but part and parcel of that is "Have you ever built a resonant device?" is a useless loaded question. Have I ever had any reason to build a resonant device? The answer to that is no. Do I know about resonance and how to stop it on a PCB signal trace? The answer to that is yes.
It's just too easy to plant a loaded question and gloat over it. The real purpose for this is to learn about resonance and how to see it in our daily lives and describe it and understand how it works instead of it being a near-meaningless buzz word where many people don't even understand what it means.
Hypothetical example: Bill Alek has a magical regenerative battery charger that is supposed to be able to make an ultra cheap electric bicycle from China that he wants to resell run indefinitely. He claims that it is all based on resonance being used in his magic regenerative charge controller. Bill Alek is interviewed on a trade show floor by a young university student and the university student asks Bill Alek to start off by explaining what resonance is by explaining how a wine glass resonates and how the resonant frequency of the wine glass is determined. Bill Alek is stuck and he doesn't know what to say and asks the student to stop recording.
I did something like seven or eight courses in electronics more than 30 years ago. I make no apologies for not remembering what I did in each of my electronics labs so I gave the best answer that I could.
-
Sure Brad, "charge flows into magnetic centers." That's a new one for the "Bizarro World Book of Brad's Electronics." LED's running off of "core halves." You were challenged on these crazy statements and made no attempt to explain yourself or offer any insight. All that you could say is that you were right. Another total fail and another case of don't go to the EEVBlog unless you want to be eaten alive.
You want to prove that you have learned something about real electronics over the past six years?
This:
So let us know precisely why a Joule Thief needs a variable base resistor.
If you ignore that one more time and can't back up your own statements with a comprehensible and rational explanation that is rooted in real electronics, then that makes you a fraud. The assumption in this case would be that you can't answer it and refuse to state that fact. Thus making you ignorant about a lot of basic electronics and also a fraud. On the other hand if you answer it properly or simply admit that you can't answer it, then you are real and all is good.
I just find the fake three-dollar-bill aspect to you to simply be too much sometimes. Rest assured though that this is just a side-show to see if anything comes of the "Resonant Joule Thief." I won't be interested if you disassemble a dish washer motor to do more "Brad's Electronics."
MileHigh
Yawn. 8)
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg477612#msg477612 date=1458280901]
MileHigh
Sure Brad, "charge flows into magnetic centers." That's a new one for the "Bizarro World Book of Brad's Electronics."
So a man that dose not know what the magnetic force is,is also an expert on what it is not ::)
Much the same as a person that dose not know what a car is,but is an expert at driving one lol.
If you ignore that one more time and can't back up your own statements with a comprehensible and rational explanation that is rooted in real electronics, then that makes you a fraud.
Oh so you are the decision maker around here now?.
And now,if some one dose not answer your questions on demand,then they are a fraud lol.
Get over yourself MH--you are nothing of a sort--in fact,you are falling further behind with every post you make.
It's not that i cant answer it MH,it's just that i choose not to simply because you demand me too lol.
So no--no answer for you MH.
I won't be interested if you disassemble a dish washer motor to do more "Brad's Electronics."
Motor no longer needed.
LED's running off of "core halves." You were challenged on these crazy statements and made no attempt to explain yourself or offer any insight. All that you could say is that you were right.
Only crazy to you MH,as you just cant follow simple instructions.
In fact,you only need a laminated core,and either a ground or hot connection. The LED can be lit from either the insulated core(laminated steel),and the ground side,or the core and the positive side. Or as i said,you can have two core halves (insulated from each other)within the conductive coil,and when that coil is pulsed,the two core halves will develop an opposite charge,and you can lite an LED when placed across those two core halves.
Like Webby said--dont you know a capacitor when you see one--dont you understand how the two halves are charged with an opposite polarity?.
Hence the question MH
-->What is the magnetic force?
Another total fail and another case of don't go to the EEVBlog unless you want to be eaten alive.
Dose current flow through a capacitor MH?.
--->>What is the magnetic force MH ?.<<---
Brad
-
So, you are exposed as a fraud and a BSer. You can't answer the question about the supposed need for a variable base resistance for a Joule Thief and refuse to state that fact. It was all just a bunch of BS and you haven't a clue about the basic electronics required to answer the question properly. So the only solution for your original BS is to BS again.
Your can't back up your own statement, "Do you need an answer to understand the need for a variable base resistor MH?-or will your batteries simply remain at the rated voltage of 1.5 volt's?. That was a bit of a silly statement by your self MH."
The whole thing was just a bunch of BS and you thought that you were "smart" by saying you needed a variable base resistor. You have been exposed as a fraud that makes BS statements to give people the impression that you know what you are talking about when in many cases you don't and it's just bluffing. Who is making the silly statement now?
For the "charge flows into magnetic centers" we are back in Brad's world of random stream-of-consciousness, thoughts ricocheting all around like a bowl of agitated spaghetti, and extremely deficient communication skills and flat-out laziness to try to describe something properly. It's like watching a Brad clip with a 10 minute introduction where he goes over 40 alligator clip connections to "give you the schematic."
So that's the ticket, you need to buy the "Super Brad Secret Decoder Ring" for this one because the regular secret decoder ring is not strong enough and simply can't unscramble the words and turn them into a coherent set of statements.
-
So, you are exposed as a fraud and a BSer. You can't answer the question about the supposed need for a variable base resistance for a Joule Thief and refuse to state that fact. It was all just a bunch of BS and you haven't a clue about the basic electronics required to answer the question properly. So the only solution for your original BS is to BS again.
Your can't back up your own statement, "Do you need an answer to understand the need for a variable base resistor MH?-or will your batteries simply remain at the rated voltage of 1.5 volt's?. That was a bit of a silly statement by your self MH."
The whole thing was just a bunch of BS and you thought that you were "smart" by saying you needed a variable base resistor. You have been exposed as a fraud that makes BS statements to give people the impression that you know what you are talking about when in many cases you don't and it's just bluffing. Who is making the silly statement now?
For the "charge flows into magnetic centers" we are back in Brad's world of random stream-of-consciousness, thoughts ricocheting all around like a bowl of agitated spaghetti, and extremely deficient communication skills and flat-out laziness to try to describe something properly. It's like watching a Brad clip with a 10 minute introduction where he goes over 40 alligator clip connections to "give you the schematic."
So that's the ticket, you need to buy the "Super Brad Secret Decoder Ring" for this one because the regular secret decoder ring is not strong enough and simply can't unscramble the words and turn them into a coherent set of statements.
What is the magnetic force MH?
-
Compliments of Encyclopedia Britannica:
Magnetic force, attraction or repulsion that arises between electrically charged particles because of their motion. It is the basic force responsible for such effects as the action of electric motors and the attraction of magnets for iron. Electric forces exist among stationary electric charges; both electric and magnetic forces exist among moving electric charges. The magnetic force between two moving charges may be described as the effect exerted upon either charge by a magnetic field created by the other.
From this point of view, the magnetic force F on the second particle is proportional to its charge q2, the magnitude of its velocity v2, the magnitude of the magnetic field B1 produced by the first moving charge, and the sine of the angle theta, θ, between the path of the second particle and the direction of the magnetic field; that is, F = q2B1v2 sin θ. The force is zero if the second charge is travelling in the direction of the magnetic field and is greatest if it travels at right angles to the magnetic field.
The magnetic force on a moving charge is exerted in a direction at a right angle to the plane formed by the direction of its velocity and the direction of the surrounding magnetic field.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg477647#msg477647 date=1458309270]
So, you are exposed as a fraud and a BSer.
Oh come now MH,you can do better than that. ;)
You can't answer the question about the supposed need for a variable base resistance for a Joule Thief and refuse to state that fact.
I refuse to state it because you demand i answer it. I bow to no man's demand's.
Oh,by the way-->did you do another choppy choppy on that particular quote--like left out what i was referring to?. Could it be that you and myself were talking about the need for a self varying resistor setup,that decreases the base resistance as the battery voltage drop's,in order to keep the LED around the same brightness regardless of the voltage drop on the battery?--Did you leave that bit out MH? ;)
It was all just a bunch of BS and you haven't a clue about the basic electronics required to answer the question properly. So the only solution for your original BS is to BS again.
Well,as we can see once again,the BS is on your behalf.
Post 469 Quote: So show us your smart's MH--design a simple circuit that lowers the base resistance as the voltage in the battery drop's.
So there you go MH,you have been caught out once again. Once again you tried to twist things around,and you once again got caught ;).
Your can't back up your own statement, "Do you need an answer to understand the need for a variable base resistor MH?-or will your batteries simply remain at the rated voltage of 1.5 volt's?. That was a bit of a silly statement by your self MH."
Yep,and i stand by it,due to the fact that you know exactly what was meant in my statement.
You tried once again to discredit me,and once again an epic fail.
The whole thing was just a bunch of BS and you thought that you were "smart" by saying you needed a variable base resistor. You have been exposed as a fraud that makes BS statements to give people the impression that you know what you are talking about when in many cases you don't and it's just bluffing. Who is making the silly statement now?
LMAO--you are MH,you are. You got caught out again-->how many times have you tried but failed now?. You know i was referring to a self adjusting base resistance in order to maintain the same light output from the LED as the battery voltage dropped. As the battery voltage drop's,the base resistance would decrease in order to maintain the same light output from the LED. You then tried to turn it into something that it was not,,---> And you got caught out !!AGAIN!! lol.
Now ,we will have none of this!!i cant understand what your saying!! bullshit MH,as Mags new exactly what i was talking about--> Quote post 470: While im at work, a lot of the time my mind is on this stuff. You and I are on the same plane it seems. I had thought of the 'exact' same thing. ;) To have the base control adjust as the batt voltage goes down. Not sure of a self adjusting resistor but using another transistor(circuit) configured to do the job.
Good thought bud.
So nice try MH--but another epic fail.
For the "charge flows into magnetic centers" we are back in Brad's world of random stream-of-consciousness, thoughts ricocheting all around like a bowl of agitated spaghetti, and extremely deficient communication skills and flat-out laziness to try to describe something properly. It's like watching a Brad clip with a 10 minute introduction where he goes over 40 alligator clip connections to "give you the schematic."
Your inability to understand simple thing's is not my fault MH. ;)
So that's the ticket, you need to buy the "Super Brad Secret Decoder Ring" for this one because the regular secret decoder ring is not strong enough and simply can't unscramble the words and turn them into a coherent set of statements.
Well as has been seen time and time again MH,you are the only one that has trouble understanding what i write.
So keep trying to discredit me MH,and i'll keep exposing you as the fraud you are---it's all writen in the thread ;)
Brad
-
Brad:
Could it be that you and myself were talking about the need for a self varying resistor setup,that decreases the base resistance as the battery voltage drop's,in order to keep the LED around the same brightness regardless of the voltage drop on the battery?
There you go, you just made another epic fail and succeeded in doing a fine job of discrediting yourself. Only in your mind would your statement make sense because of three factors, 1) you don't understand what is going on in the circuit, 2) you are too lazy to try to think it through, and 3) your arrogance and fake swagger bites you in the ass yet again.
As the battery voltage drop's,the base resistance would decrease in order to maintain the same light output from the LED.
ROTFLMAO
Well as has been seen time and time again MH,you are the only one that has trouble understanding what i write.
ROTFLMAO
Your prose is not resonating with a lot of people. More cowbell.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
There you go, you just made another epic fail and succeeded in doing a fine job of discrediting yourself. Only in your mind would your statement make sense because of three factors, 1) you don't understand what is going on in the circuit, 2) you are too lazy to try to think it through, and 3) your arrogance and fake swagger bites you in the ass yet again.
ROTFLMAO
ROTFLMAO
Your prose is not resonating with a lot of people. More cowbell.
MileHigh
Well MH,looking at your three responses, it is very clear that you have no idea as to how theses types of circuits work. All these years you posed as a guru,and here we see the simple thing's going way over your head.
You do realize MH,that i can back up all my claims with actual experiment's--dont you. And you do realize that !if! and when i do that,you will look even more silly than you do right now?.
I am surprised at all the mistakes you are making in this thread-->what has happened to you MH?.
Im guessing you have not seen my video regarding two core halves lighting an LED?. I mean,you are normally one of the first to view my video's,just so as you can add your thumbs down,but at the same time,not having the guts to make a comment--like most that leave a thumbs down.
Surly you are not that far behind that you cant understand how a steel laminated core can be 1 half of a capacitor,and that two of these steel laminated cores that see a different magnetic field polarity can be the two plates required to make a capacitor-->and hence the insistence of my question MH-->what is the magnetic force.
What is a capacitor MH? When a capacitor is charged,dose one plate have a higher potential than the other?, dose a magnetic field exist between the two plates when that capacitor is being charged or discharged ? where is the center of that magnetic field?.-->what is the magnetic force?
You are so quick to dismiss,but only because you lack the ability to understand.
Brad
-
Well MH,looking at your three responses, it is very clear that you have no idea as to how theses types of circuits work. All these years you posed as a guru,and here we see the simple thing's going way over your head.
Well Brad, then please go ahead and explain how a standard Joule Thief works and explain how lowering the value of the base resistor as the battery voltage drops will make the LED brighter.
I mean,you are normally one of the first to view my video's,just so as you can add your thumbs down,but at the same time,not having the guts to make a comment--like most that leave a thumbs down.
The truth is that I very rarely watch one of your videos and I don't use the thumbs-up/thumbs-down feature. I am not going to spend 35 minutes to watch a video that has about four minutes worth of real content in it. To the best of my recollection I haven't made a comment on one of your videos in years.
You are like a really bad actor in a really bad 1952 sci-fi movie, lord knows what is possessing you to do this.
-
what is the magnetic force?
How many times are you going to drone on with this question? Why don't you just spill your magic beans?
What you are really asking me is what a magnetic field is, a la tatted Kenny. I have a basic Brad Secret Decoder Ring.
This shows the mechanics of the generation of a magnetic field based on the existence of a moving point charge and the most common moving point charge is an electron:
Calculating the Magnetic Field Due to a Moving Point Charge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8)
Then there is the quantum theory about fields and I am not qualified to discuss it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28physics%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28physics%29)
It is now believed that quantum mechanics should underlie all physical phenomena, so that a classical field theory should, at least in principle, permit a recasting in quantum mechanical terms; success yields the corresponding quantum field theory. For example, quantizing classical electrodynamics gives quantum electrodynamics. Quantum electrodynamics is arguably the most successful scientific theory; experimental data confirm its predictions to a higher precision (to more significant digits) than any other theory.[17] The two other fundamental quantum field theories are quantum chromodynamics and the electroweak theory.
So you can Google away to your heart's content or even better go take some university courses in quantum mechanics. That's about all that you are going to get out of me on this matter.
If you are not satisfied with my links to provide a basic summary for an answer to your question, then answer your question yourself.
MileHigh
-
Surly you are not that far behind that you cant understand how a steel laminated core can be 1 half of a capacitor
Stop being a clown. Your "description" of whatever you were talking about with no diagram, no schematic, and no frame of reference or context is such that it amounted to nonsensical technical gibberish. It's just another example that illustrates once again how severely handicapped your communication skills are. Whatever it is that you are trying to talk about, just drop it.
This is what really counts: Well Brad, then please go ahead and explain how a standard Joule Thief works and explain how lowering the value of the base resistor as the battery voltage drops will make the LED brighter.
-
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....choke, choke, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
What was the original question again? So.... was it how many glasses of wine should one drink before the glass feels like it's resonating?
It's so easy making up questions. It's actually fun. It's also very very easy to tell people they are stupid if they cannot then answer the question. It's even easier knocking them down when they come up with some reasons instead of being courteous and asking for more clarifications without castrating them first.. Wow, this is a really great thread, I'm impressed. So..........I just learned how to bait people into a vague question and see them scramble about while they are being treated like nimrods.
Reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago: How do you confuse a Newfy? You take him into a round room and tell him to piss in the corner. hahahahaha (Always gets a laugh)
@MH, get off your high horse will y'a. You have no business here knocking @tinman or anyone else. This is not @MH's Lessons in Self-OU-Flagellation. Just get to the point will y'a. All this whining without dining is getting stale. Also why settle for a cheap China made Brad Secret Decoder Ring knockoff when the original is right here and available to answer questions that are put in a respectful manner.?
So here where you posted this;
http://overunity.com/8341/joule-thief-101/msg477656/#msg477656
is a good example of why people never think anymore. They read stuff like this and consider it to be a real explanation but when you ask "Where is the proof" you get this standard answer "That's the way it is". So why is it that you can push all these notions of the "electron charge" (whatever that is), and the field (whatever that is) that have never been proven or that can very easily be discounted under other causal actions, while anyone else with an angle needs to bow down to your measuring stick. Man you need to grow up fast. I could spend the next 5 months dissecting all EE causal positions and bring them all back to a simple set of rules that would kill the field and electron forever. Then even you would not be able to dispute these and then where would you be? This level of standard arrogance is so pervasive that others don't even realize they are being exposed to it. It's like breathing air. Normal. Hmmm.
@All
I have a very bad feeling that whatever @MH comes up with in terms of his Oracle derived answer, the price will be too high and the payout will be very very low. So, as our best friend Mr. Trump always says "This is a very bad deal". hahaha
So I suggest that if no one personally knows a nice foxy shaped wine glass that talks, we will not get the answer from the glasses mouth. Then resonance remains as it is untouched but definitely blemished by the actions on this thread.
What resonance is........ is what I posted many pages back. Like it or not, resonance in our coils is a measure of the active atoms that are able to sway more then others at a particular frequency. Nothing more. What does it produce? Voltage without a punch. Small fry. What is it good for? Nothing if you cannot work out a way to convince more atoms to partake in the action. But to do that you need to look at what I posted to @gotoluc (third down) back in January of this year;
http://overunity.com/16261/rotating-magnetic-fields-and-inductors/msg470258/#msg470258
There can be other ways as well but they involve more demanding builds and experimental work. This is what should be discussed here and not how a fu&k'*n wine glass resonates. Now if you have direct questions, please do but please stay off the wine will y'a.
So, if Metglass and other oriented steel type laminations are the best for the core, then why not think that the copper atoms would work better (produce more amps) under resonance if more atoms were oriented to respond together since more atoms that jitter means more amps that flicker. If 100% of the copper atoms were 100% free to respond to all frequencies, then what would resonance be? Nothing but just another accepted reaction and our wires would be working as super conductive under normal ambient conditions. But right now, resonance is telling us that not even 5% of those atoms are ever active unless you drive the wire to the hilt and we all know that such standard conditions never produce OU, only heat and losses.
wattsup
-
I have emptied several glasses of wine and, as of yet, have found no answers.
The only resonance I could detect was a bit of gas (methane) which I can not directly attribute to the wine, so, I am lost now.
I think that my only hope is Ella Fitzgerald...she obviously know resonance...and she got paid for knowing it. What a deal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG8K0yl4_hc&list=RDYG8K0yl4_hc#t=13 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG8K0yl4_hc&list=RDYG8K0yl4_hc#t=13)
Bill
-
Wattsup:
If you are going to cross a road, and it is a two-way street, then it behooves you to look both ways before you cross because if you only look one way and don't look both ways then you could get hurt.
The discussion of a resonating wine glass is absolutely germane to discussion of a possible "resonant Joule Thief." New knowledge is built upon previous knowledge. That is the way you go up the learning curve. So if you can't describe a resonating wine glass and understand how it works, then why should you be able to understand other resonance phenomena including an alleged "resonant Joule Thief?"
If you have no foundation, then you are effectively building a house of cards that will collapse in a slight breeze. If you want to take my advice, you yourself need to work up on building up your own foundation. It looks like you have some very nice bench equipment and a nice space to work in. It would be so nice to seeing you "getting it" when it comes to "conventional EE" before you start looking into the esoteric. It's just a comment, I know that you are going to do your own thing.
MileHigh
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlk59xdM_YY&list=RDYG8K0yl4_hc&index=6 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlk59xdM_YY&list=RDYG8K0yl4_hc&index=6)
OK Y'all....here is your resonance.
What an artist this guy is...I mean, I can get a glass to ring like this with my finger if all conditions are correct but...this guy hits all of these glasses and then does harmony as well? Let us all take a moment and chill out and rejoice in the fantastic world we live in.
This is fantastic!
Bill
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlk59xdM_YY&list=RDYG8K0yl4_hc&index=6 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlk59xdM_YY&list=RDYG8K0yl4_hc&index=6)
OK Y'all....here is your resonance.
What an artist this guy is...I mean, I can get a glass to ring like this with my finger if all conditions are correct but...this guy hits all of these glasses and then does harmony as well? Let us all take a moment and chill out and rejoice in the fantastic world we live in.
This is fantastic!
Bill
Very impressive, but I think around here it's more like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpcUxwpOQ_A
-
Very impressive, but I think around here it's more like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpcUxwpOQ_A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpcUxwpOQ_A)
Ha ha...that was pretty funny. Never know what those damn Muppets will do next.
Bill
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg477716#msg477716 date=1458373098]
MileHigh
This shows the mechanics of the generation of a magnetic field based on the existence of a moving point charge
OOOhhh-wait a minute here.
Were you not one of the guru's that laughed at me when i said that the magnetic force was flowing charges?, and yet here you are promoting a video explaining a magnetic field around a moving charge lol.
I have a basic Brad Secret Decoder Ring.
No point in me going any further,as last time i put forward my theory on the magnetic force,you guru's all laughed at me---and yet you post video's showing magnetic fields around a moving point charge. ::)
So you can Google away to your heart's content or even better go take some university courses in quantum mechanics. That's about all that you are going to get out of me on this matter.
If you are not satisfied with my links to provide a basic summary for an answer to your question, then answer your question yourself.
What is it with you guy's(the guru's) ?.
It's like you want to know the top speed of a car,so you jump in,take off down the road,hit 100MPH,and then say--no,thats fast enough-no need to go any faster,-and you hit the brakes.
and the most common moving point charge is an electron:
Do you even know what a point charge is,or why they use that term !point charge! MH?--or have you just chucked it in there because you read it in a book,or the guy in the video mentioned it?.
You need to get away from the electron as being the all mighty--as it is not when it comes to electromagnetic radiation.
What other elementary particles have no internal structure MH?. Which one is the force carrier in the !magnetic force!?. And what would it be called-or known as in a static situation?.
Once you have that answer,as i said before,only then will you understand my questions i posted a while back,regarding a device that uses this uni directional force to generate a direct current.
What you are really asking me is what a magnetic field is, a la tatted Kenny.
No.
The magnetic field,and the magnetic force are two different thing's.
Stop looking at what causes a magnetic field,and start looking at what the magnetic force actually is.
Then come back and have another laugh at my theory on the magnetic force being the flow of positive and negative charges-->and stop thinking that charge is limited to !an electric! charge.
Your mind has such a small scope MH.
Brad
-
snip...
You need to get away from the electron as being the all mighty--as it is not when it comes to electromagnetic radiation.
snip...
Indeed, there seems to be a fly in the ointment when it comes to the most powerful magnetic sources in the universe, which according to astronomers is neutron stars, or magnetars, which are supposedly a variant of neutron stars. According to descriptions of neutron stars, there can be no free electrons or protons. So where does the magnetism come from? That's got me stumped! Then again, I think neutron stars are like black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and dark flow. All figments of the imagination of old school astronomers clinging desperately to the flawed 'standard' model they hold so dearly to their hearts.
Cheers.
-
So where does the magnetism come from?
Could it perhaps be due to charged particles moving at a
high velocity? How rapidly does the magnetar rotate?
-
Could it perhaps be due to charged particles moving at a
high velocity? How rapidly does the magnetar rotate?
;)
Now-what device uses/depends on charged particles moving at extremely high velocities to produce a DC current?.
Brad
-
...my theory on the magnetic force being the flow of positive and negative charges...
I find your theory very interesting. I believe in what Edward Leedskalnin says in his book and your comment reminds me of that. Just curious if you believe in what Ed says as well?
...Now-what device uses/depends on charged particles moving at extremely high velocities to produce a DC current?....
Homopolar motor?
-
I find your theory very interesting. I believe in what Edward Leedskalnin says in his book and your comment reminds me of that. Just curious if you believe in what Ed says as well?
Homopolar motor?
The thing about Ed, was
You don't have to 'believe'
he wrote down his experiments, that verify his statements.
If you find yourself "not believing" Ed, it is probably because you did not perform the experiments he set forth.
The biggest problem people face when reading Ed's work, is the language barrier.
He uses words and concepts not commonly expressed in electrical or magnetic theory.
This causes a break-down in communication of the concepts he presents.
If you can get yourself past your own education, and biased-perspective
Then, and only then, can you learn what Ed was trying to teach us.
Ed's own lack of education gave him the unique advantage of being able to observe empirical data
without the bias presented by a modern education.
The thing to remember is, even the most advanced of our current magnetic theories,
does no justice to describing what exactly a magnetic field "is".
Only what it does, in discrete situations.
Most of the situations Ed presents, are not found in current theory.
Therefore - what Ed describes, is a unique field of research, that he alone dominated.
He is the expert in this field.
Until such time, that someone else comes along and describes Ed's experiments in a manner
which coincides with current theory. - this cannot be done in our current state.
Things that prevail themselves in Ed's experiments, have no current model.
The last corporation to attempt this (IBM) lost several millions in research and funding, trying to describe anomalies
that do not fit our current theories.
Ed explained in great detail what was going on in this situation, however, modern physics has no analogy.
Thus IBM was forced by the scientific community, to retract their claims, and abandon research in these areas.
I would urge anyone interested in Magnetics, to pick up a copy of the book "Magnetic Current"
and go through the experiments Ed sets forth.
They can all be done using a car battery and pieces of junk you find laying around.
He walks you through his perspective of "what a magnet is"
How to make a magnet
and Ways to use magnets, that no one else on earth seems to do.
Now, the particular words Ed chooses to use, may not fit your personal understanding of magnetics.
This does not make anything that is observed during these experiments, any less "real".
Only "less understood", due to the difference in terminology and concepts used.
Ed may have been more correct than our current physics models, in some regards.
In either case, what he shows us, is we don't know everything we think we know.....
-
Could it perhaps be due to charged particles moving at a
high velocity? How rapidly does the magnetar rotate?
The magnetar rotates significantly slower than it's comparible neutron star.
The magnetism itself originates from a layer about 1/3 into the interior of the star,
which consists of primarily Neutrons, by mass.
(neutrons have a neutral electric charge, don't they?)
Yes, electrically speaking.
However, they do possess a magnetic polarity, similar to that of a proton.
The common example of this is Hydrogen.
1H has a mass of 1, an electric charge of 1, and a magnetic charge of 1.
2H (deuterium) has a mass of 2, an electric charge of 1, and a magnetic charge of 2.
3H (tritium) has a mass of 3, an electric charge of 1, and a magnetic charge of 3.
each atom has only 1 electron.
however, the two isotopes, have a greater magnetic charge than the stable Hydrogen (1H) atom.
For this reason, Hydrogen - in its' ground state (non-ionic), has no net magnetic charge.
where-as, Deuterium and Tritium respond to a magnetic field.
The difference, is about 0.4 Teslas (at 1 atomic radii)
wht is this important?
because, a large mass of neutrons, has no net electric charge.
but it does have a very intense magnetic charge.
Which gives it a great inductance, in the presence of an intense electric field.
like the field presented by the reactions at the core of the star.
This builds up periodically, and "pulses" a magnetic field of immense amplitude.
The resulting flux emits both magnetic pulses, as well as forms of electromagnetic radiation
like gamma rays, and X-rays.
The difference between the magnetar and the more common variations of a neutron star is
is their slower rotational velocity (generally 2x slower rotation than a neutron star of same size)
and their density - they are generally more dense than a neutron star of the same diameter.
This mass, being primarily neutrons, gives them a more intense magnetic field than the neutron star.
any matter that nears such an intense field, will become ionic.
there can be no molecular bonds, nor any solid mass, to speak of.
only ionic dust..... all else disintegrates into ionic dust.
The electrons are stripped off by the intense magnetic field.
They are all drawn to a surface layer on the outer diameter of the star.
attracted to the neutron layer, but can never reach it, because of the density of the star.
There is an intense electric boundary around these stars, but it's field does not reach to any distance, because it is overpowered by the magnetic field.
The slow rotation does not "cause" the magnetic field, but rather, the intense magnetic field "causes" the star to rotate more slowly.
-
The magnetar rotates significantly slower than it's comparible neutron star.
The magnetism itself originates from a layer about 1/3 into the interior of the star,
which consists of primarily Neutrons, by mass.
(neutrons have a neutral electric charge, don't they?)
Yes, electrically speaking.
However, they do possess a magnetic polarity, similar to that of a proton.
The common example of this is Hydrogen.
1H has a mass of 1, an electric charge of 1, and a magnetic charge of 1.
2H (deuterium) has a mass of 2, an electric charge of 1, and a magnetic charge of 2.
3H (tritium) has a mass of 3, an electric charge of 1, and a magnetic charge of 3.
each atom has only 1 electron.
however, the two isotopes, have a greater magnetic charge than the stable Hydrogen (1H) atom.
For this reason, Hydrogen - in its' ground state (non-ionic), has no net magnetic charge.
where-as, Deuterium and Tritium respond to a magnetic field.
The difference, is about 0.4 Teslas (at 1 atomic radii)
wht is this important?
because, a large mass of neutrons, has no net electric charge.
but it does have a very intense magnetic charge.
Which gives it a great inductance, in the presence of an intense electric field.
like the field presented by the reactions at the core of the star.
This builds up periodically, and "pulses" a magnetic field of immense amplitude.
The resulting flux emits both magnetic pulses, as well as forms of electromagnetic radiation
like gamma rays, and X-rays.
The difference between the magnetar and the more common variations of a neutron star is
is their slower rotational velocity (generally 2x slower rotation than a neutron star of same size)
and their density - they are generally more dense than a neutron star of the same diameter.
This mass, being primarily neutrons, gives them a more intense magnetic field than the neutron star.
any matter that nears such an intense field, will become ionic.
there can be no molecular bonds, nor any solid mass, to speak of.
only ionic dust..... all else disintegrates into ionic dust.
The electrons are stripped off by the intense magnetic field.
They are all drawn to a surface layer on the outer diameter of the star.
attracted to the neutron layer, but can never reach it, because of the density of the star.
There is an intense electric boundary around these stars, but it's field does not reach to any distance, because it is overpowered by the magnetic field.
The slow rotation does not "cause" the magnetic field, but rather, the intense magnetic field "causes" the star to rotate more slowly.
Thanks for this very good and informative post!
CANGAS 226
-
When you think of quarks as being of two equal but opposite entities.
one magnetic, one electric
simultaneously being attracted to, and repelled from one another, at opposite ends.
like a magnet and a coil
when you combine 3 magnetic quarks, two ups and a down per say..
you have a neutron
when you combine 2 magnetic quarks and an electric quark, two ups and a down
you have a proton, 1/3 less magnetic moment, but an electric charge, 1/3 of the intensity of the magnetic moment.
when the electron is present, to create its' magnetic moment, around a single orbit:
the magnetic moment is comparable to that of a neutron.
you could call a neutron "paramagnetic"
and a proton "ferromagnetic".
Which is true, even on the macro scale.
As evident, by magnetizing "non-magnetic" materials, such as Styrofoam, plastics, wood and aluminum.
This is only possible, under very intense magnetic fields.
oddly enough, this relates back to Ed Leedskalnin, through his device known as the "perpetual motion holder"
Which can create such intense magnetic fields, so as to magnetize non-magnetic materials.
This was discovered by David Lambright back in 2010
Also, can be used the newer 2T+ neo magnets.
or an equivalently intense electric field.
-
Brad:
Please go ahead and explain how a standard Joule Thief works and explain how lowering the value of the base resistor as the battery voltage drops will make the LED brighter.
MileHigh
-
Miles
your starting to look like a three day old Omelet [egg on face]
trying to fit all of this Resonance into one Box .. just won't go well for you ,never mind looking both ways before you cross the street [or open your mouth with authority]
here there is no limit to the ways you need to look !!
and having to cover all your ignorant rants and rude assumptions from days gone by will surely end up with you pulling a Muscle ,or worse !!
you'll get hobbled and not be able to make it back up MileHigh Mountain !!
maybe only Fiffty feet ?
then they would call you Fiddy...
Please Go ask the Oracle for a bump up ...
-
Brad:
Please go ahead and explain how a standard Joule Thief works and explain how lowering the value of the base resistor as the battery voltage drops will make the LED brighter.
MileHigh
Oh no you dont MH-->get it right.
I clearly said !maintain same brightness!--not make the LED brighter.
I will answer your question in 4 to 8 weeks,in the hope that it gives you enough time to use your own smart's,and work it out for your self.
Now--have you any thoughts on what the magnetic force is yet?
Brad
-
Oh no you dont MH-->get it right.
I clearly said !maintain same brightness!--not make the LED brighter.
I will answer your question in 4 to 8 weeks,in the hope that it gives you enough time to use your own smart's,and work it out for your self.
Now--have you any thoughts on what the magnetic force is yet?
Brad
Yes, that's actually what I meant. If the LED is going to dim as the battery voltage drops, then "making the LED brighter" will indeed maintain the same brightness.
Now we are talking real electronics, and I am asking you to back up your statement with a proper explanation discussing the electronics of the Joule Thief. This is not the time for games, this is your claim - you stated this, and you need to explain how and why lowering the base resistance in a standard Joule Thief will maintain the brightness of the LED as the battery voltage drops.
I am not interested in talking about the "magnetic force," I want to hear you back up your claim and prove that you are supposedly correct by discussing how the Joule Thief operates and how lowering the base resistance will do what you claim it will do.
MileHigh
-
Nonsense, I am asking Brad to back up his own claims about the Joule Thief. That's is the subject matter of this thread. Stop your ridiculous BS. You are fully aware that I understand electronics quite well, stop the nonsense.
-
Will you stop this foolishness right now? This is the third or fourth time you have done it, and it's enough.
-
Brad:
We are discussing the Joule Thief and your claim about the variable base resistor. I am asking you to back up your statement with a proper explanation discussing the electronics of the Joule Thief and how it operates. This is your claim - you stated this, and you need to explain how and why lowering the base resistance in a standard Joule Thief will maintain the brightness of the LED as the battery voltage drops.
I want to read your argument and see you make a solid technical case by discussing how the Joule Thief operates and how lowering the base resistance will do what you claim it will do.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
We are discussing the Joule Thief and your claim about the variable base resistor. I am asking you to back up your statement with a proper explanation discussing the electronics of the Joule Thief and how it operates. This is your claim - you stated this, and you need to explain how and why lowering the base resistance in a standard Joule Thief will maintain the brightness of the LED as the battery voltage drops.
I want to read your argument and see you make a solid technical case by discussing how the Joule Thief operates and how lowering the base resistance will do what you claim it will do.
MileHigh
I am happy to discuss/debate the question at hand,and we can have this discussion/debate the very way you like it MH,where i make a statement/claim,provide no input toward that statement/claim,and i present the answer in 4 to 8 week's, in the hope that it gives you time to think about it,and try to understand what really happen's. I mean,it is no different to that of what you have done. You made a claim that we are all wrong about what resonance is,and how the resonant frequency is determined in a wine glass--you want to debate the subject,but provide no input toward it,and we are to wait 4 to 8 weeks before you post the holy grail on resonance--in the hope that we have enough time to !!get it right!!. :D
The answer i provide can only be given once you have educated us on what resonance truly is ;). I mean,it makes sense -dosnt it?. How could i provide an answer to you when i have no idea as to what resonance is,and will only truly understand it once you have provided all the information we all need on resonance. Anything i say will be incorrect-will it not?,as you have not yet provided your rock solid determination on what resonance is. Once i have your holy grail on resonance,i can then say i will provide my answer in 4 to 8 week's. This will give me enough time to think about it,and have a quick 20 minute googlegasm, and present my wonderful findings that will change the course of history :D.
But in the mean time,i demand that we have a debate on the subject at hand,where i let you provide all the input toward that debate,and i just sit back and say--no no,that is incorrect,knowing that i have 4 to 8 weeks to come up with some 'n'bull answer that has already been covered,but just worded in a way so as it sounds completely different. ;)
So lets not dive into fact's and actualities MH, lets wait until i have your answer on what resonance truly is,and then i can take a few weeks to puddle some words together that fit into your new discovery on resonance. But in the mean time,feel free to post some accurate answer's,so as i have something to dismiss as bullshit ;)
Brad
-
TinMan
you are wise beyond your years....
you have become enlightened [or at least aglow ] ...
surely the "legend in his own mind" will see the wisdom in this !
a thing of beauty ....
-
Brad:
Have you ever heard the expression, "Do stupid things, win stupid prizes?" Your stupid prize is the four to eight week delay, which gives you or anybody else the opportunity to research and answer the two simple questions because you did a stupid thing and therefore you won a stupid prize.
i make a statement/claim,provide no input toward that statement/claim
Who says that whenever you try to reply to a question and you don't get it right that you have to be given input on your reply? In essence you want hints, you can't deal with simply getting the answer wrong. It's a request for spoon-feeding. Do you think life is like this such that whenever you get something wrong that somebody is immediately supposed to guide you towards the right answer? You have the entire Internet and your own intellect to guide yourself towards the right answer. And if you don't get it you will be given the right answers in the end.
How could i provide an answer to you when i have no idea as to what resonance is
Who said there is any connection between the variable resistor issue and resonance? Why are you saying that when we know that a standard Joule Thief doesn't resonate? The simple fact is that there is no connection at all between resonance and your explanation for why lowering the value of the base resistor is supposedly going to increase the brightness of the LED.
It's just more spaghetti and random stream-of-consciousness thinking on your part making a connection when in fact there is no connection. it's a thought ricochet. Put your brain in gear and take one step forwards in your thought process, then take another step forward, and learn to think in logical steps and move forward and think in a straight line just like you can walk in a straight line.
So you don't have a logical reason to not discuss your own statement about the variable resistor issue because it has nothing to do with resonance. I am pretty certain the reason you don't want to discuss it is because you can't. It's just a silly excuse to avoid dealing with the issue. So you are just stalling and faking because you don't want to be exposed for this gaffe. If not, then prove me wrong and I will be happy to listen to you make a solid argument discussing the electronics of the standard Joule Thief and how lowering the value of the base resistor for a constant battery voltage will supposedly make the LED brighter.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
We are discussing the Joule Thief and your claim about the variable base resistor. I am asking you to back up your statement with a proper explanation discussing the electronics of the Joule Thief and how it operates. This is your claim - you stated this, and you need to explain how and why lowering the base resistance in a standard Joule Thief will maintain the brightness of the LED as the battery voltage drops.
I want to read your argument and see you make a solid technical case by discussing how the Joule Thief operates and how lowering the base resistance will do what you claim it will do.
MileHigh
Are you claiming that it will NOT?
Ye who owns not a Joule Thief?
-
Brad:
Have you ever heard the expression, "Do stupid things, win stupid prizes?" Your stupid prize is the four to eight week delay, which gives you or anybody else the opportunity to research and answer the two simple questions because you did a stupid thing and therefore you won a stupid prize.
Who says that whenever you try to reply to a question and you don't get it right that you have to be given input on your reply? In essence you want hints, you can't deal with simply getting the answer wrong. It's a request for spoon-feeding. Do you think life is like this such that whenever you get something wrong that somebody is immediately supposed to guide you towards the right answer? You have the entire Internet and your own intellect to guide yourself towards the right answer. And if you don't get it you will be given the right answers in the end.
Who said there is any connection between the variable resistor issue and resonance? Why are you saying that when we know that a standard Joule Thief doesn't resonate? The simple fact is that there is no connection at all between resonance and your explanation for why lowering the value of the base resistor is supposedly going to increase the brightness of the LED.
It's just more spaghetti and random stream-of-consciousness thinking on your part making a connection when in fact there is no connection. it's a thought ricochet. Put your brain in gear and take one step forwards in your thought process, then take another step forward, and learn to think in logical steps and move forward and think in a straight line just like you can walk in a straight line.
So you don't have a logical reason to not discuss your own statement about the variable resistor issue because it has nothing to do with resonance. I am pretty certain the reason you don't want to discuss it is because you can't. It's just a silly excuse to avoid dealing with the issue. So you are just stalling and faking because you don't want to be exposed for this gaffe. If not, then prove me wrong and I will be happy to listen to you make a solid argument discussing the electronics of the standard Joule Thief and how lowering the value of the base resistor for a constant battery voltage will supposedly make the LED brighter.
MileHigh
Yes-like you MH, I made a statement-a claim.
And like you, I give you 4 to 8 weeks to think about it, and after that time, I will provide you with the correct answer.
I mean, that is how we debate the MH way--isn't it?--that is the way the true meanings and understandings come about?.
Or maybe-like you-I am just wasting time, and being an idiot.
What I mean is-lets not waste time on the VR , and how we can increase the current flowing to the base of the transistor, as we decrease the base resistance ,which switches the transistor on harder and longer, resulting in a pulse width increase, thus maintaining a magnetic field of the same value as the battery voltage drops, which in turn would maintain the current flowing through the LED to be around the same value, resulting in the same light output from the LED--as the battery voltage drops. Even though that is just a quick and brief explanation, lets not worry about that, nore the fact that the ! So called! sweet spot could also be maintained as the battery voltage drops by decreasing the base resistance. Lets not worry about any of that--lets do a MH on this one, and give everyone here time to throw away all they have learned, and wait 4 to 8 weeks for my theory of everythig-where I take a 20 minute googlegasm, and present world changing determinations--this is the MH way.
-
Are you claiming that it will NOT?
Ye who owns not a Joule Thief?
The claim from Brad is that it WILL.
Let Brad back up his own claim.
-
The claim from Brad is that it WILL.
Let Brad back up his own claim.
MileHigh - Youre fooling yourself with the same old childish one liners that the CIA Handbook taught you!
I am happy to donate $10 to the Shut Up MileHigh Fund!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
What I mean is-lets not waste time on the VR , and how we can increase the current flowing to the base of the transistor, as we decrease the base resistance ,which switches the transistor on harder and longer, resulting in a pulse width increase, thus maintaining a magnetic field of the same value as the battery voltage drops, which in turn would maintain the current flowing through the LED to be around the same value, resulting in the same light output from the LED--as the battery voltage drops. Even though that is just a quick and brief explanation, lets not worry about that, nore the fact that the ! So called! sweet spot could also be maintained as the battery voltage drops by decreasing the base resistance. Lets not worry about any of that--lets do a MH on this one, and give everyone here time to throw away all they have learned, and wait 4 to 8 weeks for my theory of everythig-where I take a 20 minute googlegasm, and present world changing determinations--this is the MH way.
So, you have given your answer.
- the transistor will not switch on "harder," it is already ON.
- the transistor will not stay switched on longer, you are making a totally blind and completely wrong assumption based on your false belief that the transistor has been switched on "harder" and "'harder' equals 'stay on longer.'"
- since the transistor will not switch on longer, there will not be any "maintaining a magnetic field of the same value as the battery voltage drops."
So, you are showing the world that you don't understand how a Joule Thief works. You are showing the world how you made a blind "Doh!" assumption that lowering the base resistance would increase the brightness of the LED.
Do you need an answer to understand the need for a variable base resistor MH?-or will your batteries simply remain at the rated voltage of 1.5 volt's?.
That was a bit of a silly statement by your self MH.
My ass, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
MileHigh
-
MileHigh - Youre fooling yourself with the same old childish one liners that the CIA Handbook taught you!
I am happy to donate $10 to the Shut Up MileHigh Fund!!!
Watchout everyone, the Goose is on the Loose!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Ha ha, why does that comment make me think about a Dr. Demento novelty song?
-
Ha ha, why does that comment make me think about a Dr. Demento novelty song?
Still an Idiot, no wonder no one takes you seriously!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Take a look in the mirror there Chris and look for the idiot. You know that guy that went on and on about "partnered output coils" and cited all sorts of examples. Then your experiment was looked at and it turned out to be a farce and clearly showed that you had no idea how to make proper measurements and then you had to retract your over unity claim. Since you were so big on coils you were challenged on that subject and asked a very simple skill-testing question about coils and you choked and failed to answer the question. You tried and tried and failed and you almost had a meltdown. Take a look in the mirror.
-
Take a look in the mirror there Chris and look for the idiot. You know that guy that went on and on about "partnered output coils" and cited all sorts of examples. Then your experiment was looked at and it turned out to be a farce and clearly showed that you had no idea how to make proper measurements and then you had to retract your over unity claim. Since you were so big on coils you were challenged on that subject and asked a very simple skill-testing question about coils and you choked and failed to answer the question. You tried and tried and failed and you almost had a meltdown. Take a look in the mirror.
MileHigh - Resorting to lies is not a very professional thing to do even for a CIA Troll.
What I have given to this forum, and the backup evidence I have provided, would very easily win any court case on any day of the week in any country!!!
Failures reflect on only the one that failed. I have not failed!
Most importantly MileHigh, others have reported, here in this forum, success after replicating my work successfully.
Your makeup Science has lost, you are slowly drowning in your drivel of lies and missunderstandings. Its all over for the Trolls!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
MileHigh - Resorting to lies is not a very professional thing to do even for a CIA Troll.
What I have given to this forum, and the backup evidence I have provided, would very easily win any court case on any day of the week in any country!!!
Failures reflect on only the one that failed. I have not failed!
Most importantly MileHigh, others have reported, here in this forum, success after replicating my work successfully.
Your makeup Science has lost, you are slowly drowning in your drivel of lies and missunderstandings. Its all over for the Trolls!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
ROTFLMAO
-
ROTFLMAO
"Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off" - just like you and your childish rants of lunacy!
Still an Idiot, no wonder no one takes you seriously!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
P.S: Yes I did struggle at the time. I am sure others can attest to the Circus of lunacy that happens!
-
Chris, what I said about events pertaining to you and your "partnered output coils" is absolutely true and you know it, we both lived through it together. So you are lying, please go back to your thread.
-
Chris, what I said about events pertaining to you and your "partnered output coils" is absolutely true and you know it, we both lived through it together. So you are lying, please go back to your thread.
I have no desire to clog this thread with off topic Truth,
Appologies Resonanceman!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
snip...
- the transistor will not switch on "harder," it is already ON.
snip..
That's exactly what it will do. In bench parlance, 'harder on' or 'hard on' is merely a descriptive term in broad general use.
There will be a higher current through the base resulting in a current gain through the collector. (If the base supply voltage remains the same but the base resistance decreases, or the base resistance decreases at a larger proportion than a drop in the base supply voltage).
That's exactly what the transistor is supposed to do. It is a dual current switch with a multiplication factor for the collector current associated with and proportional to the current in the base to emitter junction. I built analogue amplifiers for a living many years ago and the characteristics of transistors are well known and specifically chosen for their variable 'on' state. HFE and hfe of bi polar transistors was/is important to its current switching characteristics.
In analogue amplifiers, transistors are generally biased on at all times with the minimal amount of ambient current use. The signal to the base (via a dc isolating capacitor) causes the transistor to go from just being 'on', with minimal ambient current to being 'hard on' as the signal level dictates. 'Hard On' is merely a very common expression to indicate the variability of current between different states of 'on'. Of course it's also a much more widespread vernacular expression ;D bearing little to do with all things electronic.
Without a signal, analogue amplifier output transistors are still switching a small amount of power because they are biased 'on'. With a signal applied, the same output transistors can be 'hard on' to the tune of hundreds of watts. But they were always 'on', and never were they 'off', until you turned the whole amplifier off, of course.
Cheers
-
I understand what you are saying but it doesn't apply in this case.
-
Webby, I believe you are out of your element when it comes to electronics. I think you should just keep your hands in your pockets, sit back, and watch the show.
-
So, you have given your answer.
-
-
-
MileHigh
MH
It is painfully obvious that you really do not know how a transistor operates,and how reducing the base resistance actually dose exactly what i said it dose as the supply voltage drops.
You are having another ICE moment,where you are making incorrect judgments on things you know very little about.
Now how can i be sure of what im saying is true--well i have seen it right before my eyes on the bench MH,and i know how transistors work. Are you unaware that the base current is additive to the collector current?,and if we increase the current to the base,then we increase the current flow through the inductor in the case of the common JT circuit. Do you know how an audio amp works MH?.
the transistor will not switch on "harder," it is already ON.
Bullshit
the transistor will not stay switched on longer,
More bullshit
you are making a totally blind and completely wrong assumption based on your false belief that the transistor has been switched on "harder" and "'harder' equals 'stay on longer.'"
And more bullshit. There is no blind belief,they are facts based around experiments and bench time.
since the transistor will not switch on longer, there will not be any "maintaining a magnetic field of the same value as the battery voltage drops."
And one last drop of bullshit.
So, you are showing the world that you don't understand how a Joule Thief works. You are showing the world how you made a blind "Doh!" assumption that lowering the base resistance would increase the brightness of the LED.
MH.
I am starting to think some brainless twat has hacked your account,as the MH i know is much smarter than this.
My ass, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
At this point in time MH,we have reached a very big impasse.
Here is the problem you now face.
If i post a video(along with a schematic of the test setup)showing what i said to be absolutely correct,then this leaves you in a very bad predicament. If i !once again! prove you wrong,people will no longer take what you say as being correct. Those that still had some faith in you will loose it for good,and you will be nothing more than some one who is just here to interrupt threads,by way of posting garbage.
MileHigh
Please take some time to think about the statements i made.
1-we can increase the current flowing to the base of the transistor, as we decrease the base resistance along with the supply voltage drop.
2-which switches the transistor on harder and longer, resulting in a pulse width increase,
3-thus maintaining a magnetic field of the same value as the battery voltage drops
I really do not want to have to make this video,that clearly shows that everything i said above is true,as this would be detrimental to your standing here at OU.com
But i will do it if you continue to call everything i say !rubbish and wrong!.
Your mistakes on the ICE can be overlooked,as you are not well versed in ICE's and there workings.
But the JT is something you pride your self in,and this is suppose to be your guru status here-an EE who knows his stuff.
I think the reason you have come at me like a raging bull,and are dismissing everything i say as rubbish and incorrect,is because you dont like and cannot believe that some one like myself could possibly know more than your self in such a short time of experimenting.
So please MH,understand that i have already carried out the test that confirm my statements.
Please know that the test setup i have used produces absolute result's that backup my statements above.
I am giving you the opportunity to rethink/reconsider your dismissive claims against me.
I am giving you the opportunity to !debate! the effects that reducing the base resistance has as the supply voltage drops.
But as i said above,if you continue to dismiss everything i say,or continue to say that i have no idea as to what im talking about,i will make that video,and leave you to deal with the consequences.
Brad
-
Brad:
Are you unaware that the base current is additive to the collector current?,and if we increase the current to the base,then we increase the current flow through the inductor in the case of the common JT circuit.
A typical standard Joule Thief has a 1K-ohm base resistance, correct? A standard Joule Thief is designed to have the transistor act as an ON-OFF switch.
That means that with a 1K base resistor that the transistor will be fully ON, and the collector-emitter voltage will be at a minimum. If you reduce the base resistance to 700 ohms, then you will increase the base current, but the transistor as a switching device will still be fully ON, with the same minimum collector-emitter voltage.
When the transistor is acting like an ON-OFF switch, when it is ON and the battery voltage is constant, in the case of a 1K-ohm base resistor, or in the case of a 700-ohm base resistor, there will be no increase in current flow through the inductor, it will be the same. The factor that is limiting the current flow is the resistance of the inductor, it has nothing to do with the amount of base current flowing into the transistor.
In addition, if the battery voltage is 1.2 volts, then the maximum current flowing through the coil will be proportional to (1.2/coil_resistance). If the battery voltage decreases to 1.0 volts, then the maximum current flowing through the coil will be proportional to (1.0/coil_resistance). Therefore, there will be a decrease in the maximum current flow through the coil when the battery voltage is lower, resulting in a decrease in the initial current flow through the LED and therefore a dimmer LED for a lower battery voltage.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
1-we can increase the current flowing to the base of the transistor, as we decrease the base resistance along with the supply voltage drop.
2-which switches the transistor on harder and longer, resulting in a pulse width increase,
3-thus maintaining a magnetic field of the same value as the battery voltage drops
1. You can increase the current flowing into the base of the transistor, but it will just be "wasted current" that does nothing because the transistor is already fully ON.
2. The transistor will not switch on "harder" because it is already fully ON. Why should it switch on longer? Why? What is the mechanism that determines the length of time that the transistor stays ON? It is certainly not "switching harder" that makes the transistor supposedly stay on longer.
3. The current flow though the inductor (a.k.a. the "magnetic field") will principally be controlled by (battery_voltage/inductor_resistance) because when the transistor is switched fully ON, there is a very low and constant voltage drop across the collector-emitter junction and that collector-emitter voltage drop will be the same if you switch the base resistance from 1K-ohm to 700 ohms.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
A typical standard Joule Thief has a 1K-ohm base resistance, correct? A standard Joule Thief is designed to have the transistor act as an ON-OFF switch.
That means that with a 1K base resistor that the transistor will be fully ON, and the collector-emitter voltage will be at a minimum. If you reduce the base resistance to 700 ohms, then you will increase the base current, but the transistor as a switching device will still be fully ON, with the same minimum collector-emitter voltage.
When the transistor is acting like an ON-OFF switch, when it is ON and the battery voltage is constant, in the case of a 1K-ohm base resistor, or in the case of a 700-ohm base resistor, there will be no increase in current flow through the inductor, it will be the same. The factor that is limiting the current flow is the resistance of the inductor, it has nothing to do with the amount of base current flowing into the transistor.
In addition, if the battery voltage is 1.2 volts, then the maximum current flowing through the coil will be proportional to (1.2/coil_resistance). If the battery voltage decreases to 1.0 volts, then the maximum current flowing through the coil will be proportional to (1.0/coil_resistance). Therefore, there will be a decrease in the maximum current flow through the coil when the battery voltage is lower, resulting in a decrease in the initial current flow through the LED and therefore a dimmer LED for a lower battery voltage.
MileHigh
MH
You need to have a good look at the basic JT circuit--the one you like,or call the JT circuit.
You have two coil's that provide current to build the magnetic field--not one.
As you decrease the resistance to the base,you increase the current flowing to the base,and this current is additive to the collector current due to the way the two coils are linked together,and thus the magnetic field strength can be maintained by reducing the base resistance value, so as to provide the same amount of power flowing through the LED from the kickback as the battery voltage drop's.
I will draw up a quick schematic of my test setup,and post it here. When you see the test setup,you will know that the measurements taken,and the statements i provided are correct.
Brad
-
@MH
Below is my test setup schematic.
I have added a diode and cap to the JT circuit,so as the LED see's only a stable DC current at all time's.
The LED is a 2.6 volt LED,and i have used a 2.5k VR instead of the 1k resistor. This is needed so as i can get the voltage across the cap down to the rated 2.6 volts of the LED,when the circuit is supplied with 1.5 volt's. If i use a 1k pot,the cap will charge up to 3.1 volt's,and the LED passes out. At 1.2 volt's,we are very close to the 1k ohm resistance value,and so very close to your standard JT circuit.
I have a 10 ohm CVR,as a 1 ohm is far to noisy at these low power levels,and the 10 ohm CVR allows for very clear scope traces.
I have the LED across a 4700uf cap,and this gives us a very clear/clean voltage value across the LED.
With this setup,i can clearly show a maintained voltage across the LED as the supply voltage is reduced. This can only mean that the magnetic field strength is being maintained as the input voltage is dropped.
With the 10ohm CVR,i can also clearly show the pulse width increase-and there for the current increase, as the base resistance is reduced along with the input voltage--all while maintaining 2.6 volts across the LED, with a smooth DC current flow through the LED.
Brad
-
Brad:
MileHigh
1. You can increase the current flowing into the base of the transistor, but it will just be "wasted current" that does nothing because the transistor is already fully ON.
MH
1.2v/1kohms is 1.2mA. This is not enough current to fully switch on the transistor,as the transistor is a current device,unlike the FET which requires very little current,but a higher voltage.
2. The transistor will not switch on "harder" because it is already fully ON.
It will not be fully on at a low base current of 1.2mA.
Why should it switch on longer? Why? What is the mechanism that determines the length of time that the transistor stays ON? It is certainly not "switching harder" that makes the transistor supposedly stay on longer.
The reason it stays on longer, is because the transistor is switching on harder,in that the required switching current to the base has now increased.
3. The current flow though the inductor (a.k.a. the "magnetic field") will principally be controlled by (battery_voltage/inductor_resistance) because when the transistor is switched fully ON, there is a very low and constant voltage drop across the collector-emitter junction and that collector-emitter voltage drop will be the same if you switch the base resistance from 1K-ohm to 700 ohms.
As i stated,the lower the supply voltage get's,the less base current there is available to switch the transistor fully on. There is also the fact that the base current is additive to the collector current in this situation. So the least resistance to that current flowing to the base,the more current flows through the inductor as a whole.
Brad
-
this is just one transistor circuit what the fuck..you guys should deal in uhf circuitry running at 450 mhz.. you guys make me fucking sick of your petty childish fucking arguments..
-
@MH
Below is my test setup schematic.
I have added a diode and cap to the JT circuit,so as the LED see's only a stable DC current at all time's.
The LED is a 2.6 volt LED,and i have used a 2.5k VR instead of the 1k resistor. This is needed so as i can get the voltage across the cap down to the rated 2.6 volts of the LED,when the circuit is supplied with 1.5 volt's. If i use a 1k pot,the cap will charge up to 3.1 volt's,and the LED passes out. At 1.2 volt's,we are very close to the 1k ohm resistance value,and so very close to your standard JT circuit.
I have a 10 ohm CVR,as a 1 ohm is far to noisy at these low power levels,and the 10 ohm CVR allows for very clear scope traces.
I have the LED across a 4700uf cap,and this gives us a very clear/clean voltage value across the LED.
With this setup,i can clearly show a maintained voltage across the LED as the supply voltage is reduced. This can only mean that the magnetic field strength is being maintained as the input voltage is dropped.
With the 10ohm CVR,i can also clearly show the pulse width increase-and there for the current increase, as the base resistance is reduced along with the input voltage--all while maintaining 2.6 volts across the LED, with a smooth DC current flow through the LED.
Brad
Have you thought about using a suitable PNP transistor, with the proper feedback to its base, in place of the variable resistor?
;)
-
Brad:
Oops, I notice a much more subdued Brad and much less trash talk after my two postings.
Pre my two postings:
MH
It is painfully obvious that you really do not know how a transistor operates
I am starting to think some brainless twat has hacked your account
Now, your words come back to haunt you. You don't really know how a transistor works. You also don't know how to analyze how a transistor works when doing a basic switching function like you see in a Joule Thief. Think about that. You have been doing this stuff for six years, and all this time you have never reviewed basic transistor switching circuits to understand them and use them properly. You don't know how to determine the proper base resistor for a given switching function. And you clearly have some serious gaps in your understanding of how a transistor works.
You have heard me complain about the "continuous affirmation" environment that you guys set up for yourselves, and the "Straitjacket of Agreement" where you are all paralyzed and can only agree with each other like a bunch of bobbing rubber ducks in a pond.
And look at the results. Combine the "continuous affirmation" and the "Straitjacket of Agreement" and the bobbing rubber duckies and your "I am Brad and I am never wrong" and "I am Brad and I take the lazy route when I can" attitudes and here you are six years later and you can't properly analyze a basic switching function in a five-component circuit like a Joule Thief, nor do you truly understand how a Joule Thief works..
Instead, you play this ridiculous trash talk game and you are as fake-ass as a three-dollar bill when you assume the role of a bad actor and play your ridiculous "MileHigh you are making mistakes everywhere" game.
Now that that has been said, I will comment on the technical in my next posting. However, I am not going to spoon feed you anything. You can go online or order a few books about electronics from Amazon and undertake to educate yourself.
MileHigh
-
this is just one transistor circuit what the fuck..you guys should deal in uhf circuitry running at 450 mhz.. you guys make me fucking sick of your petty childish fucking arguments..
Nicely said Seychells!!!
MileHigh is wrong again - No one takes him seriously anymore anyway!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad:
You have two coil's that provide current to build the magnetic field--not one.
Take a look at the attached schematic for a standard Joule Thief. L1 is the power coil that gets energized and then illuminates the LED. L2 is the feedback coil and is essentially an EMF source to switch the transistor ON and OFF via the base resistor. Your statement above is nonsensical. L2 does not provide any energy towards the lighting of the LED. Only one coil, L1, "builds up a magnetic field" with energy that gets discharged into the LED.
As you decrease the resistance to the base,you increase the current flowing to the base,and this current is additive to the collector current due to the way the two coils are linked together,and thus the magnetic field strength can be maintained by reducing the base resistance value, so as to provide the same amount of power flowing through the LED from the kickback as the battery voltage drop's.
As you increase the current flowing into the base input of the transistor because of a decreased value of base resistor, that represents expending more energy to switch on the transistor than you have to. If you put more current than you need to though the L2 coil, than that means that the battery can supply less current to the L1 coil (when factoring in a higher battery output impedance for a nearly dead battery), and that translates into less energy available to light the LED. An excessively low value of base resistor just makes the Joule Thief less efficient. If you ignore the issue of the battery output impedance then you are just siphoning extra energy away from the battery to switch on the transistor. That extra energy could be put to better use by saving it to light the LED via L1.
I have already stated that when the battery voltage has dropped, you can't escape the simple V/R limiting factor for the amount of current that can be induced to flow through L1, and that means less current to light the LED. Even if somehow the transistor stays on longer, the V/R current limiting factor is what really counts and the LED will be dimmer.
With respect to your setup, as far as I am concerned it deviates too far away from a standard Joule Thief to extract any useful information about the behaviour of a standard Joule Thief. Your 10-ohm CVR may be introducing a voltage bounce to the whole circuit that throws off the feedback. The filtering capacitor is not needed and also is probably throwing off the feedback. If you know what you are doing, just probing a standard Joule Thief and trying varying the base resistor should be enough.
1.2v/1kohms is 1.2mA. This is not enough current to fully switch on the transistor,as the transistor is a current device,unlike the FET which requires very little current,but a higher voltage.
One kohm is in the standard Joule Thief schematic and I will take their word that it is a correct value based on the indicated recipe for winding the Joule Thief transformer and the associated resistance of L1. You completely forgot the base-emitter voltage drop in your comment. Saying "XX current is not enough current to fully switch on the transistor" is just you revealing that you don't understand the issues around how a transistor switching circuit works like I already stated. Perhaps go to Amazon and do some online shopping.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
The reason it stays on longer, is because the transistor is switching on harder,in that the required switching current to the base has now increased.
This was a covered in detail earlier on in this thread and apparently none of it registered with you. The switching timing is due to the positive feedback. Your comment above is wrong, and it shows that you don't truly understand how a Joule Thief works. I hate to say it and it probably infuriates you but it is the truth. What you need to do is take those lemons, educate yourself, and turn them into lemonaid.
As i stated,the lower the supply voltage get's,the less base current there is available to switch the transistor fully on. There is also the fact that the base current is additive to the collector current in this situation. So the least resistance to that current flowing to the base,the more current flows through the inductor as a whole.
The Joule Thief is designed such that as the battery voltage drops, the value of the base resistor is chosen such that the transistor is still switched fully on - within certain limits of supply voltage. As we know, the whole switching mechanism falls apart blow a certain voltage. The base current is added to the emitter current, not the collector current. Assuming that the transistor is fully switched on then the resistance of the L1 coil is what determines the limiting factor for how much current passes through L1.
I will single this one out:
So the least resistance to that current flowing to the base,the more current flows through the inductor as a whole.
No, no, no, no, and no. This is just you blindly believing that "more base current equals more inductor current." You are completely ignoring the V/R current limiting factor assuming that the transistor is fully switched ON. This is basic basic stuff and I have covered this point a few times in these postings. You need to take a step back and really think about this stuff.
Do you need an answer to understand the need for a variable base resistor MH?-or will your batteries simply remain at the rated voltage of 1.5 volt's?.
That was a bit of a silly statement by your self MH.
I think that enough has been said to make the point that your statement quoted above is wrong. It's just a bunch of fake swagger and you not truly understanding all of the switching issues around a Joule Thief circuit. A standard Joule Thief circuit is designed such that a conscious decision is made for the value of the base resistor. There is no point in lowering the value of the base resistor beyond a certain point. There is a relationship between the large-signal gain of the transistor, the resistance of the L1 coil, and the EMF that L2 presents to the base resistor that allows the Joule Thief designer to make a conscious decision for the value of the base resistor and clearly you are not aware of these issues. Hence I strongly advise you to get a mastery of basic transistor switching circuits and understand what "fully ON" really means.
I think it is time to move on, and if you are a keener, then you have some homework to do.
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg477969#msg477969 date=1458593063]
MileHigh
I hate to say it and it probably infuriates you but it is the truth. What you need to do is take those lemons, educate yourself, and turn them into lemonaid.
No MH,the below is what is troubling.
The Joule Thief is designed such that as the battery voltage drops, the value of the base resistor is chosen such that the transistor is still switched fully on
It is hard to believe,but you are having arguments with your self.
One minute you say that lowering the base resistance will not change a thing as the battery voltage drop's,and in the next breath you are saying that the base resistor has to be chosen in accordance with battery voltage value ???
No, no, no, no, and no. This is just you blindly believing that "more base current equals more inductor current." You are completely ignoring the V/R current limiting factor assuming that the transistor is fully switched ON.
More base current dose equal more inductor current,as there are two conductors/coil's wrapped around the core-not one. You are also forgetting resistive losses,and those losses are reduced when the base resistance is reduced.
Your assumption that the transistor is fully switched on,is your downfall on your V/R limit argument.
With respect to your setup, as far as I am concerned it deviates too far away from a standard Joule Thief to extract any useful information about the behaviour of a standard Joule Thief. Your 10-ohm CVR may be introducing a voltage bounce to the whole circuit that throws off the feedback. The filtering capacitor is not needed and also is probably throwing off the feedback. If you know what you are doing, just probing a standard Joule Thief and trying varying the base resistor should be enough.
The setup was designed to show exacting result's in the clearest way,and the same results are had using the circuit without the cap and CVR.
This was a covered in detail earlier on in this thread and apparently none of it registered with you. The switching timing is due to the positive feedback. Your comment above is wrong, and it shows that you don't truly understand how a Joule Thief works.
I think you are the one that dose not understand the effects of the positive feedback MH. The lower the resistance in the feedback coil,the higher the current flow through the feedback coil,and the higher the current flow through the feedback coil,the stronger the magnetic field built by that feedback coil-->and we know what than means for the current flowing through the drive coil. ;)
within certain limits of supply voltage. As we know, the whole switching mechanism falls apart blow a certain voltage.
Yes we do. With the 1kohm resistor in place,the circuit shutdown voltage would be around!lets say! 600mV. If we replace that 1kohm resistor with say a 100ohm resistor,then the circuit shutdown voltage would be lower-say 450mV. The reason for this is we now have less voltage drop across the base resistor,and thus the transistor can still switch on at lower voltages.
The base current is added to the emitter current, not the collector current.
When the transistor is switched fully on,the collector and emitter are one-the switch is closed,so either is correct.
Assuming that the transistor is fully switched on then the resistance of the L1 coil is what determines the limiting factor for how much current passes through L1.
And that is where you reach the limit of your knowledge--in the assumption that the transistor is fully switched on--which is incorrect when the battery voltage reaches a certain limit-->and hence the need for a drop in resistance of the base resistor--so as the transistor can switch fully on--switch on hard.
This is basic basic stuff and I have covered this point a few times in these postings. You need to take a step back and really think about this stuff.
MH
You really need to get back onto the bench,and teach yourself the difference between facts and fiction.
I think that enough has been said to make the point that your statement quoted above is wrong. It's just a bunch of fake swagger and you not truly understanding all of the switching issues around a Joule Thief circuit. A standard Joule Thief circuit is designed such that a conscious decision is made for the value of the base resistor.
This comment is idiotic.
That resistor value changes as the supply voltage drop's,and so the reasoning behind a VR on the base. I find it quite comical that you dont understand voltage drops across resistor's,and how the relates to the switching of the transistor in reference to supply voltage.
If you have a set 1k base resistance,as the supply voltage drop's,so too will the available current and voltage required to switch on the transistor fully. The voltage is not really a problem due to the positive feedback,but enough must be there to start to switch on the transistor to start with before the positive feedback can switch the transistor on hard.
There is no point in lowering the value of the base resistor beyond a certain point. There is a relationship between the large-signal gain of the transistor, the resistance of the L1 coil, and the EMF that L2 presents to the base resistor that allows the Joule Thief designer to make a conscious decision for the value of the base resistor and clearly you are not aware of these issues. Hence I strongly advise you to get a mastery of basic transistor switching circuits and understand what "fully ON" really means.
The base resistor value cannot be a common value throughout the supply voltage range.
You also fail to take into account that the L1's resistance will increase with frequency,and that frequency increases as the supply voltage drop's. This is where your V/R limit also falls apart-->this is another factor you have failed to take into account,and one that makes every thing i claimed to be correct.
I think it is time to move on
No--i think it is time that you were taught the truth,so as you discontinue to peddle rubbish,due to your lack of understanding of a circuit that you think you know all about.
, and if you are a keener, then you have some homework to do.
It is you that needs to do some homework MH.
You are truly lost MH.
Brad
-
While looking through some JT circuits I found the one below to be interesting. It uses resistors from the pos and neg of the battery.
Going to try it tonight. Having the coil between the base and the voltage dividing resistors seems like it will give greater control while not having to increase the resistance too high. Will see.
Mags
-
Back in the old JT topic area, we learned early on that using a base vr was beneficial in several ways. Yes, it could help maintain the brightness of the led as the battery voltage dropped but, as the battery "died" down to around .4 volts, this would cause the frequency of the circuit, which had previously been high enough that the human eye could not see the on/off switching of the led, to dip low enough that the led would appear to flash on/off. A little tweak of the base vr and...Bob's your Uncle...the led would now once again appear to be on constantly.
So, I do know from experience that it is useful to use a vr on the base rather than choosing a fixed resistor that is a poor compromise over the entire range of the battery voltage. There is no single fixed resistance that can give you the longevity of non-flashing, bright light from the led across this range.
Just my 2 cents from having built many of these circuits over the years. Once you get to where the output from your AA battery JT is over 300 volts, other things become more important to consider as well. (Like not getting zapped!) As I mentioned early on here, it all depends upon your goal...brightest light possible or longevity of the light from your "dead" battery.
Bill
-
Also on resonance. Will make a thread on this in the resonance board.
I had made this base a while back. Work started consuming my time and it sat on top of my tv. ::)
Anyway, the base is 3/4in particle board with 1/8in black plexy, the aluminum base pieces and a stainless strip. The 2 mags on top are 1/2 by 3/8 N52. The diametric mag in the drill is also N52. I will get into showing things in a day or so. But here is a pic below.
One thing I can say is, it seems the best time to take output from the device while its in resonance it when the wave is near peak. And just take enough not to severely disturb it oscillation. So what I did was set the mag on the drill about 3in away like where it sits in the pic and adjust the trigger speed for close to max resonance, then I held the screwdriver with the butt end toward the mag on that side of the oscillation. If I could hold the cam, drill and screw driver, Id be doin a vid. need to make a setup.
But with the screwdriver close enough for the bag to hit near peak, it gets 'hammered' pretty good. And the closer I move the screwdriver in toward tdc, the oscillation practically ceases far before getting to tdc. So. Something learned on the bench, ;) and this should translate to the electronic version.
So we can take hard hits of output near peak, and not destroy the oscillation of the resonance.
Now. If I lower or raise the speed on the drill, there are some movements of the wiggler, but nothing near what we have at resonance. So it seems, if we are not working with resonance, we are stuck right here where the books tell us we are suppose to be. ???
Mags
-
Back in the old JT topic area, we learned early on that using a base vr was beneficial in several ways. Yes, it could help maintain the brightness of the led as the battery voltage dropped but, as the battery "died" down to around .4 volts, this would cause the frequency of the circuit, which had previously been high enough that the human eye could not see the on/off switching of the led, to dip low enough that the led would appear to flash on/off. A little tweak of the base vr and...Bob's your Uncle...the led would now once again appear to be on constantly.
So, I do know from experience that it is useful to use a vr on the base rather than choosing a fixed resistor that is a poor compromise over the entire range of the battery voltage. There is no single fixed resistance that can give you the longevity of non-flashing, bright light from the led across this range.
Just my 2 cents from having built many of these circuits over the years. Once you get to where the output from your AA battery JT is over 300 volts, other things become more important to consider as well. (Like not getting zapped!) As I mentioned early on here, it all depends upon your goal...brightest light possible or longevity of the light from your "dead" battery.
Bill
That is correct Bill.
A very easy to carry out test is simply let the MH standard JT circuit run the battery down to say 900mV. Measure the light output with a light meter or light box. Then replace the 1k ohm resistor with a 500 ohm base resistor, and once again measure the light output.
I have also carried out this very test, and the light output dose increase above that of when the base has the 1k ohm resistor in place.
My advice to everyone here is to trust in what you see in front of you on your bench, and not the words of some one that dose not even have a JT of any type.
Brad
-
Brad:
It is hard to believe,but you are having arguments with your self.
One minute you say that lowering the base resistance will not change a thing as the battery voltage drop's,and in the next breath you are saying that the base resistor has to be chosen in accordance with battery voltage value
No, I am not having an argument with myself. Lowering the value of the base resistor will not fundamentally change the brightness of the LED because it's the battery voltage itself that is the primary factor in determining the brightness of the LED. And yes indeed, you can choose a value of base resistor to ensure that the Joule Thief switches properly down to a certain minimum battery voltage. However, when I have another look at the circuit I can see how even the lower battery voltage limit won't have too much of an impact on the value of the base resistor. There are other factors at play. The big unknown is how the increasing output impedance of the battery as the battery voltage drops will affect all of this. I can't really delve into the limits of operation of the Joule Thief because when you start exploring the limits of operation you need to use your scope.
More base current dose equal more inductor current,as there are two conductors/coil's wrapped around the core-not one. You are also forgetting resistive losses,and those losses are reduced when the base resistance is reduced.
This is just you demonstrating your limitations again. This has already been covered. The transistor is fully ON, and the inductor current follows the standard inverse increasing exponential waveform. Somewhere near the V/R current limit the the positive-feedback trigger event happens and the Joule Thief transistor switches from ON to OFF and the LED lights up. The only function for the transistor base current is to keep the transistor fully ON - period - the base current has no effect on the inductor current.
Your assumption that the transistor is fully switched on,is your downfall on your V/R limit argument.
There is no "assumption" that the transistor is fully switched ON. It's the very definition of how a Joule Thief is supposed to work. If the transistor was not fully switched on then it would be screwing up the energizing of the L1 coil, reducing the current into the LED and thus dimming the LED, and needlessly burning off power resistively in the transistor itself which would be against the very design principles of the Joule Thief.
Look at the blue trace in the attached waveform. That's the waveform across the transistor collector-emitter junction. It is clearly showing you that the transistor is fully ON during the energizing cycle for the L1 inductor.
It's like you are learning how a Joule Thief operates from scratch here, because whatever you were thinking is clearly wrong. Knowing your character, this is par for the course and you have been playing with Joule Thieves for years and not truly understanding how they operate.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
I think you are the one that dose not understand the effects of the positive feedback MH. The lower the resistance in the feedback coil,the higher the current flow through the feedback coil,and the higher the current flow through the feedback coil,the stronger the magnetic field built by that feedback coil-->and we know what than means for the current flowing through the drive coil.
Look at the schematic for the Joule Thief. The current through the L2 feedback coil is primarily governed by the 1-kohm base resistor, and not by the resistance of the L2 coil itself. Let's say the resistance of L2 is 30 ohms. 30 ohms is insignificant in comparison to 1000 ohms. How can you even be saying some of this stuff?
Any magnetic field energy that is imparted into the core of the Joule Thief due to the tiny current flow through L2 due to the voltage from the battery is insignificant compared to what's happening due to the current flowing through the L1 drive coil. The tiny current flowing through the L2 feedback coil has no real impact on the much larger current flowing through the L1 drive coil. The activity in L1 is what really determines what happens in the L2 feedback coil. It's like L2 is a rag doll being shaken by the L1 drive coil. L2 draws AC power away from the battery via the AC activity on L1.
So the vibe I am getting is that you have to learn how a Joule Thief operates from scratch. No wonder you rejected those perfectly good YouTube clips that I linked to that explain how a Joule Thief operates. You need to throw all of your preconceptions about the Joule Thief out the window and start with a blank slate and learn it all properly from the ground up.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
When the transistor is switched fully on,the collector and emitter are one-the switch is closed,so either is correct.
No, they are not one. This is the deal for an NPN transistor: The collector current plus the base current equals the emitter current. See how you become mentally lazy and how that is part of your downfall when it comes to understanding the Joule Thief? You are breaking the Kirchhoff Current Law for a bloody transistor and you don't give a damn.
This comment is idiotic.
That resistor value changes as the supply voltage drop's,and so the reasoning behind a VR on the base. I find it quite comical that you dont understand voltage drops across resistor's,and how the relates to the switching of the transistor in reference to supply voltage.
If you have a set 1k base resistance,as the supply voltage drop's,so too will the available current and voltage required to switch on the transistor fully. The voltage is not really a problem due to the positive feedback,but enough must be there to start to switch on the transistor to start with before the positive feedback can switch the transistor on hard.
The standard Joule Thief is not supposed to have a variable base resistor. It's only on the forums that people play with the base resistor. Let's say for the sake of argument that with a fixed vale of base resistor you can extract 95% of the available energy in a battery. That's good enough, and the design choice for the fixed value of the base resistor works.
Beyond that, look again at the timing diagram below and pay attention to the blue transistor voltage waveform. That voltage waveform is inverted on the L2 feedback coil to control the transistor switching operation. Note that it is the pulsing of current into the LED that results in the LED generating a voltage waveform and that becomes the inverted EMF waveform on L2. Therefore it is the pulsing of current into LED itself that determines the EMF waveform on L2. We know that a LED generates a near-constant voltage across itself when you push a variable amount of current through it. That means that the generation of EMF on L2 is quite robust and will remain relatively constant as the battery voltage slowly decreases. In effect it means that the V-I properties of the LED itself are used to help the LED switch ON and OFF.
The bottom line is that the proper ON-OFF switching of the Joule Thief circuit is relatively immune to changes in the battery voltage over a certain range. These are subtleties about the operation of the Joule Thief circuit that escape you.
MileHigh
-
So how lost are you Brad when it comes to the Joule Thief?
Look at this statement from you:
You also fail to take into account that the L1's resistance will increase with frequency
You are confusing the AC impedance of a coil for an increasing AC (sinusoidal) excitation frequency with an increasing ON-OFF switching frequency where the coil response is always an exponential current waveform.
Like I said before, you should start over from scratch when looking at the Joule Thief and throw all of your preconceptions out the window.
MileHigh
-
Back in the old JT topic area, we learned early on that using a base vr was beneficial in several ways. Yes, it could help maintain the brightness of the led as the battery voltage dropped but, as the battery "died" down to around .4 volts, this would cause the frequency of the circuit, which had previously been high enough that the human eye could not see the on/off switching of the led, to dip low enough that the led would appear to flash on/off. A little tweak of the base vr and...Bob's your Uncle...the led would now once again appear to be on constantly.
So, I do know from experience that it is useful to use a vr on the base rather than choosing a fixed resistor that is a poor compromise over the entire range of the battery voltage. There is no single fixed resistance that can give you the longevity of non-flashing, bright light from the led across this range.
Just my 2 cents from having built many of these circuits over the years. Once you get to where the output from your AA battery JT is over 300 volts, other things become more important to consider as well. (Like not getting zapped!) As I mentioned early on here, it all depends upon your goal...brightest light possible or longevity of the light from your "dead" battery.
Bill
Firstly, as you have previously stated, the majority of your group's earlier explorations with the Joule Thief circuit were anecdotal observations. You never seriously analyzed scope traces to figure out exactly what was happening with your Joule Thief replications.
Secondly, let's say you can split the battery voltage response into two ranges. Let's say that the normal battery voltage range is 1.5 volts to 350 millivolts. In this range the Joule Thief will work just fine with a fixed base resistor and switch properly. It's in this normal range where if you change the value of the base resistor then the transistor will keep switching normally and the Joule Thief LED will look pretty much the same. Naturally, common sense is telling you that you can change the value of the base resistor within certain reasonable limits, and if you exceed those reasonable limits in either direction then the Joule Thief will cease to operate normally.
Then let's say that there is another voltage range, and that voltage range is between 350 and 200 millivolts. In this range the Joule Thief does not act as a normal switching device and all bets are off. Playing with the base resistor will do something including increasing the brightness of the LED. But I will stress again that the Joule Thief is not acting like a standard switching device at this very low voltage range.
Needless to say, all of my discussion in my previous posting applies to a standard Joule Thief operating voltage range of somewhere between 1.5 volts and say 350 millivolts.
MileHigh
-
Firstly, as you have previously stated, the majority of your group's earlier explorations with the Joule Thief circuit were anecdotal observations. You never seriously analyzed scope traces to figure out exactly what was happening with your Joule Thief replications.
Secondly, let's say you can split the battery voltage response into two ranges. Let's say that the normal battery voltage range is 1.5 volts to 350 millivolts. In this range the Joule Thief will work just fine with a fixed base resistor and switch properly. It's in this normal range where if you change the value of the base resistor then the transistor will keep switching normally and the Joule Thief LED will look pretty much the same. Naturally, common sense is telling you that you can change the value of the base resistor within certain reasonable limits, and if you exceed those reasonable limits in either direction then the Joule Thief will cease to operate normally.
Then let's say that there is another voltage range, and that voltage range is between 350 and 200 millivolts. In this range the Joule Thief does not act as a normal switching device and all bets are off. Playing with the base resistor will do something including increasing the brightness of the LED. But I will stress again that the Joule Thief is not acting like a standard switching device at this very low voltage range.
Needless to say, all of my discussion in my previous posting applies to a standard Joule Thief operating voltage range of somewhere between 1.5 volts and say 350 millivolts.
MileHigh
Ah yes-some back peddling taking place here, along with more bullshit.
Brad
-
Brad:
Do you need an answer to understand the need for a variable base resistor MH?-or will your batteries simply remain at the rated voltage of 1.5 volt's?.
That was a bit of a silly statement by your self MH.
One more time, the answer to your statement above is a resounding NO! I have made my case and in exploring this issue in greater detail, surprise surprise, it was revealed that you have a ton of misunderstandings and misconceptions about how a standard Joule Thief circuit operates.
If you want to be in a better position to discuss a hypothetical "resonant Joule Thief" with your peers, I would suggest to you that you would want to understand how a regular Joule Thief works first. That way you can build up your knowledge on a solid foundation. I gave you a TON of information about a Joule Thief and that should be a good launching pad for getting it all clear for your own understanding and benefit. Is every single thing I said going to be 100% right? Of course not but the vast vast majority of what I said is correct.
If I had a bench setup and was truly motivated to dissect and analyze a Joule Thief then you would be shocked at the amount of good data that I could generate.
MileHigh
-
Ah yes-some back peddling taking place here, along with more bullshit.
Brad
No back pedaling and thanks to me you now understand a Joule Thief better than you have ever understood one before in your life.
-
This is a very interesting resonance Experiment: Oscillating Neural Network Demonstration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl2aYFv_978)
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
No back pedaling and thanks to me you now understand a Joule Thief better than you have ever understood one before in your life.
Your delusional MH.
If we all followed you,we'd still have wheels carved from rock.
Brad
-
No Brad, it's very clear now that a lot of your thoughts about how the Joule Thief operates were delusional. Your "casual" remark about me needing to "understand" the "need for a variable resistor" in a Joule Thief has been blown out of the water and you were the person making a bunch of silly statements, not me. You didn't understand the basics of how providing excess base current to an open-collector switching transistor configuration gains you nothing and you end up expending power needlessly with zero benefits. You didn't realize that the voltage produced by the LED would be transformed back to the L2 feedback coil and give you a pretty decent EMF source for switching on the transistor and it would not be too sensitive to the decreasing battery voltage. These are all insights into the operation of the Joule Thief that you didn't have the slightest clue about not to mention me correcting all of your mistakes and misconceptions and you have the gall to say that I am "delusional" and technologically regressive.
Instead of thanking me for all of this valuable information you stick to your little cardboard cutout character instead.
Before too long the issue of the resonance in the wine glass will be a done deal and then we can all see how the "resonant Joule Thief" project comes along. Not too much information coming down the pipes on that one. Then after that you can build yourself another pulse motor and demonstrate how you get "excess energy from magnets" and I won't be around to debate you, just believe whatever it is you want to believe and do your own thing.
-
So the vibe I am getting is that you have to learn how a Joule Thief operates from scratch. No wonder you rejected those perfectly good YouTube clips that I linked to that explain how a Joule Thief operates. You need to throw all of your preconceptions about the Joule Thief out the window and start with a blank slate and learn it all properly from the ground up.
Lol
Well one of us is going to have to start the learning process all over again,but i do not think it is going to be me ;)
MH
I would like you to post again those claims i made that you deem to be incorrect.
When you have done this,i will post the video regarding those claim.
From there,we will then know who has to go back ,and start over. ;)
I will be using your JT circuit for the test. We can then see on the scope the voltage across the LED,and the voltage at the base of the transistor.
We will also be measuring light output by way of a light meter as well.
We will use a battery with say around 900mV--so pretty dead.
So lets see who is right--lets see who has some learning to do. :D
Brad
-
Some quotes from MH--a recap of insults toward us that !dont! know what we are talking about.
A long read,but worthy of the time it takes to read.
When the transistor is acting like an ON-OFF switch, when it is ON and the battery voltage is constant, in the case of a 1K-ohm base resistor, or in the case of a 700-ohm base resistor, there will be no increase in current flow through the inductor, it will be the same. The factor that is limiting the current flow is the resistance of the inductor, it has nothing to do with the amount of base current flowing into the transistor.
In addition, if the battery voltage is 1.2 volts, then the maximum current flowing through the coil will be proportional to (1.2/coil_resistance). If the battery voltage decreases to 1.0 volts, then the maximum current flowing through the coil will be proportional to (1.0/coil_resistance). Therefore, there will be a decrease in the maximum current flow through the coil when the battery voltage is lower, resulting in a decrease in the initial current flow through the LED and therefore a dimmer LED for a lower battery voltage.
You can increase the current flowing into the base of the transistor, but it will just be "wasted current" that does nothing because the transistor is already fully ON.
The current flow though the inductor (a.k.a. the "magnetic field") will principally be controlled by (battery_voltage/inductor_resistance) because when the transistor is switched fully ON, there is a very low and constant voltage drop across the collector-emitter junction and that collector-emitter voltage drop will be the same if you switch the base resistance from 1K-ohm to 700 ohms.
Now, your words come back to haunt you. You don't really know how a transistor works.
You have heard me complain about the "continuous affirmation" environment that you guys set up for yourselves, and the "Straitjacket of Agreement" where you are all paralyzed and can only agree with each other like a bunch of bobbing rubber ducks in a pond.
And look at the results. Combine the "continuous affirmation" and the "Straitjacket of Agreement" and the bobbing rubber duckies and your "I am Brad and I am never wrong" and "I am Brad and I take the lazy route when I can" attitudes and here you are six years later and you can't properly analyze a basic switching function in a five-component circuit like a Joule Thief, nor do you truly understand how a Joule Thief works..
Instead, you play this ridiculous trash talk game and you are as fake-ass as a three-dollar bill
Some operational quotes from the expert.
As you increase the current flowing into the base input of the transistor because of a decreased value of base resistor, that represents expending more energy to switch on the transistor than you have to. If you put more current than you need to though the L2 coil, than that means that the battery can supply less current to the L1 coil (when factoring in a higher battery output impedance for a nearly dead battery), and that translates into less energy available to light the LED.
I have already stated that when the battery voltage has dropped, you can't escape the simple V/R limiting factor for the amount of current that can be induced to flow through L1, and that means less current to light the LED. Even if somehow the transistor stays on longer, the V/R current limiting factor is what really counts and the LED will be dimmer.
Saying "XX current is not enough current to fully switch on the transistor" is just you revealing that you don't understand the issues around how a transistor switching circuit works like I already stated. Perhaps go to Amazon and do some online shopping.
Your comment above is wrong, and it shows that you don't truly understand how a Joule Thief works. I hate to say it and it probably infuriates you but it is the truth. What you need to do is take those lemons, educate yourself, and turn them into lemonaid.
The base current is added to the emitter current, not the collector current. Assuming that the transistor is fully switched on then the resistance of the L1 coil is what determines the limiting factor for how much current passes through L1.
No, no, no, no, and no. This is just you blindly believing that "more base current equals more inductor current." You are completely ignoring the V/R current limiting factor assuming that the transistor is fully switched ON. This is basic basic stuff and I have covered this point a few times in these postings. You need to take a step back and really think about this stuff.
I think that enough has been said to make the point that your statement quoted above is wrong. It's just a bunch of fake swagger and you not truly understanding all of the switching issues around a Joule Thief circuit. A standard Joule Thief circuit is designed such that a conscious decision is made for the value of the base resistor. There is no point in lowering the value of the base resistor beyond a certain point. There is a relationship between the large-signal gain of the transistor, the resistance of the L1 coil, and the EMF that L2 presents to the base resistor that allows the Joule Thief designer to make a conscious decision for the value of the base resistor and clearly you are not aware of these issues. Hence I strongly advise you to get a mastery of basic transistor switching circuits
Lowering the value of the base resistor will not fundamentally change the brightness of the LED because it's the battery voltage itself that is the primary factor in determining the brightness of the LED.
This is just you demonstrating your limitations again, the base current has no effect on the inductor current..
It's like you are learning how a Joule Thief operates from scratch here, because whatever you were thinking is clearly wrong. Knowing your character, this is par for the course and you have been playing with Joule Thieves for years and not truly understanding how they operate.
So the vibe I am getting is that you have to learn how a Joule Thief operates from scratch. No wonder you rejected those perfectly good YouTube clips that I linked to that explain how a Joule Thief operates. You need to throw all of your preconceptions about the Joule Thief out the window and start with a blank slate and learn it all properly from the ground up.
See how you become mentally lazy and how that is part of your downfall when it comes to understanding the Joule Thief? You are breaking the Kirchhoff Current Law for a bloody transistor and you don't give a damn.
Law you say ::)
These are subtleties about the operation of the Joule Thief circuit that escape you.
So you are just stalling and faking because you don't want to be exposed for this gaffe. If not, then prove me wrong and I will be happy to listen to you make a solid argument discussing the electronics of the standard Joule Thief and how lowering the value of the base resistor for a constant battery voltage will supposedly make the LED brighter.
the transistor will not stay switched on longer, you are making a totally blind and completely wrong assumption based on your false belief that the transistor has been switched on "harder" and "'harder' equals 'stay on longer.'"
- since the transistor will not switch on longer, there will not be any "maintaining a magnetic field of the same value as the battery voltage drops."
So, you are showing the world that you don't understand how a Joule Thief works. You are showing the world how you made a blind "Doh!" assumption that lowering the base resistance would increase the brightness of the LED.
So how lost are you Brad when it comes to the Joule Thief?
Well MH--not as lost as you.
It is time for you to retract all your !once again! incorrect comment's.
It is time you stopped posting until you go back to the start,and learn the difference between what you read in your book's,and what the reality actually is.
It is time for you to learn the truth--as i have-->on the bench.
It is time for you to eat some humble pie <H ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9tsvbkOeW8
Brad
-
Some quotes from MH--a recap of insults toward us that !dont! know what we are talking about.
A long read,but worthy of the time it takes to read.
Some operational quotes from the expert.
Law you say ::)
Well MH--not as lost as you.
It is time for you to retract all your !once again! incorrect comment's.
It is time you stopped posting until you go back to the start,and learn the difference between what you read in your book's,and what the reality actually is.
It is time for you to learn the truth--as i have-->on the bench.
It is time for you to eat some humble pie <H ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9tsvbkOeW8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9tsvbkOeW8)
Brad
Yeah, after being on the bench for six years you are not only eating humble pie, you are manufacturing humble pie in mass quantities. The clip is awful, an embarrassment.
-
The first illustration below is the original Joule Thief which
was developed by a Gentleman in England. It represents
the basic, non-optimized circuitry. :(
The second illustration below is an optimized version of
the circuit which replaces the fixed 1.0 KOhm base feed
resistor with a variable of 1.0 KOhm or slightly more. :)
Additionally, a suitable capacitor may be placed across
the base feed resistor to enhance switching characteristics
of the small transistor. :)
Transistor = Transfer-Resistor :o
Yes, there is indeed a type of resonance involved in its
operation. 8)
The discussion thus far has been quite interesting, both
in terms of the subject matter and the various personalities
on display. ;)
Carry on gentlemen! ;D
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9tsvbkOeW8
Tinman,
Do you have the 'scope channel displaying the base/emitter voltage inverted?
PW
-
Junkie,
have you looked at Joe Flynn's parallel path?
I was quite intrigued by it.
John.
-
Oh,that was in the wrong slot.
-
Brad:
A typical standard Joule Thief has a 1K-ohm base resistance, correct? A standard Joule Thief is designed to have the transistor act as an ON-OFF switch.
That means that with a 1K base resistor that the transistor will be fully ON, and the collector-emitter voltage will be at a minimum. If you reduce the base resistance to 700 ohms, then you will increase the base current, but the transistor as a switching device will still be fully ON, with the same minimum collector-emitter voltage.
When the transistor is acting like an ON-OFF switch, when it is ON and the battery voltage is constant, in the case of a 1K-ohm base resistor, or in the case of a 700-ohm base resistor, there will be no increase in current flow through the inductor, it will be the same. The factor that is limiting the current flow is the resistance of the inductor, it has nothing to do with the amount of base current flowing into the transistor.
In addition, if the battery voltage is 1.2 volts, then the maximum current flowing through the coil will be proportional to (1.2/coil_resistance). If the battery voltage decreases to 1.0 volts, then the maximum current flowing through the coil will be proportional to (1.0/coil_resistance). Therefore, there will be a decrease in the maximum current flow through the coil when the battery voltage is lower, resulting in a decrease in the initial current flow through the LED and therefore a dimmer LED for a lower battery voltage.
MileHigh
[transistor 101]
1kOhm? hmm.... 2N2222? (yup,.. "standard"... uh-huh)
ok let's roll with that for a second shall we..
What is the current through the transistor?
Ie = Ic + Ib
So,. what happens when we increase base current, while collector current remains the same?
Current at the emitter increases!
...there will be no increase in current flow through the inductor
Where does inductor current come from?
The emitter? hmm
-
Firstly, as you have previously stated, the majority of your group's earlier explorations with the Joule Thief circuit were anecdotal observations. You never seriously analyzed scope traces to figure out exactly what was happening with your Joule Thief replications.
Secondly, let's say you can split the battery voltage response into two ranges. Let's say that the normal battery voltage range is 1.5 volts to 350 millivolts. In this range the Joule Thief will work just fine with a fixed base resistor and switch properly. It's in this normal range where if you change the value of the base resistor then the transistor will keep switching normally and the Joule Thief LED will look pretty much the same. Naturally, common sense is telling you that you can change the value of the base resistor within certain reasonable limits, and if you exceed those reasonable limits in either direction then the Joule Thief will cease to operate normally.
Then let's say that there is another voltage range, and that voltage range is between 350 and 200 millivolts. In this range the Joule Thief does not act as a normal switching device and all bets are off. Playing with the base resistor will do something including increasing the brightness of the LED. But I will stress again that the Joule Thief is not acting like a standard switching device at this very low voltage range.
Needless to say, all of my discussion in my previous posting applies to a standard Joule Thief operating voltage range of somewhere between 1.5 volts and say 350 millivolts.
MileHigh
By these comments, it is obvious you have never played with a Joule Thief.
In your first "range of voltages", using a VR, you can find frequencies with brighter luminescence.
While these are not always directly related to any form of "resonance",
switching frequencies and internal diode capacitances can result in brighter "light".
You will hear Bill and TK refer to this as a "sweet spot".
greatly visible brighter-ness, with no large leap in current from the source.
Most LED's will function in this manner.
this can be misleading, but is nothing special or magical about the transistor function.
it is an exploitation of the operation of the diode.
If you think of the LED as having a range of "brightness" it fluctuates through.
Pulse the LED to turn it on, it will go to max brightness, then scale down to dimmer, and dimmer, until it cuts off.
This is a function of the diodes internal capacitance.
where it is on the "dimness" scale, when it switches back on again, will determine the average "light" you visibly see from the diode.
When the diode spends more time in the brighter end of this scale, the light you "see" will be brighter.
Since "most JTs" do not let the LED fully turn off, it turns back on during some dimmer state than its' full brightness.
In general, within some range, an increase in switching frequency will result in "brighter light"
But, in this case, we are increasing the scale of dimness. staying "brighter" longer, while actually decreasing freq.
a bit counter-intuitive, but this does happen.
fast acting diodes, that can exceed the switching rate of the transistor circuit, display less of this feature.
Because they can actually stop emitting light before the transistor sends another pulse.
At higher frequencies, the switching can become unperceivable to the human eye.
For classification purposes, these fast switching LED's should be placed in a separate category of JT circuits.
Let us take the question deeper,
rather than just how does base resistance affect LED brightness
let us ask:
How does base resistance affect switching times?
This will help you understand "how a joule thief works".
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9tsvbkOeW8
Brad
Taking note of the frequency at the bottom of your scope,
Perhaps, You can dig up the data sheet for your ferrite core, and calculate a lower octave of the SRF.
probably the 6th, will be right around the lower range of your VR.
I noticed that you do not have a great deal of accuracy, of control with that pot.
There is a thing I learned a while back about using parallel pots to achieve a greater sensitivity of control.
the initial resistance with two pots in parallel, is half of the resistance of one.
and with 3 pots, the Ohms are 1/3
so,. by having two pots set at 1k, ohms = 500
setting one at 1k, and one at 500, you will have ohms = 375
so by changing one VR, you are able to control the range of resistances by a greater detail.
If you had something like 10 VRs, in the 10k-Ohm range
you could get the total resistance down to around 1k, and tune it within a degree of a couple of ohms at a time.
a high-precision trim-pot can give the same accuracy, but possibly more expensive than 10 cheap ones in parallel.
without enough precision, you can zoom right passed a resonant node and not even notice it.
you may have crossed it in your video around the lower range of your pot, and not even known it.
I would need to know more about your ferrite to say more on that, but either way, you are within range of hitting a node,
or can get there with not much modification.
If the pulse width of both on and off times do not balance out to equal lengths of time as you approach the desired freq.
(the pulses/spikes resolve into a sine wave)
then we can look for the disrupting impedances, and dig them out of the circuit.
there are a lot of connection points that seem like they would be problematic.
most of the circuits I tested were soldered, or twist-connected directly coil to transistor.
each piece of wire adds an impedance.
each bi-metal junction adds an impedance.
[ for example: a tiny thin piece of metal was usually all it took, in terms of "added impedance" to resolve the feedback phase of the base->ground loop.
literally, in some cases, a piece of aluminum cut from a can, slid between the - battery and the wire.]
most people assume because of the low numerical value of these impedances,
that they play no significant factor in the circuit.
In single pulse analysis, this may appear to be the case,
however, I assure you, when you pulse 30,000 times per second,
this tiny difference can add up quickly.
a tiny thing happening many, many times adds up to a lot of drain on your
already dying battery.
And will affect how long it can continue to operate under those conditions.
Notice, how the tailing number on your freq counter is slowly dropping.
What does this do to the duty cycle equation? (your scope may even have a button for this?)
When the freq stabilizes into a resonant node of the ferrite, reluctance (which is the primary circuit drain, not the LED)
approaches a minimal value, for circuit operation.
The frequency will maintain this range of values, close to the resonant node,
for long periods of time.
It will drift, much slower than in any other mode of operation.
Why? because the resistance to the changes in magnetic-flux that occurs in the coil, as induced in the ferrite
are almost non-existent.
the coil does what the coil does. and the ferrite responds to its' own ringing. which is an accumulation of the "now" signal, and the one that preceded it. - magnetically speaking
For some smaller ferrites, this 6th lower frequency node can hit down in the 14-16Khz range
In this case, you don't need a scope to know when you hit a resonant node, because the ferrite itself will make a noise.
I stress, that this is an undesirable condition, and when you reach this node, tune the frequency down just a touch.
you want a point, just under resonant frequency, within tolerable conditions for the circuit.
This is the ONLY manner in which the torroid ferrite inductor "should be used".
PERIOD.
This is basic electronics.
If your circuit does not operate the torriod in this manner, you have chosen the wrong torroid for that frequency application.
All you are doing is wasting more energy than necessary to induce the required magnetic field for your inductor.
This is the very definition of "efficiency".
It is "how the ferrite works".
however you want to switch it.
Joule thief, Triode, Radio-signal, mechanical piezo oscillator, whatever.
For those of you who do not understand this,
why are you even using a Torroid in the first place?
Your "joule thief" can light the LED with a coil wrapped around a ferrite rod.
or, if you want, you can use an air coil.
Has this thought even occurred to you?
Could it be there is much more to this device, than the Instructables Video has to say about it?
Why do you think Wikipedia defines it as "minimalized" ?
resonance has nothing to do with a Joule Thief
Go light your LED !
For the rest of us,. we can examine what really happens when the ferrite is switched near a resonant node.
eventually, the resistance will need to be adjusted to compensate for the drain on the battery.
Power is still being used, to magnetically charge the ferrite. Because we are not "at" the resonant node, but some non-zero value lower than it.
Also, the LED, if it is in the primary loop (not if inductively coupled), represents a significant drain on the battery.
In order to bring it back into the frequency range. (and sometimes this value has to actually go UP in resistance!!!)
the degree to which the resistance must be change, will be more of a factor of how long you let it run out of resonance,
then how long it was running "in resonance".
Because, the drain, out of resonance, is so much higher, it becomes the dominant factor of how much is "left" in the battery.
If left alone (no change in resistance), the frequency will drop further away from resonance, and the ferrite will require more energy to charge.
Thus, lowering the efficiency of operation.
a JT thrown together from the instructables video
will maybe run for a few hours/days, to a couple weeks. depending on the battery, and LED, and transistor used.
type of wire, particular ferrite. etc.
a well tuned JT, that is build to operate as a timed Armstrong oscillator, has no problem lighting an LED, powering a speaker, or micro-motor, for a months time, and in some cases much longer.
Aside from any resonance between the circuit, and ferrite
if your low voltage source, is a replenishable one, or from an environmental source,
it can operate indefinitely.
voltages of + or - 1v can be found almost everywhere. ;)
EB+JT=PM? some people here think so. I myself never had an EB draining my yard power for any length of time to figure that part out...
Heavy loads - yes they will deplete the natural capacitance of your garden, and it will regenerate over time.
But a tiny LED? it may very well could run forever,. who knows...
is the BatCave is still glowing from the 4-ft fluorescent tubes, powered by the Fuji circuit, and some grounding rods?
What do we do with the solar-powered JT nightlight, that charges itself from the incandescent bulb in the room?
(wasted light harvesting?)
"what a joule thief is"
Is a basis for an entire new realm of electronic circuits, based on a combination of old-world technology, and new-age components.
this is what separates electronics from computers.
in electronics engineering, we are taught to destroy resonances.
in computer engineering, we must maintain them, or the whole thing falls out of timing.
to combine these two mind-sets, on the same platform, such as a circuitboard -
much thought must be put into maintaining internal resonances, and disrupting them on the main circuitry, to preserve tolerances.
all the while, without losing track of timing cycles that are data dependent.
a single mismatched impedance on a complex circuit board, that results in a resonance, can reverse polarities at amplitudes that cross the threshold voltages and currents of the components in the circuit.
That is why circuits are not designed to be "resonant".
If we did, none of them would work.
capacitors would blow, transistors would burn up, resistors would burn out, wires themselves would even become compromised.
If you've burnt out a transistor with a "dead" AA battery, while playing with your Joule thief - raise your hand!
I will not presume that all of these cases were the direct result of resonance.
But I, and a couple of others have already shown mathematically, how this can easily occur.
and Has occurred in lab-settings
If an entire circuit, from the JT, to the load, and back, were designed to operate at a node resonant with the SRF of the ferrite,
direct power transfer from battery to load is possible with minimal losses through the transformer.
You can take a look at any professional circuit (Chinese excluded), that uses ferrite torroids.
and there is some box you can place around that portion of the circuit, and isolate the frequency of the torroid signal.
you will almost always find them to be operating just below an SRF node. It is standard procedure.
I would go so far as to say, if it is NOT, the engineer did not know what he was doing when he designed that circuit.
(or in some rare cases, the specific frequency required has no economically obtainable matched-frequency ferrite)
Why anyone in their right mind would not want to operate a JT in this manner is beyond me.
especially after all that has been said on the subject.
To operate a JT far from resonance, is like driving your car with the brakes on.
-
Tinman,
Do you have the 'scope channel displaying the base/emitter voltage inverted?
PW
Yes,CH1 was inverted.
We can see we have 800mV at the base. What i wanted to show was the switch on curve,but the resolution on the scope was set to high,and the top of the wave form(the switch off spike) would have been out of the screen if i had decreased the VPD limit-and i did not want it flowing into the LED trace. So i just left it at that.
Brad
-
[transistor 101]
1kOhm? hmm.... 2N2222? (yup,.. "standard"... uh-huh)
ok let's roll with that for a second shall we..
What is the current through the transistor?
Ie = Ic + Ib
So,. what happens when we increase base current, while collector current remains the same?
Current at the emitter increases!
Where does inductor current come from?
The emitter? hmm
For some(or one),this seems to be a little above there pay grade.
Brad
-
Yeah, after being on the bench for six years you are not only eating humble pie, you are manufacturing humble pie in mass quantities. The clip is awful, an embarrassment.
An embarrassment for you MH.
I think right about now,you are running around trying to figure out a way of dismissing everything i just showed,without making yourself look like a bigger idiot.
Im done with your negativity and insults--and i just !once again! proved you wrong.
That was just a quick video,but there will be more to come that make things very clear to see.
But the video i just showed,shows exactly what i said it would show.
The reduction in base current increases pulse width,and increases LED light output-->all while the battery voltage is decreasing.
How are your !laws! and V/R limits going now MH?
How or where dose the extra magnetic field strength come from that gives rise to a higher potential
from the field collapse that drives the LED harder?,as !your! V/R limit is set in L1
How is my theory on increasing the current flowing through L2 being what gives rise to a greater magnetic field looking now?. ;)
Brad
-
Been studying
http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/self-resonant_frequency_of_inductors.htm
http://www.g3ynh.info/zdocs/magnetics/appendix/self-res.html
Mags
-
For some(or one),this seems to be a little above there pay grade.
Brad
That's a double-shot of Planet Bizarro considering that the inductor current flows into the collector and it's the collector current that is relevant.
-
Very nice work on the Technical Literature Mags!
A serious experimenter would study it well and
even copy it to their hard drive for convenient
future reference.
Most browsers will save pages either as HTML or
Print the page as a PDF.
-
Yes,CH1 was inverted.
We can see we have 800mV at the base. What i wanted to show was the switch on curve,but the resolution on the scope was set to high,and the top of the wave form(the switch off spike) would have been out of the screen if i had decreased the VPD limit-and i did not want it flowing into the LED trace. So i just left it at that.
Brad
Yeah, sure it was inverted.... or was it inverted? If it wasn't inverted, how do you get somewhere between a 10-volt and and 16-volt spike across a transistor base-emitter junction? If it is inverted like you claim then how do you maintain somewhere between 10 volts and 16 volts across a transistor base-emitter junction? You comment on the high-voltage spike in your clip and just walk past that totally wonky measurement like a zombie. Why would you even put your probe across the base-emitter junction when there is so much more information to be learned if you put your probe on the output of the feedback coil? You have a pretty big toroid so why is your setup running somewhere between 20 kHz and 30 kHz when Magluvin's ran at 4.2 kHz?
Look at the crappy zoomed-out waveform capture from your clip that isn't even capable of showing the waveforms properly because they are grotesquely undersampled and compare that to the nice clean scope capture that Magluvin did of a Joule Thief operating in normal switching mode with a nice zoom-in on the actual switching cycle so we can see what is going on. We are back in "communication-skills-issue-elephant-in-the-room" mode for you.
I can't be 100% certain from your foggy clip, but all of the indicators are pointing to the conclusion that your Joule Thief setup is running in wonky spastic high-frequency mode and the base-emitter scope channel is not inverted and there really is a super-high voltage spike across the base-emitter junction of the transistor. That's what you get when your Joule Thief is running in some unknown spastic high-frequency mode. In other words, your "demonstration" is a total fail and a miserable embarrassment considering the fact that you have been doing this stuff for six years.
The clip is a complete disaster and proves nothing.
MileHigh
-
Yeah, sure it was inverted.... or was it inverted? If it wasn't inverted, how do you get somewhere between a 10-volt and and 16-volt spike across a transistor base-emitter junction? If it is inverted like you claim then how do you maintain somewhere between 10 volts and 16 volts across a transistor base-emitter junction? You comment on the high-voltage spike in your clip and just walk past that totally wonky measurement like a zombie. Why would you even put your probe across the base-emitter junction when there is so much more information to be learned if you put your probe on the output of the feedback coil? You have a pretty big toroid so why is your setup running somewhere between 20 kHz and 30 kHz when Magluvin's ran at 4.2 kHz?
Look at the crappy zoomed-out waveform capture from your clip that isn't even capable of showing the waveforms because they are grotesquely undersampled and compare that to the nice clean scope capture that Magluvin did of a Joule Thief operating in normal switching mode with a nice zoom-in on the actual switching cycle so we can see what is going on. We are back in "communication-skills-issue-elephant-in-the-room" mode for you.
I can't be 100% certain from your foggy clip, but all of the indicators are pointing to the conclusion that your Joule Thief setup is running in wonky spastic high-frequency mode and the base-emitter scope channel is not inverted and there really is a super-high voltage spike across the base-emitter junction of the transistor. That's what you get when your Joule Thief is running in some unknown spastic high-frequency mode. In other words, your "demonstration" is a total fail and a miserable embarrassment.
The clip is a complete disaster and proves nothing.
MileHigh
Ive had 18v peaks across my white led. So his max is not unrealistic. Laser mode. Led overdrive. ;)
Mags
-
In fact, no led at all, 114v across EC. 33ohm resistor.
Mags
-
The reduction in base current increases pulse width,and increases LED light output
In your video, it appeared that increasing the base current increased the on time pulse width. Perhaps you misspoke.
Note that a bipolar transistor is a current operated device. The forward voltage of the base emitter junction is typically one diode drop (600 to 800 mv for silicon) and varies only slightly as base current is changed (or junction temp varies).
In your video, we might "assume" that the base current increases as you decrease the value of the potentiometer connected to the transistor's base. However, because the base voltage remains constant, there is no way to see (or know) what change is actually occurring to the base current as you adjust the pot with the tests you made in the video.
Just like measuring any other current with a 'scope, to measure the base current you need to measure Vdrop across some kind of CSR and then calculate the current (or use a current probe).
For example, you could preset the pot to 1K and then use both scope channels to measure the Vdrop across the pot and then calculate the base current using Vdrop and the 1K value. You could then preset the pot to 500R and repeat the measurements and calculation. You would then know the base current for those two base resistances at the given battery voltage.
PW
-
Taking note of the frequency at the bottom of your scope,
Do not confuse a waveform's repetition rate with its frequency content.
Although Tinman's video shows a waveform repeating at around 31KHz, it is obvious from the observed rise and fall times that the waveform contains frequency components out to 200KHz or more.
This confusion seems to happen quite frequently, as in this example with regard to the coil's SRF, or as occurred further back in this thread with respect to discussions of "subharmonics" and the "pushing a swing" analogy.
PW
-
PW
In your video, it appeared that increasing the base current increased the on time pulse width. Perhaps you misspoke.
Yes-it was suppose to read reduction in base resistance= an increase in base current.
In your video, we might "assume" that the base current increases as you decrease the value of the potentiometer connected to the transistor's base. However, because the base voltage remains constant, there is no way to see (or know) what change is actually occurring to the base current as you adjust the pot with the tests you made in the video.
Not entirely correct.
As the current flow in L1 is set once the transistor is fully switched on,then the only way the LED can receive more current from the inductive kickback is by way of a stronger magnetic field being produced during each on time pulse,and as L1's current is set,then the only way to increase that magnetic field is by way of L2. For this to happen,then L2 must be receiving more current flowing through it,and we know this would be the case if we reduce the base resistance value..
Just like measuring any other current with a 'scope, to measure the base current you need to measure Vdrop across some kind of CSR and then calculate the current (or use a current probe).
I would do this,only MH had issues with the fact that i had a CVR in my first test setup,and so he said it was not a JT circuit-->it is hard to please everyone ::)
For example, you could preset the pot to 1K and then use both scope channels to measure the Vdrop across the pot and then calculate the base current using Vdrop and the 1K value. You could then preset the pot to 500R and repeat the measurements and calculation. You would then know the base current for those two base resistances at the given battery voltage.
I would be happy to put a 10ohm CVR inline with the 1kVR,and we could get a clear picture of the current flow through to the base. But as i stated above MH had a tanty,and said by having the 10OHM CVR in the circuit,it was no longer the JT circuit. This just gives him room to make more dismissive comments,so i stuck with the basic circuit in the first test.
Now that i have proven my point,then i will be doing such test,so as we can see everything that is taking place with the reduction of the base resistance.
Brad
-
Yes-it was suppose to read reduction in base resistance= an increase in base current.
Not entirely correct.
As the current flow in L1 is set once the transistor is fully switched on,then the only way the LED can receive more current from the inductive kickback is by way of a stronger magnetic field being produced during each on time pulse,and as L1's current is set,then the only way to increase that magnetic field is by way of L2. For this to happen,then L2 must be receiving more current flowing through it,and we know this would be the case if we reduce the base resistance value..
Yes, one can "assume" that is what is happening and use what is observed as a proxy for base current. My point was that nowhere is base current itself being directly measured or observed in the video. As well, it is incorrect to state that you are varying the base voltage when adjusting the VR.
I would do this,only MH had issues with the fact that i had a CVR in my first test setup,and so he said it was not a JT circuit-->it is hard to please everyone ::)
I would be happy to put a 10ohm CVR inline with the 1kVR,and we could get a clear picture of the current flow through to the base. But as i stated above MH had a tanty,and said by having the 10OHM CVR in the circuit,it was no longer the JT circuit. This just gives him room to make more dismissive comments,so i stuck with the basic circuit in the first test.
Now that i have proven my point,then i will be doing such test,so as we can see everything that is taking place with the reduction of the base resistance.
Brad
You originally used a rather large 10R in the emitter leg as a CSR for measuring emitter current. However, resistance inserted into the emitter leg will produce "degeneration" or "negative feedback" which effectively reduces the transistor's gain. If your goal is to stabilize the LED current as Vbatt varies, you might consider experimenting with increased degeneration (i.e., a larger emitter resistor). If maximum efficiency or minimum Vbatt operation is the goal, this would be less desirable. To measure emitter current, use of a smaller value emitter resistor is advised to reduce the effects of degeneration.
The base current, however, must be measured in the base leg circuit and does not require a separate CSR (although you could indeed use a separate 10R in series with the base as you suggest).
All you need to know is what the Vdrop across the VR is and the resistance value the VR is set to. The use of the separate 10R as a CSR as you suggest would, however, allow you to measure the base current real time without needing to know the VR's set value.
PW
-
The clip is a complete disaster and proves nothing.
MileHigh
The fact that you dont understand what is going on in my video,and what the scope is showing you ,is scary. Are you truly telling everyone here,that you cant work out if CH1 is inverted or not-->really :o . Do you really not understand as to why there is a voltage spike across L1 when the transistor become's open? :o
Yeah, sure it was inverted.... or was it inverted? If it wasn't inverted, how do you get somewhere between a 10-volt and and 16-volt spike across a transistor base-emitter junction?
You dont.
If it is inverted like you claim then how do you maintain somewhere between 10 volts and 16 volts across a transistor base-emitter junction?
What do you mean maintained ???. It is only there when the transistor becomes open. When the transistor is switched on,we have only the base voltage of 800mV ::)
Look at the crappy zoomed-out waveform capture from your clip that isn't even capable of showing the waveforms properly because they are grotesquely undersampled and compare that to the nice clean scope capture that Magluvin did of a Joule Thief operating in normal switching mode with a nice zoom-in on the actual switching cycle so we can see what is going on. We are back in "communication-skills-issue-elephant-in-the-room" mode for you.
Perhaps you should take this up with Poynt,who taught me to fit as many samples as possible in the screen,so as to gain accurate measurement readings from the scope.
You are a big peanut--that's for sure.
You comment on the high-voltage spike in your clip and just walk past that totally wonky measurement like a zombie.
It is not a wonky measurement. It only looks wonky to you,because you cant work out what is going on,or why it is there ::)
I can't be 100% certain from your foggy clip, but all of the indicators are pointing to the conclusion that your Joule Thief setup is running in wonky spastic high-frequency mode
For a start,the frequency is quite low for a JT circuit. Mag's has had his running up in the 100s of KHz range.
and the base-emitter scope channel is not inverted and there really is a super-high voltage spike across the base-emitter junction of the transistor.
Oh dear ::)
Look at the spike from L1 that is driving the LED--dose that tell you when the transistor is off?
Look at the spike on the yellow trace--is that in line with the spike on the blue trace?
Dose this now tell you that the spike on the yellow trace is during the off time of the transistor?
Are you getting the idea now that the yellow trace is indeed inverted?,and why there is such a large spike on the yellow trace.
Are you learning now?.
Why would you even put your probe across the base-emitter junction when there is so much more information to be learned if you put your probe on the output of the feedback coil?
Why would we not include the VR,when it is the effect of the VR we are looking at?
Why do you jump in so quick,when you know there is more video's to come--hence the title has PT 1 in it.
You have a pretty big toroid so why is your setup running somewhere between 20 kHz and 30 kHz when Magluvin's ran at 4.2 kHz?
Well thats a stupid question if ever i have heard one.
Why dose my large car go faster than my neighbours small car?
That's what you get when your Joule Thief is running in some unknown spastic high-frequency mode.
Looks to be running quite fine to me. But i guess it may look strange to you,because everything is suppose to be just as you picture it in your head--hey MH :D
An odd comment from some one that dose not even have a JT,or has no idead as to how different transistors may make things operate differently.
In other words, your "demonstration" is a total fail and a miserable embarrassment considering the fact that you have been doing this stuff for six years.
I know you must be peeved MH,finding out you were wrong once again.
But i would think that the embarrassment you are feeling,is actually your own. I mean-not being able to tell if a channel is inverted or not,when you have a second channel showing you the off period of the transistor,must be a big blow for some one that prides them self in knowledge of the standard JT. Also not understanding as to why there is such a large spike at the base/emitter junction when the transistor becomes open,must also take a big hit on that pride of yours.
Then there is the fact that i have posted many video's-even on this thread,showing the LED being lit from the emitter/base during the off time of the transistor--but still you dont get it.
Face it MH,you have had another flop-->in many areas this time.
Brad
-
Yes, one can "assume" that is what is happening and use what is observed as a proxy for base current. My point was that nowhere is base current itself being directly measured or observed in the video.
The base current, however, must be measured in the base leg circuit and does not require a separate CSR (although you could indeed use a separate 10R in series with the base as you suggest).
PW
As well, it is incorrect to state that you are varying the base voltage when adjusting the VR.
That is in relation to the switch on time between partially on and fully on. This is only during the lower supply voltage ranges,and is where the !transistor switching on harder! part of it was to come into play. As we know,the 2n3055 needs around 700mV to switch on fully,and if the battery voltage is down to around 400mV,then the transistor will be only partially on for a very brief moment until L1 starts to induce a higher current flow through L2. This i will show in the next video.
You originally used a rather large 10R in the emitter leg as a CSR for measuring emitter current. However, resistance inserted into the emitter leg will produce "degeneration" or "negative feedback" which effectively reduces the transistor's gain. If your goal is to stabilize the LED current as Vbatt varies, you might consider experimenting with increased degeneration (i.e., a larger emitter resistor). If maximum efficiency or minimum Vbatt operation is the goal, this would be less desirable. To measure emitter current, use of a smaller value emitter resistor is advised to reduce the effects of degeneration.
Yes,i understand this,but at these low power level's,a lower value resistor shows a very noisy trace on the scope. It was my intention to use a larger value in order to get a good clean trace on the scope for accurate measurements.
All you need to know is what the Vdrop across the VR is and the resistance value the VR is set to. The use of the separate 10R as a CSR as you suggest would, however, allow you to measure the base current real time without needing to know the VR's set value.
This is the plan for the next video.
Thanks for your input PW :)
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg478111#msg478111 date=1458695560]
Look at the crappy zoomed-out waveform capture from your clip that isn't even capable of showing the waveforms properly because they are grotesquely undersampled and compare that to the nice clean scope capture that Magluvin did of a Joule Thief operating in normal switching mode with a nice zoom-in on the actual switching cycle so we can see what is going on.
MileHigh
Whine ,whine,whine.
Below is the expanded view--of the same circuit running on a 600mV supply voltage.
Dose it look that much different from Mag's ?.
I have CH1 now around the correct way--just for you MH.
Dose it make sense now?--Is this good enough for you?
Is my circuit running in some sort of spastic mode-as you put it?.
Can you understand the high reversed voltage spike between the emitter/base junction now?
Is there anything else i can help you with?.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg478111#msg478111 date=1458695560]
Look at the crappy zoomed-out waveform capture from your clip that isn't even capable of showing the waveforms properly because they are grotesquely undersampled and compare that to the nice clean scope capture that Magluvin did of a Joule Thief operating in normal switching mode with a nice zoom-in on the actual switching cycle so we can see what is going on.
MileHigh
Whine ,whine,whine.
Below is the expanded view--of the same circuit running on a 600mV supply voltage.
Dose it look that much different from Mag's ?.
I have CH1 now around the correct way--just for you MH.
Dose it make sense now?--Is this good enough for you?
Is my circuit running in some sort of spastic mode-as you put it?.
Can you understand the high reversed voltage spike between the emitter/base junction now?
Is there anything else i can help you with?.
Yes, that pretty much confirms that your Joule Thief circuit is running in some wonky spastic oscillator mode. The observed pulse is a mere five microseconds which is way too short. The transistor is supposed to be ON both before and after the LED ON pulse, and we can clearly see that the transistor is OFF before and after the LED ON pulse. So you are absolutely running in some wonky spastic oscillator mode. You failed to get the circuit to run properly, and your own expanded scope trace is clearly showing you that the circuit is failing to operate like it is supposed to and yet you gloat. The problem is right in front of your face and you don't even see it.
It's just one never-ending "Keystone Cops" misadventure with you.
What is really happening in your clip? I can tell you on a top-level without digging into the nuts and bolts of the circuit operation. The potentiometer is acting like a frequency adjustment for your wonky oscillator. As the frequency lowers, you can see the duty cycle for the LED ON vs. OFF does not change. So with a lower frequency, presumably there is more time for current to build up in the main L1 coil, and therefore you get a higher peak current through the LED and therefore a brighter LED, although the duty cycle does not change.
So it's the potentiometer acting like a frequency control, giving the main coil a longer time period to energize and build up current, that results in the LED getting brighter. That has nothing to do with the normal switching operation of a Joule Thief.
The clip is a farce.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
The fact that you dont understand what is going on in my video,and what the scope is showing you ,is scary.
More like after six years of bench experimentation and talking electronics, and trying to sound authoritative about the Joule Thief circuit, it's scary that you couldn't even build one and get it to operate properly. It's double scary that you didn't even notice or try to check to see if it was running properly. It's tripe scary that you gloat and insist that you got it right when it is painfully obvious that you got it dead wrong.
Perhaps you should take this up with Poynt,who taught me to fit as many samples as possible in the screen,so as to gain accurate measurement readings from the scope.
You are a big peanut--that's for sure.
Put your brain in gear and make the proper decisions to present your data properly and make a conscious informed intelligent decision for when to look at multiple cycles for better averaging, and for when to look at a close up of a waveform.
What you should do is back up and get your Joule Thief to work properly before you do anything else. The long lengths of wire coming off of the toroid are probably not helping.
MileHigh
-
Yes, that pretty much confirms that your Joule Thief circuit is running in some wonky spastic oscillator mode. The observed pulse is a mere five microseconds which is way too short. The transistor is supposed to be ON both before and after the LED ON pulse, and we can clearly see that the transistor is OFF before and after the LED ON pulse. So you are absolutely running in some wonky spastic oscillator mode. You failed to get the circuit to run properly, and your own expanded scope trace is clearly showing you that the circuit is failing to operate like it is supposed to and yet you gloat. The problem is right in front of your face and you don't even see it.
It's just one never-ending "Keystone Cops" misadventure with you.
What is really happening in your clip? I can tell you on a top-level without digging into the nuts and bolts of the circuit operation. The potentiometer is acting like a frequency adjustment for your wonky oscillator. As the frequency lowers, you can see the duty cycle for the LED ON vs. OFF does not change. So with a lower frequency, presumably there is more time for current to build up in the main L1 coil, and therefore you get a higher peak current through the LED and therefore a brighter LED, although the duty cycle does not change.
So it's the potentiometer acting like a frequency control, giving the main coil a longer time period to energize and build up current, that results in the LED getting brighter. That has nothing to do with the normal switching operation of a Joule Thief.
The clip is a farce.
MileHigh
You truly are lost MH.
The circuit is running quit fine,and nothing out of the ordinary is going on.
We have the needed 800mV switching on the transistor cleanly--see scope value's.
We have the needed 2.6+ volts to light the LED--see scope shot below.
You think something is wrong because we do not have nice square edges like Mags has in his scope shot?--laughable :D
You really have no idea as to what you are looking at-do you .
Brad
-
So the parts are assembled and the system is brought into run in a fashion that you did not expect,,
Just because something CAN do something does not mean it MUST do something and just because something DOES something does not mean you MUST use it,,,
MH is lost-that much is clear.
The only time he likes what you do,is when it is in agreeance with his statements,and the way he thinks things work--that is the only time he will be happy.
He knows he has been caught out again,and he is now looking for anything that will distract from his mistakes.
In the next video,i have cleaned the test setup up,and he simply will not be able to deny that what i said is fact.
He seems to think that every JT circuit made should show exact same result's. But even a different LED,different windings,and different sized cores will show different result's.
He is lost as to why my JT is running at around 20KHz,and Mags was running at only 4KHz--my frequency is far to high !apparently! lol,but to me,it seems quite low.
Anyway,we will continue on with the testing.
Brad
-
Quote from MH
You have a pretty big toroid so why is your setup running somewhere between 20 kHz and 30 kHz when Magluvin's ran at 4.2 kHz?
Look at the crappy zoomed-out waveform capture from your clip
Did you take note of the supply voltage MH when i was shooting that clip?
See anything familiar in the two scope shot's below?
Wonder what would happen to Mag's wave form and light output if he reduced his base resistance?.
Oh,and dont forget to take a peak at Mag's frequency value while your at it.
Like i said--you just do not understand how JTs operate--and that much is very clear.
-
You truly are lost MH.
The circuit is running quit fine,and nothing out of the ordinary is going on.
We have the needed 800mV switching on the transistor cleanly--see scope value's.
We have the needed 2.6+ volts to light the LED--see scope shot below.
You think something is wrong because we do not have nice square edges like Mags has in his scope shot?--laughable :D
You really have no idea as to what you are looking at-do you .
Brad
That's it Brad, be a clown one more time and make a fool of yourself and show the world that you have no idea what you are looking at and no idea what you are doing. Your Joule Thief isn't even running properly therefore all that you can do is generate junk data but don't let that stop you. Just plow forward in a grotesque display of willful ignorance.
Take a look at the three attached scope shots and bathe in your foolishness and wilful ignorance.
-
That's it Brad, be a clown one more time and make a fool of yourself and show the world that you have no idea what you are looking at and no idea what you are doing. Your Joule Thief isn't even running properly therefore all that you can do is generate junk data but don't let that stop you. Just plow forward in a grotesque display of willful ignorance.
Take a look at the three attached scope shots and bathe in your foolishness and wilful ignorance.
I am going to have to take my statement back and qualify it. On closer inspection of your scope shot I can see that indeed the base waveform is showing that the transistor is ON and you are correct that the level is 800 mllivolts.
What are the root causes of the misunderstanding? The first is that I wasn't observant enough to see the fact that in your close up shot that the trace is just hugging a point above the zero volt line. I thought it was zero volts, not hugging just above zero volts. A not too distant second factor is that your presentation skills are generally very poor and it's easy to get thrown off because of that. A third factor is in your original clip it looks like a zero-volt baseline with a big positive spike - sloppy presentation and poor communication skills come back to haunt you.
However, you still have a problem and it could be related to the low voltage of the battery and loose wiring. In Magluvin's capture it takes about 30 microseconds for the LED to discharge and it runs at 4.2 kHz with a total period of about 238 microseconds. There is no reason that your setup shouldn't have comparable timing. You are supposed to get a nice clean "crisp" set of waveforms like in Magluvin's capture.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
I will go out on a limb now and honestly I didn't want to go here because I expect you to demonstrate your own innate capability and do a test that makes sense. But since I got thrown off I will state what I have in mind and leave it at that.
When you decrease the base resistance the operating frequency lowers and thus the energizing time for the main L1 coil increases - obviously that can lead to a brighter LED. I was expecting some effect on the frequency but not as much as is shown in your clip, with the caveat that I still don't have confidence in your setup because it is running too fast and the discharge time through the LED is way too short. Nonetheless, a lower operating frequency means more time for the L1 coil to energize. The conundrum is that the operating frequency is supposed to be governed by the L/R-type time constant to energize L1 and the L/R-type time constant for L1 to discharge through the LED. The value of the base resistance doesn't really come into play for these two time constants, hence my expectation was that varying the base resistance would only have a marginal effect on the operating frequency. I am not sure why lowering the base resistance lowers the operating frequency, but like I said before, if your Joule Thief was running at a more normal frequency it would be interesting to see what happens then.
Let's examine your premise for your experiment. You said changing the value of the base resistor would compensate for a lowering battery voltage over time. It's hard to tell from a clip, but the LED does not appear to be getting appreciably brighter as you change the base resistance. Always the caveat being that I don't think your Joule Thief is operating at a normal frequency. The light meter shows increasing intensity, but only at a level of 40 parts per thousand. The eye is not very sensitive when it comes to detecting changes in brightness.
How will the LED intensity vary if you use a power supply and change the supply voltage from 1.5 volts to 0.75 volts? Will it be noticeable? How will the LED intensity vary if you run the Joule Thief at 0.75 volts and lower the base resistance? Will that compensate for the presumed loss in brightness or not? Again, the Joule Thief has to be running at a normal frequency.
That is the rough form of the testing that I think you should be doing. To me it looks like varying the base resistance will only have a very marginal affect on the brightness of the LED because it slows down the operating frequency. It is somehow affecting the positive-feedback triggering mechanism for the shutting off of the transistor. I would not be surprised if lowering the base resistance only barely makes the LED perceptibly brighter. In contrast, I believe that varying the supply voltage to the Joule Thief will have a very noticeable affect on the brightness of the LED. And that is the crux of the issue.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
I know that you are going to jump around and gloat, but here is your posting #1076 verbatim where you give your "explanation" for how lowering the base resistance will increase the brightness of the LED:
MH
You need to have a good look at the basic JT circuit--the one you like,or call the JT circuit.
You have two coil's that provide current to build the magnetic field--not one.
As you decrease the resistance to the base,you increase the current flowing to the base,and this current is additive to the collector current due to the way the two coils are linked together,and thus the magnetic field strength can be maintained by reducing the base resistance value, so as to provide the same amount of power flowing through the LED from the kickback as the battery voltage drop's.
I will draw up a quick schematic of my test setup,and post it here. When you see the test setup,you will know that the measurements taken,and the statements i provided are correct.
Brad
So your "explanation" isn't even remotely close to what you are observing at all. You are observing an increasing period in the energizing cycle for the L1 main coil, and that is what is making the LED only slightly brighter. From your clip the brightness increase appears to be barely perceptible.
As you decrease the resistance to the base,you increase the current flowing to the base,and this current is additive to the collector current due to the way the two coils are linked together,and thus the magnetic field strength can be maintained
That statement looks pretty damn wonky to me. The coils are opposite wound on the same toroid, right? Looking at the schematic, let's say when current flows from top to bottom through L1 during the transistor ON cycle we are building up magnetic energy in the toroidal core. During this time current is also flowing from top to bottom through L2 to keep the transistor switched ON. L2 is opposite-wound to L1 and that means when current is flowing from top to bottom through L2 that it is producing magnetic flux that is opposite to the magnetic flux produced by L1. So when current flows top to bottom through L2 it reduces the magnetic energy stored in the toroidal core, not increases it. That would help to make the LED dimmer, not brighter.
So you can't claim any "victory" because your light meter can detect increasing brightness in the LED. You just stumbled upon this effect, and your theory for why the LED was supposed to get brighter makes no sense at all.
MileHigh
-
MH:
Quote: "When you decrease the base resistance the operating frequency lowers and thus the energizing time for the main L1 coil increases - obviously that can lead to a brighter LED."
It has been my experience, as I have stated, that decreasing the resistance to the base increases the operating frequency as in the example of the low voltage battery causing the led flashes to be seen by the human eye...decrease the base resistance and now the led flashes on/off faster than you can see and appears "on". I have seen this many times first hand on my own units.
Maybe I am not understanding you here?
Thanks,
Bill
-
Here's something else to consider. In the standard JT, the toroidal windings actually form one continuous winding in the same direction, with a center tap. You can save yourselves a lot of trouble by simply taking one strand of wire, winding the toroid or ferrite rod etc. with one continuous single-layer, connecting the ends to Collector and Base resistor/capacitor (if used). Then use sandpaper to remove the insulation of the magnet wire in a "stripe" along the outside of the toroid or along the length of the rod, and locate the tap (which goes to positive rail) in the best place by experimenting with connecting to the uninsulated stripe. Once you have found the correct ratio location, solder the "center" tap to the bare stripe at that spot. This is similar to the way that a traditional inductively-tuned crystal set has taps located along the coil for tuning to particular stations.
-
Bill:
It's a great issue you raised and I don't have an answer, but only some follow-up questions to ponder:
When your Joule Thieves were running off of a very low battery, they might have been flashing the LED at 25 Hz, and then you lowered the base resistance and the flashing frequency increased. What is the technical explanation for that?
How come Brad's Joule Thief is running at 20 kHz when one of yours might have run at 50 Hz?
Precisely why does the frequency in Brad's Joule Thief decrease when he decreases the base resistance? What is the technical explanation?
Why is there apparently so little energy in the LED discharge from Brad's toroidal coil? The discharge takes five microseconds, it's doesn't seem to make any sense.
Knowing Brad, who knows what the winding setup is like on his toroidal core. It's possible that the effective number of turns for the L1 coil are very low, and the core is only storing a fraction of the magnetic energy that it can actually store.
What is implicit in the questions I am raising is that I am trying to push the boundaries past doing a setup and passively observing how it performs, and switching over to actively trying to understand how something works. It's a huge shift from just observing something and pretending that you are experimenting and truly experimenting to test a hypothesis and actually understand the underlying processes that explain how something works.
Now, if I was in Brad's shoes, the first thing I would notice is that my decent-sized toroidal core is dumping a 5-microsecond pee-fart of energy into the LED when it discharges. Something seems amiss there. What goes hand-in-hand with that is the very high frequency that the setup is running at. I would undertake to check the core material, check the winding configuration, clean up my overall wiring, and put my Joule Thief "in the shop" so that when it came out of the shop it was running at a frequency and generating waveforms to my satisfaction. I wouldn't do anything until I was satisfied that my Joule Thief was operating in what I considered to be a normal fashion. But I am not in Brad's shoes and I hold out no hope that he will pay any attention to these matters.
MileHigh
-
Here's something else to consider. In the standard JT, the toroidal windings actually form one continuous winding in the same direction, with a center tap. You can save yourselves a lot of trouble by simply taking one strand of wire, winding the toroid or ferrite rod etc. with one continuous single-layer, connecting the ends to Collector and Base resistor/capacitor (if used). Then use sandpaper to remove the insulation of the magnet wire in a "stripe" along the outside of the toroid or along the length of the rod, and locate the tap (which goes to positive rail) in the best place by experimenting with connecting to the uninsulated stripe. Once you have found the correct ratio location, solder the "center" tap to the bare stripe at that spot. This is similar to the way that a traditional inductively-tuned crystal set has taps located along the coil for tuning to particular stations.
That sounds really cool. I can easily envision a "spikey Mohawk" toroid with the single winding and a dozen taps with soldered wires coming off of the single coil. So then not only can you experiment with the best position for the center tap, but you can experiment to your heart's content with the number of turns in the L1 main coil and the L2 feedback coil.
-
you generally don't want to saturate the ferrite
the ferrite may reach saturation at peak amplitudes, through regenerative feedback
but driven from the battery, to saturate the ferrite, uses much more energy than necessary to power the load.
it is better to operate under full saturation, or at a point approaching saturation.
since we have no way of limiting ourselves to the exact point of saturation,
we almost always go well beyond it, wasting energy into space.
for the small application of tracing scope images, or lighting an LED,
we don't need a lot of flux, just slightly more than the coil alone provides.
(and even that is not always necessary - see air-coil JT)
-
MH:
Quote: "When you decrease the base resistance the operating frequency lowers and thus the energizing time for the main L1 coil increases - obviously that can lead to a brighter LED."
It has been my experience, as I have stated, that decreasing the resistance to the base increases the operating frequency as in the example of the low voltage battery causing the led flashes to be seen by the human eye...decrease the base resistance and now the led flashes on/off faster than you can see and appears "on". I have seen this many times first hand on my own units.
Maybe I am not understanding you here?
Thanks,
Bill
"
It has been my experience, as I have stated, that decreasing the resistance to the base increases the operating frequency...."
That has not been my experience at all. Decreasing the resistance gives me lower freq, longer(stronger) on and off times. It is when I 'increase' the resistor that I get shorter(weaker) on and off times thus higher freq of operation.
Mags
-
you generally don't want to saturate the ferrite
the ferrite may reach saturation at peak amplitudes, through regenerative feedback
but driven from the battery, to saturate the ferrite, uses much more energy than necessary to power the load.
it is better to operate under full saturation, or at a point approaching saturation.
since we have no way of limiting ourselves to the exact point of saturation,
we almost always go well beyond it, wasting energy into space.
for the small application of tracing scope images, or lighting an LED,
we don't need a lot of flux, just slightly more than the coil alone provides.
(and even that is not always necessary - see air-coil JT)
I may have to order a core with low srf, and will know what the srf is by doing so. I have many toroid cores but I dont know what I have spec wise. Next purchase is a func/sig gen.. Havnt found resonance other than the battery with the caps at 1.4 or so mhz, depending on which of the disks I put in, of the same lot and value. Scanned the no signal zone beyond clean sine wave range. Was only able to get the battery to show up at near 1.45mhz and the led lit some. And Im pretty sure it is the battery ringing, as it changes with the added caps and across the battery is the only component oscillating according to the scope, individually checking components with probe and gnd lead of scope.
Mags
-
Hmm. This is the second time Ive heard of the led going into blink mode. Smoky said it once earlier. Is that when the battery is super low? Because it seems to me that would indicate the battery is at a level that it needs some refresh time before being able to fire the transistor again. Im getting high enough freq levels at very low battery levels that you cannot see the blinking with the eye. No way. I havnt taken a battery ALL the way down yet to see if I can get it to blink. Will run one down hard to see, soon. ;D
But as far as I can see so far, I dont think it is circuit operation that is giving visible blink, unless the windings were more than we have been playing with here, meaning way more inductance, low freq. Other than that, Id bet on battery weakness at the time of slow visible blink.
Mags
-
Im getting high enough freq levels at very low battery levels that you cannot see the blinking with the eye. No way. I havnt taken a battery ALL the way down yet to see if I can get it to blink. Will run one down hard to see, soon. ;D
But as far as I can see so far, I dont think it is circuit operation that is giving visible blink, unless the windings were more than we have been playing with here, meaning way more inductance, low freq. Other than that, Id bet on battery weakness at the time of slow visible blink.
Mags
Hmm. This is the second time Ive heard of the led going into blink mode. Smoky said it once earlier. Is that when the battery is super low? Because it seems to me that would indicate the battery is at a level that it needs some refresh time before being able to fire the transistor again.
That is correct Mag's--the battery needs time to recover to a voltage where it can start to switch on the transistor again. If the battery voltage has not recovered enough by the time the next cycle is ready to start,then the transistor will not start to conduct,and you skip a cycle or two until there is enough voltage recovery on the battery. This you can test using a cap that is fedd by a battery or PSU with a resistor between the two.
You can also decrease the required supply voltage,and still have the JT running,by decreasing the base resistance. This i will cover in my next video.
Brad
-
Here is the next video on bench testing the JT circuit.
This comment posted on my video from a viewer.
the joule thief schematics you are using is more like a boost converter, the classic Joule Thief has the LED connected in parallel to the coil in reverse to use just the inductive spikes, of course the voltage of that battery is not enough for the LED voltage conductivity, but it has a different approach to the circuit.
Just go's to show that there is not just one common JT circuit.
Anyway,we look at the base current in this video,and we can see the effects it has on the operation of the circuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72BqF8bkk-k
Brad
-
Here is the next video on bench testing the JT circuit.
This comment posted on my video from a viewer.
Just go's to show that there is not just one common JT circuit.
Anyway,we look at the base current in this video,and we can see the effects it has on the operation of the circuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72BqF8bkk-k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72BqF8bkk-k)
Brad
lol. Like I said way earlier before I had built my first Jt, the led across the winding seems a better choice as to not include the battery current in the led drive loop, as that would deplete the battery at all times while the circuit is running, vs having a real off time while the coil dumps to the led.
Mags
-
MileHigh
I am going to have to take my statement back and qualify it. On closer inspection of your scope shot I can see that indeed the base waveform is showing that the transistor is ON and you are correct that the level is 800 mllivolts.
Well this is good ::)
What are the root causes of the misunderstanding?
Oh here we go ::)
The first is that I wasn't observant enough to see the fact that in your close up shot that the trace is just hugging a point above the zero volt line. I thought it was zero volts, not hugging just above zero volts.
I thought ;)
A not too distant second factor is that your presentation skills are generally very poor and it's easy to get thrown off because of that.
Ah-there we are,the big old switcharoony--now it's my fault because of your lack of observing skills.
Point 1--in the video,i went through all the scope setting value's.
Point 2-the screen shot you posted yourself has all these values clearly presented on that screen shot. The VPD on CH1 clearly show's a value of 5volt's,meaning that 800mV would be just above the zero volt line. The Vmax on CH1(800mV) is also clearly visible in the calculated value's on the right hand side of the scope shot.
Point 3- i told you all this in a previous post--but still you were lost.
A third factor is in your original clip it looks like a zero-volt baseline with a big positive spike - sloppy presentation and poor communication skills come back to haunt you.
It is your lack of being able to interpret and observe what the scope is showing you,and what the scope settings are,that is being the cause of all your drama's.
No one else here had trouble understanding what was going on in the video.
The circuit will run just fine on low voltages when the base resistance is set to the !correct! value--another reason that a fixed base resistance is no good.
In Magluvin's capture it takes about 30 microseconds for the LED to discharge and it runs at 4.2 kHz with a total period of about 238 microseconds.
Is my setup exactly like Mag's ?
There is no reason that your setup shouldn't have comparable timing. You are supposed to get a nice clean "crisp" set of waveforms like in Magluvin's capture.
Are you serious :o
Do you think that two different LED's will work in the very same way?
Do you think that two different core's will operate in the same way.
What about different transistor's?
What about different numbers of turns for each coil,or the wire size used?.
How you can say that the two different circuit's will/should operate very close to the same is beyond me.
Like i said MH,you really are not well versed in JT circuit's.
The fact that you do not know why the transistor stays on longer,and the frequency lower's when the base resistance is decreased,truly shows you have so much left to learn.
Facts are facts MH,and your fairy tails have been proven to be just that--fairy tails.
Brad
-
lol. Like I said way earlier before I had built my first Jt, the led across the winding seems a better choice as to not include the battery current in the led drive loop, as that would deplete the battery at all times while the circuit is running, vs having a real off time while the coil dumps to the led.
Mags
Exactly
And i too found having the LED across the L1 coil to be much more efficient.
But having the LED across the base/emitter put's energy back into the battery ;)
Brad
-
Anyway,we look at the base current in this video,and we can see the effects it has on the operation of the circuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72BqF8bkk-k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72BqF8bkk-k)
Brad
Comments on your clip:
- Your pitch about currents through L1 and L2 adding up to put more magnetic energy into the core is dead wrong. See my earlier posting.
- It's pretty obvious this time that reducing the base resistance barely increases the intensity of the LED and it can only be picked up by the light meter. Changing the base resistance makes no change in the LED intensity for the naked eye.
- For the 10-ohm CVR setup, you are looking at a massive anomaly where the L1 coil is discharging straight into the L2 coil via the 1k resistor and sucking some life out of your Joule Thief and you are not saying anything about it.
- For the 10-ohm CVR setup, you can see that lowering the base resistance gives you more current through the base-emitter diode of the transistor. The assumption is that this is excessive current that is doing nothing for you except wasting energy, just like I have said several times.
- I don't believe that putting a current limit on your bench power supply will emulate a nearly discharged battery's output impedance. I would think that you should measure the actual output impedance of a nearly discharged battery of a given size and chemistry type, and then simply put the appropriate resistor in series with your bench power supply.
So, the variable base resistor is not doing much good at all for you in this clip, and then there is the discovery of the massive anomaly in your clip. I have a few more minutes to watch to see if you have anything to say about it.
MileHigh
-
What transpires is that virtually nobody really knows what they're on about!
Just get yourself a decent PV panel and forget depleted AA cells, there's no
future in 'em whatever you do.
John.
-
Well Brad, you have a new elephant in the room, I am calling it the "Joule Thief death spike." See attached.
How could you not say anything about this? It's truly mind blowing when you get these absences of reaction when something truly unusual happens. You have this huge spike of reverse current going through the base of the transistor and you say NOTHING? LOL Like a bloody lighting bolt it goes right up L2! You are the Dr. Frankenstein of Joule Thieves! LOL
Cat's got your tongue? Zap the cat with a lightning bolt of current!
-
Brad:
Do you think that two different LED's will work in the very same way?
Do you think that two different core's will operate in the same way.
What about different transistor's?
What about different numbers of turns for each coil,or the wire size used?.
How you can say that the two different circuit's will/should operate very close to the same is beyond me.
Like i said MH,you really are not well versed in JT circuit's.
The fact that you do not know why the transistor stays on longer,and the frequency lower's when the base resistance is decreased,truly shows you have so much left to learn.
Facts are facts MH,and your fairy tails have been proven to be just that--fairy tails.
Presumably two different LEDs won't make much of a difference.
Assuming the cores are about the same size and both are high-permeability, not much difference.
Ditto for the transistors.
The number of turns for each coil will indeed make a difference.
There is no reason for your Joule Thief to run so fast and I think something is amiss. You clearly have a serious design problem because you have the Joule Thief death spike.
The fact that you do not know why the transistor stays on longer,and the frequency lower's when the base resistance is decreased,truly shows you have so much left to learn.
Please go ahead and explain why it is happening.
MileHigh
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72BqF8bkk-k
Tinman,
Moving the scope ground to the transistor base is not a very good way measure base current. Any time the base voltage is less than the Vbe turn on voltage or is reverse biased, the base appears mostly capacitive (combined with a small amount of leakage current). Moving the scope ground lead to the base changes the capacitance at the base.
A better way would have been to keep all scope grounds on the battery minus and use both scope channels and probes to measure both ends of the 10R base resistor. With both scope channel vertical gains set identically (ca 20mv/div) invert one channel and then add them together (or use a math function to subtract one channel from the other). This allows you to make a differential measurement across the 10R with minimal capacitive loading (particularly if you use 10X probes).
Also, you only have two channels so you should be taking advantage of the external trigger input. It has limited "viewing" function, but if used smartly, it can be used to keep a marker on the screen at all times that indicates a particular time point in the waveform being observed.
That said, I do not believe the base current flowing thru L2 is acting in the manner you surmise. In fact, I would think that current flowing thru the base (and L2) would generate a flux in opposition to that generated by current flowing thru L1.
You should consider measuring the Vce and Ic at the two base current extremes you are using. You may find that Vce or Ic varies with Ib. To do so, instead of making videos, consider creating six scope captures.
I would add a 1R resistor between the transistor collector and the L1/LED junction and connect the scope grounds to the emitter/battery junction. I would then choose two base resistances to measure operation with such as 1K and 500R. I would connect a third probe to the external trigger input and connect that probe to the L1/LED junction and trigger on the rising edge (which is the straightest edge in your waveform).
The first capture would be with the CH1 probe at the pot/10R junction in the base leg, and the CH2 probe at the collector of the transistor with the pot set to 1K (or using a fixed 1K). The next capture would be identical, but with the pot set to 500R. These two captures would let you see any change in Vce as the base current is changed between the two base currents.
The next capture would be with the CH1 probe moved to the L2/LED junction (i.e., the other end of the collector's 1R). Using 1K as a base resistance, set both scope channels so that there is a good signal, and then invert and add (or subtract using math) to measure the differential voltage across the 1R, which is the collector current Ic. The next capture would repeat this test using the 500R base resistance.
At this point you would have the collector to emitter voltage (Vce) and the collector current (Ic) when using the two base currents with 1K and 500R base resistors.
We already know the base current is increased when the base resistor is changed from 1K to 500R, but it would be useful for further analysis of turn on, etc, to measure the base current under the same two operating conditions.
As was done to measure the collector current, make a capture using both probes to measure the difference voltage across the 10R resistor at the base using first the the 1K base resistance and then repeat this test making a second similar capture using the 500R base resistance.
You would now have a set of six scope captures. Because the external trigger input was used, they are fairly closely time aligned. The first pair of captures gives you Vce data, the second pair gives you Ic data, and the third pair gives you Ib data. Each pair provides data when the base resistance is set to 1K and 500R.
You might consider doing all these tests using your bench supply set to a known voltage as the battery voltage may change over the time period needed to make these six captures.
Although its just a joule thief, making these captures would be good measurement/scopology practice..
Just my 2 cents...
PW
-
Brad:
Presumably two different LEDs won't make much of a difference.
Assuming the cores are about the same size and both are high-permeability, not much difference.
Ditto for the transistors.
The number of turns for each coil will indeed make a difference.
There is no reason for your Joule Thief to run so fast and I think something is amiss. You clearly have a serious design problem because you have the Joule Thief death spike.
Please go ahead and explain why it is happening.
MileHigh
"Presumably two different LEDs won't make much of a difference."
Well, a red led may come on at 2.1v and a white maybe at close to 4v. Some vary. The difference does affect things.
So presumably isnt the way to go on this one. ;)
Mags
-
Brad:
Presumably two different LEDs won't make much of a difference.
Assuming the cores are about the same size and both are high-permeability, not much difference.
Ditto for the transistors.
The number of turns for each coil will indeed make a difference.
There is no reason for your Joule Thief to run so fast and I think something is amiss. You clearly have a serious design problem because you have the Joule Thief death spike.
Please go ahead and explain why it is happening.
MileHigh
Mh
There is no death spike-you need to understand the circuit, and why there is a spike across L2 when the transistor becomes open. It all has to do with the number of turns on each coil-the more turns, the higher that L2 spike will be-there is nothing out of the ordinary with that spike.
In regards to the difference in LEDs-this is something you should clearly understand, and how different LEDs will effect the width of the kickback pulse. I have a larger core than Mags, and that means that I can build a larger magnetic field-along with a higher current draw. As we now have a larger amount of energy stored in the way of the magnetic field, then dose it not make sense that we have a longer time period during the LED on time.
The other question you have, I will answer once I am in front of my computer, and not writing from my phone, but if you look at the base current trace in my last video, then I think you should be able to work it out.
Brad
-
Tinman,
Moving the scope ground to the transistor base is not a very good way measure base current. Any time the base voltage is less than the Vbe turn on voltage or is reverse biased, the base appears mostly capacitive (combined with a small amount of leakage current). Moving the scope ground lead to the base changes the capacitance at the base.
A better way would have been to keep all scope grounds on the battery minus and use both scope channels and probes to measure both ends of the 10R base resistor. With both scope channel vertical gains set identically (ca 20mv/div) invert one channel and then add them together (or use a math function to subtract one channel from the other). This allows you to make a differential measurement across the 10R with minimal capacitive loading (particularly if you use 10X probes).
Also, you only have two channels so you should be taking advantage of the external trigger input. It has limited "viewing" function, but if used smartly, it can be used to keep a marker on the screen at all times that indicates a particular time point in the waveform being observed.
That said, I do not believe the base current flowing thru L2 is acting in the manner you surmise. In fact, I would think that current flowing thru the base (and L2) would generate a flux in opposition to that generated by current flowing thru L1.
You should consider measuring the Vce and Ic at the two base current extremes you are using. You may find that Vce or Ic varies with Ib. To do so, instead of making videos, consider creating six scope captures.
I would add a 1R resistor between the transistor collector and the L1/LED junction and connect the scope grounds to the emitter/battery junction. I would then choose two base resistances to measure operation with such as 1K and 500R. I would connect a third probe to the external trigger input and connect that probe to the L1/LED junction and trigger on the rising edge (which is the straightest edge in your waveform).
The first capture would be with the CH1 probe at the pot/10R junction in the base leg, and the CH2 probe at the collector of the transistor with the pot set to 1K (or using a fixed 1K). The next capture would be identical, but with the pot set to 500R. These two captures would let you see any change in Vce as the base current is changed between the two base currents.
The next capture would be with the CH1 probe moved to the L2/LED junction (i.e., the other end of the collector's 1R). Using 1K as a base resistance, set both scope channels so that there is a good signal, and then invert and add (or subtract using math) to measure the differential voltage across the 1R, which is the collector current Ic. The next capture would repeat this test using the 500R base resistance.
At this point you would have the collector to emitter voltage (Vce) and the collector current (Ic) when using the two base currents with 1K and 500R base resistors.
We already know the base current is increased when the base resistor is changed from 1K to 500R, but it would be useful for further analysis of turn on, etc, to measure the base current under the same two operating conditions.
As was done to measure the collector current, make a capture using both probes to measure the difference voltage across the 10R resistor at the base using first the the 1K base resistance and then repeat this test making a second similar capture using the 500R base resistance.
You would now have a set of six scope captures. Because the external trigger input was used, they are fairly closely time aligned. The first pair of captures gives you Vce data, the second pair gives you Ic data, and the third pair gives you Ib data. Each pair provides data when the base resistance is set to 1K and 500R.
You might consider doing all these tests using your bench supply set to a known voltage as the battery voltage may change over the time period needed to make these six captures.
Although its just a joule thief, making these captures would be good measurement/scopology practice..
Just my 2 cents...
PW
Will get to them ASAP
cheers
Brad
-
"Presumably two different LEDs won't make much of a difference."
Well, a red led may come on at 2.1v and a white maybe at close to 4v. Some vary. The difference does affect things.
So presumably isnt the way to go on this one. ;)
Mags
No kidding. So you will have a somewhat higher amplitude feedback signal to switch the transistor ON, and a somewhat higher amplitude feedback signal to switch the transistor OFF. The energy burn to illuminate the LED will be slightly shorter.
I don't view this as a game changer at all. Anybody that knows their stuff should be able to pop a different LED into their Joule Thief circuit and then poke around with their scope probe and ensure that everything is fine or if required take some slight corrective actions as needed. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Brad:
There is no death spike-you need to understand the circuit, and why there is a spike across L2 when the transistor becomes open. It all has to do with the number of turns on each coil-the more turns, the higher that L2 spike will be-there is nothing out of the ordinary with that spike.
So you are a comedian now? Shaking my head. Do you know how an NPN transistor is supposed to work?
You have a major problem with your Joule Thief and the root cause for that is that is that 90% of the time you just fly by the seat of your pants and just plow forward without thinking. Now you find yourself trying to understand how a Joule Thief works like you have never done before and that's a good thing.
For example, your "adding the L1 and L2 energy together for a brighter LED" business is dead in the water. It never even made the slightest bit of sense in the first place but you did not even bother to think it through. That's you flying by the seat of your pants and plowing forward without thinking.
MileHigh
-
Here's something else to consider. In the standard JT, the toroidal windings actually form one continuous winding in the same direction, with a center tap. You can save yourselves a lot of trouble by simply taking one strand of wire, winding the toroid or ferrite rod etc. with one continuous single-layer, connecting the ends to Collector and Base resistor/capacitor (if used). Then use sandpaper to remove the insulation of the magnet wire in a "stripe" along the outside of the toroid or along the length of the rod, and locate the tap (which goes to positive rail) in the best place by experimenting with connecting to the uninsulated stripe. Once you have found the correct ratio location, solder the "center" tap to the bare stripe at that spot. This is similar to the way that a traditional inductively-tuned crystal set has taps located along the coil for tuning to particular stations.
A good idea TK.
To add a bit to that,we could use a wiper as they do in variac's,and have the positive of the battery hooked to the wiper. This way we can make the adjustments on the fly.
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg478230#msg478230 date=1458778346]
Your pitch about currents through L1 and L2 adding up to put more magnetic energy into the core is dead wrong. See my earlier posting.
Your earlier posting is wrong-along with the statement above.
It's pretty obvious this time that reducing the base resistance barely increases the intensity of the LED and it can only be picked up by the light meter. Changing the base resistance makes no change in the LED intensity for the naked eye.
And how could you have possibly seen the LED change in brightness when it was under the light meters sensor? ::)
For the 10-ohm CVR setup, you are looking at a massive anomaly where the L1 coil is discharging straight into the L2 coil via the 1k resistor and sucking some life out of your Joule Thief and you are not saying anything about it.
You are lost.
You simply cannot add everything up,and this is your downfall.
- For the 10-ohm CVR setup, you can see that lowering the base resistance gives you more current through the base-emitter diode of the transistor. The assumption is that this is excessive current that is doing nothing for you except wasting energy, just like I have said several times.
Your still lost ::)
What happens to the current flowing through L2 when the base current is increased ?.
What happens when the current flowing through L2 increases?.
I don't believe that putting a current limit on your bench power supply will emulate a nearly discharged battery's output impedance. I would think that you should measure the actual output impedance of a nearly discharged battery of a given size and chemistry type, and then simply put the appropriate resistor in series with your bench power supply.
As i said to Mag's a few post back,i have already done this,and i recommended this to him as a test setup. The results were the same as in the video of course.
So, the variable base resistor is not doing much good at all for you in this clip, and then there is the discovery of the massive anomaly in your clip. I have a few more minutes to watch to see if you have anything to say about it.
It is not a massive anomaly,and is present in every JT--as seen in Mag's scope shot's.
You simply cannot work out why it is of a higher value in my setup.
-
Well Brad, you have a new elephant in the room, I am calling it the "Joule Thief death spike." See attached.
How could you not say anything about this? It's truly mind blowing when you get these absences of reaction when something truly unusual happens. You have this huge spike of reverse current going through the base of the transistor and you say NOTHING? LOL Like a bloody lighting bolt it goes right up L2! You are the Dr. Frankenstein of Joule Thieves! LOL
Cat's got your tongue? Zap the cat with a lightning bolt of current!
Lol
!!!!huge!!!! spike you say lol
Did you look at the VPD setting on CH2 MH ?-and how narrow the time period is for the !!!huge!!! spike lol.
lets not talk about junction capacitance--we all know you hate that subject,and that it may provide some proof of the miller capacitance effect being the cause of the cool joule being able to operate without any inductive coupling between L1 and L2.
It's all coming back now to bite you on the ass--and you are the one showing your own errors lol.
I love it when a plan come together ;)
Brad
-
Lol
!!!!huge!!!! spike you say lol
Did you look at the VPD setting on CH2 MH ?-and how narrow the time period is for the !!!huge!!! spike lol.
lets not talk about junction capacitance--we all know you hate that subject,and that it may provide some proof of the miller capacitance effect being the cause of the cool joule being able to operate without any inductive coupling between L1 and L2.
It's all coming back now to bite you on the ass--and you are the one showing your own errors lol.
I love it when a plan come together ;)
Brad
Junction capacitance my ass. You should consider that the "bad old days" where you throw words against a wall like spaghetti and hope that they will stick. How does a Cool Joule work? Answer "Miller capacitance effect" is a total FAIL.
What's biting you in the ass right now is that there is a major problem with your Joule Thief. So you can clown around in a daze or undertake to investigate it and fix it. It looks like it may be seriously compromising the efficiency of your Joule Thief and could be damaging to your Joule Thief.
I don't recall Magluvin doing any current traces for the base input. You have a problem, so do you dance around like a clown or figure out how to fix it?
-
Your earlier posting is wrong-along with the statement above.
Go ahead and do a timing diagram and demonstrate how the magnetic energy in the core increases when you have current flowing through L2. Show how this supposedly makes the LED brighter. Don't just rattle off a spur-of-the-moment "explanation" - roll up your shirtsleeves, pick up a pencil, draw out a timing diagram and try to prove that you are right.
-
And how could you have possibly seen the LED change in brightness when it was under the light meters sensor?
There is enough going on in that clip to confirm what I said. What about you? You were there, just be honest and lay your cards on the table? Did you see a noticeable increase in the brightness of the LED or not? If you saw a noticeable brightness increase, how much? Just a very tiny amount? A tiny amount? A bit more than tiny?
Lay your cards on the table. Did the "brightness control" meet you expectations or not? Or was it more like you saw the digits change on the light meter but changing the base resistor in your latest clip didn't really work like you expected?
-
author=picowatt link=topic=8341.msg478241#msg478241 date=1458786487]
Tinman,
A better way would have been to keep all scope grounds on the battery minus and use both scope channels and probes to measure both ends of the 10R base resistor. With both scope channel vertical gains set identically (ca 20mv/div) invert one channel and then add them together (or use a math function to subtract one channel from the other). This allows you to make a differential measurement across the 10R with minimal capacitive loading (particularly if you use 10X probes).
PW
Ok,the results of the test above.
first up,there is no way that we can use 20mV/div--just way to low,so i have used 5v/div
Second--why invert one channel?,as if we keep both channels non inverted,then we just subtract the lowest value from the highest value to get our voltage drop across the 10ohm resistor--but anyway,done as you asked.
Circuit below with scope placement.
I have a wheel that has a selection of set resistance values which i have used for these test.
The first scope shot is with a 1Kohm resistance value(+ the 10 of course).
The second scope shot is with a base resistance value of 820ohms-just the next value down.
The third scope shot is with a base resistance of 550ohms-next value down.
-
Go ahead and do a timing diagram and demonstrate how the magnetic energy in the core increases when you have current flowing through L2. Show how this supposedly makes the LED brighter. Don't just rattle off a spur-of-the-moment "explanation" - roll up your shirtsleeves, pick up a pencil, draw out a timing diagram and try to prove that you are right.
Here is an idea.
How about you put together a JT yourself,and draw your own timing diagrams,and carry out your own testing.
Wouldnt that be a hoot. :D
-
Here is an idea.
How about you put together a JT yourself,and draw your own timing diagrams,and carry out your own testing.
Wouldnt that be a hoot. :D
It's not going to happen and you are making the claim and three people have already told you that you are wrong. So give it a go and try to prove that you are correct.
-
There is enough going on in that clip to confirm what I said. What about you? You were there, just be honest and lay your cards on the table? Did you see a noticeable increase in the brightness of the LED or not? If you saw a noticeable brightness increase, how much? Just a very tiny amount? A tiny amount? A bit more than tiny?
Lay your cards on the table. Did the "brightness control" meet you expectations or not? Or was it more like you saw the digits change on the light meter but changing the base resistor in your latest clip didn't really work like you expected?
See-your doing it again--changing things to suit your needs.
You know very well that the idea behind adjusting the base resistance as the voltage in the battery drop's,was to maintain the highest amount of light output as possible.
I have proven beyond doubt that this happens,and your theory about V/R limit's-and all other associated garbage was quickly dismissed.
Now you have started on these wakadoo claims about my JT running to fast(frequency to high),and mine is operating differently to Mag's JT--!!!wow!!!
Then there is this giant killer spike,which in actual fact only has a voltage value of 100mV--yes,100mV-->so massive :D,not to mention that the time period for this !!!massive!!! spike is that small it's not funny. And then have you dismiss the emitter/base junction capacitance as being the body that could indeed produce this very brief spike of current,is more than comical.
You are doing nothing more than trying your best to backpeddle from further mistakes on your behalf--you do this all the time--try to change the direction of the subject at hand,to turn attention away from your mistakes.
It's not working for you MH.
Decreasing the base resistance as the battery voltage drop's,dose indeed increase the brightness of the LED--proven.
Decreasing the base resistance dose increase the current flowing through L2--proven
Increasing the current through L2 dose increase the magnetic field strength--proven by the fact that the LED gets brighter.
Everything i stated has been proven.
Sorry MH,but you lost another one.
Brad
-
It's not going to happen and you are making the claim and three people have already told you that you are wrong. So give it a go and try to prove that you are correct.
Name those three people MH that have said i am wrong with what i claimed in regards to the reduction of base resistance increasing the light output--name them.
Name those that will argue against the scope and light meter--i dare ya.
Brad
-
Name those three people MH that have said i am wrong with what i claimed in regards to the reduction of base resistance increasing the light output--name them.
Name those that will argue against the scope and light meter--i dare ya.
Brad
You have the wrong issue, it's about your claim that current flowing through L2 increases the magnetic energy in the core and hence the brightness of the LED.
-
See-your doing it again--changing things to suit your needs.
You know very well that the idea behind adjusting the base resistance as the voltage in the battery drop's,was to maintain the highest amount of light output as possible.
I have proven beyond doubt that this happens,and your theory about V/R limit's-and all other associated garbage was quickly dismissed.
Now you have started on these wakadoo claims about my JT running to fast(frequency to high),and mine is operating differently to Mag's JT--!!!wow!!!
Then there is this giant killer spike,which in actual fact only has a voltage value of 100mV--yes,100mV-->so massive :D ,not to mention that the time period for this !!!massive!!! spike is that small it's not funny. And then have you dismiss the emitter/base junction capacitance as being the body that could indeed produce this very brief spike of current,is more than comical.
You are doing nothing more than trying your best to backpeddle from further mistakes on your behalf--you do this all the time--try to change the direction of the subject at hand,to turn attention away from your mistakes.
It's not working for you MH.
Decreasing the base resistance as the battery voltage drop's,dose indeed increase the brightness of the LED--proven.
Decreasing the base resistance dose increase the current flowing through L2--proven
Increasing the current through L2 dose increase the magnetic field strength--proven by the fact that the LED gets brighter.
Everything i stated has been proven.
Sorry MH,but you lost another one.
Brad
More wilful ignorance on display.
Look at this comment:
And then have you dismiss the emitter/base junction capacitance as being the body that could indeed produce this very brief spike of current
You just plucked your famous junction capacitance out of thin air to explain that nasty reverse current spike? So you aren't going to try to THINK and investigate it and try to figure out what is going on? You don't even have a rational line of reasoning. You know that there is such a thing as junction capacitance and you saw the nasty reverse current spike and you just made a "magical" connection to "explain" the reverse current spike?
You "assigned" "junction capacitance" to the problem and it is now "explained" and you just walk away from it? The junction capacitance is only a few PICOFARADS so it can't possibly explain what you are observing. Where is your common sense when it comes to picofarads and how much current you can get to flow through a few bloody PICOFARADS?
You have to do better than that.
And you are avoiding the issue of the brightness adjustment instead of just being honest about it. The V/R limit is absolutely real so it makes no sense at all for you to dismiss it.
-
You have the wrong issue, it's about your claim that current flowing through L2 increases the magnetic energy in the core and hence the brightness of the LED.
And indeed it dose.
Are you saying that the increase of current flow in L2 dose not increase the magnetic field amplitude in the core?--just for future reference.
Brad
-
author=picowatt link=topic=8341.msg478241#msg478241 date=1458786487]
Tinman,
Ok,the results of the test above.
first up,there is no way that we can use 20mV/div--just way to low,so i have used 5v/div
Second--why invert one channel?,as if we keep both channels non inverted,then we just subtract the lowest value from the highest value to get our voltage drop across the 10ohm resistor--but anyway,done as you asked.
Circuit below with scope placement.
I have a wheel that has a selection of set resistance values which i have used for these test.
The first scope shot is with a 1Kohm resistance value(+ the 10 of course).
The second scope shot is with a base resistance value of 820ohms-just the next value down.
The third scope shot is with a base resistance of 550ohms-next value down.
Tinman,
What you want to end up displaying is the voltage difference across the 10R resistor.
Connecting the two probes as you have done is the first correct step in doing so. With both channels' VPD settings (and probe cals) identical (try 2 VPD for the 10R), you should see identical waveforms on CH1 and CH2.
Next, you will want to invert one channel as you have also correctly done.
The next step, which you omitted, is to then ADD the two channels together. You will now have just one trace displaying the voltage difference between the two ends of the 10R resistor.
This method effectively gives your scope a single channel differential input and is valid for both analog and digital scopes. Inverting one channel and then adding them together is the same as subtracting the inverted channel from the other channel.
Using your digital scope, you should be able to use one of its math functions to directly perform the subtraction of one channel from the other. However, being unfamiliar with your scope, I do not know if a difference trace will be displayed, which I would want to see (I am less interested in just "numbers in the boxes").
You may have to increase the vertical sensitivity (VPD), but as you do so you must keep both channel VPD settings identical at all times. As you change the VPD settings, switch between the normal and ADD display to ensure that you are not clipping the channel inputs with too much VPD gain. If necessary, increase the value of the 10R to 100R to increase the voltage difference across it.
PW
-
Mmm
Yep--definitely something wrong with my JT circuits operation--hey MH.
I bet you that Mag's would see that very same !!death spike!! that you see in my scope shot's. Maybe Mags could find the time to do the same test as i did. Then we shall see if my circuit is operating as it should,or in some sort of spastic mode as you say.
Funny the scope shot below,when i use the same test points as you had Mag's use.
Nice try,but not good enough.
Brad
-
Tinman,
What you want to end up displaying is the voltage difference across the 10R resistor.
Connecting the two probes as you have done is the first correct step in doing so. With both channels' VPD settings (and probe cals) identical (try 2 VPD for the 10R), you should see identical waveforms on CH1 and CH2.
Next, you will want to invert one channel as you have also correctly done.
This method effectively gives your scope a single channel differential input and is valid for both analog and digital scopes. Inverting one channel and then adding them together is the same as subtracting the inverted channel from the other channel.
You may have to increase the vertical sensitivity (VPD), but as you do so you must keep both channel VPD settings identical at all times. As you change the VPD settings, switch between the normal and ADD display to ensure that you are not clipping the channel inputs with too much VPD gain. If necessary, increase the value of the 10R to 100R to increase the voltage difference across it.
PW
The next step, which you omitted, is to then ADD the two channels together. You will now have just one trace displaying the voltage difference between the two ends of the 10R resistor.
Nope-this scope cannot do that unless the math function is used,and then the math trace is in with the other two traces. CH1 + CH2 is only available in the math function.
Using your digital scope, you should be able to use one of its math functions to directly perform the subtraction of one channel from the other. However, being unfamiliar with your scope, I do not know if a difference trace will be displayed, which I would want to see (I am less interested in just "numbers in the boxes").
I can bring up the math trace-as in scope shots below. But the scope will not display the math trace value. This has been an issue than many have tried to solve for the past 3 year's,and to date,no one has been able to figure out how to get the math value displayed on the scope.
Brad
-
Nope-this scope cannot do that unless the math function is used,and then the math trace is in with the other two traces. CH1 + CH2 is only available in the math function.
I can bring up the math trace-as in scope shots below. But the scope will not display the math trace value. This has been an issue than many have tried to solve for the past 3 year's,and to date,no one has been able to figure out how to get the math value displayed on the scope.
Brad
If you can display the math trace, forget about inverting one of the channels and just display a math trace of CH1-CH2...
Try to understand what it is you are trying to make your scope display, the voltage difference between the ends of the 10R. If you cannot get better vertical display resolution of the math channel, increase the 10R to 100R if necessary to get more difference signal.
Why do these traces look so much different than your previous traces made across the 10R? Is this the same test condition as in your earlier attempt?
ADDED: I don't recall that harsh step in the CH2 waveform being present in your previous attempt.
Also, can the CH1 and CH2 displays be turned off leaving only the math trace?
PW
-
If you can display the math trace, forget about inverting one of the channels and just display a math trace of CH1-CH2...
Try to understand what it is you are trying to make your scope display, the voltage difference between the ends of the 10R. If you cannot get better vertical display resolution of the math channel, increase the 10R to 100R if necessary to get more difference signal.
ADDED: I don't recall that harsh step in the CH2 waveform being present in your previous attempt.
PW
Why do these traces look so much different than your previous traces made across the 10R? Is this the same test condition as in your earlier attempt?
No-this is a different JT i was testing at the time of your request,so rather than swap back to the other JT,i simply did the same thing on this JT to give you examples of what i can and cannot do with the scope as quickly as i could.
Also, can the CH1 and CH2 displays be turned off leaving only the math trace?
No they cannot-the math trace switches off as soon as you switch of one channel.
Brad
-
If you can display the math trace, forget about inverting one of the channels and just display a math trace of CH1-CH2...
Try to understand what it is you are trying to make your scope display, the voltage difference between the ends of the 10R. If you cannot get better vertical display resolution of the math channel, increase the 10R to 100R if necessary to get more difference signal.
Why do these traces look so much different than your previous traces made across the 10R? Is this the same test condition as in your earlier attempt?
ADDED: I don't recall that harsh step in the CH2 waveform being present in your previous attempt.
Also, can the CH1 and CH2 displays be turned off leaving only the math trace?
PW
The math function on this scope is nothing but useless,and why i never attempt to use it.
Below is what we end up with. I have manually dimmed both channels to have the math trace stand out. I now have a 100 ohm resistor on the base as our CVR.
No matter what i try,the math trace is always just a bunch of noise.
I have both channels non inverted,and CH1 - CH2.
I know what we are trying to achieve,but it must be done without using the math function(if you can call it a function at all).
Why can we not simply do it by subtracting the value of one channel from the value of the other to obtain our voltage drop across the CVR ?
Brad
-
No-this is a different JT i was testing at the time of your request,so rather than swap back to the other JT,i simply did the same thing on this JT to give you examples of what i can and cannot do with the scope as quickly as i could.
No they cannot-the math trace switches off as soon as you switch of one channel.
Brad
Tinman,
Please do not consider any of my posts as "requests". I am only trying to offer measurement suggestions.
If someone wants to argue about whether changing Ib also changes Vce or Ic, it would only seem logical to figure out how to accurately measure those values with minimal disturbance to the operating conditions.
I have no dog in the hunt one way or the other.
Did everyone see where LIGO recently announced the detection of gravity waves using a measurement accuracy of 1 part in 1021? I believe I read where that is equivalent to being able to detect the width of the Milky Way changing by the width of a pencil eraser.
Talk about measurement precision, amazing...
PW
-
Why can we not simply do it by subtracting the value of one channel from the value of the other to obtain our voltage drop across the CVR ?
That is what I said when I stated:
"If you can display the math trace, forget about inverting one of the channels and just display a math trace of CH1-CH2..."
It would be a bit easier if you would stick to one set of measurements/operating conditions/circuits until we can figure out what the problem is.
Which circuit is this that you are measuring?
I like how you dimmed the CH1&2 traces. Try increasing the VPD for both channels. You'll want as much signal displayed for each channel as possible without clipping the scope's front end. As I said earlier, increase the 10R to 100R if necessary.
I think you are getting close...
PW
ADDED: What does the math trace look like with the channels set at 2V/div?
-
That is what I said when I stated:
"
Which circuit is this that you are measuring?
I think you are getting close...
PW
ADDED: What does the math trace look like with the channels set at 2V/div?
If you can display the math trace, forget about inverting one of the channels and just display a math trace of CH1-CH2..."
That is(as i stated) what the last scope shot was showing,and the configurations used.
It would be a bit easier if you would stick to one set of measurements/operating conditions/circuits until we can figure out what the problem is.
That was from the original circuit--sorry i forgot to mention that.
I will stick with this circuit from now on-the one the rest of the testing has been done on so far.
I like how you dimmed the CH1&2 traces. Try increasing the VPD for both channels. You'll want as much signal displayed for each channel as possible without clipping the scope's front end. As I said earlier, increase the 10R to 100R if necessary.
As stated in my last post with the scope shot of the noisy math trace-that is across a 100 ohm resistor.. If i raise the VPD to 5v,the wave forms are clipped at the top of the screen-they go out of screen capture.
What i meant by obtaining the voltage drop without using the math trace,is to calculate the values manually,as the math function on this scope is just junk with very limited function.
No one has been able to work it out yet--even Poynt spent some time with me on skype via video,and still no luck.
Brad
-
That is(as i stated) what the last scope shot was showing,and the configurations used.
That was from the original circuit--sorry i forgot to mention that.
I will stick with this circuit from now on-the one the rest of the testing has been done on so far.
As stated in my last post with the scope shot of the noisy math trace-that is across a 100 ohm resistor.. If i raise the VPD to 5v,the wave forms are clipped at the top of the screen-they go out of screen capture.
What i meant by obtaining the voltage drop without using the math trace,is to calculate the values manually,as the math function on this scope is just junk with very limited function.
No one has been able to work it out yet--even Poynt spent some time with me on skype via video,and still no luck.
Brad
In your reply 1181, the capture posted there looks like you could easily increase the VPD to 2V/div.
In that capture, are you using a 100R resistor at the base?
Have you returned to the original circuit as per post 1168?
Keep in mind that other than the leading edge of the negative going signal at the base during turn off, where I would expect to see a significant spike as capacitance is charged, you are only looking at around a 20mv signal for 2ma of base current with a 10R resistor.
You could try measuring across the 1K resistor instead of the added CSR for more difference signal.
Your scope was a pretty popular model, have you searched out forums looking for math trace related discussions?
I do now recall you, Poynt, and TK as well, discussing this issue in the past.
PW
-
You could try measuring across the 1K resistor instead of the added CSR for more difference signal.
I do now recall you, Poynt, and TK as well, discussing this issue in the past.
PW
In your reply 1181, the capture posted there looks like you could easily increase the VPD to 2V/div.
Yes-i guess i could fit the whole waveform in the screen if i drop each channel down a few divisions. :)
In that capture, are you using a 100R resistor at the base?
Yes
Have you returned to the original circuit as per post 1168?
Yes
Keep in mind that other than the leading edge of the negative going signal at the base during turn off, where I would expect to see a significant spike as capacitance is charged, you are only looking at around a 20mv signal for 2ma of base current with a 10R resistor.
Thank you PW.
I hope MH reads this,as he thinks this is some sort of death spike,and is not normal in a JT circuit operation. To what capacitance are you referring to?. Is the junction capacitance enough in the 2n3055 to allow(carry the current) for this spike to appear ?.
Your scope was a pretty popular model, have you searched out forums looking for math trace related discussions?
Indeed i have--many,and all are having the same issue.
Some have upgraded there firmware to the rigal firmware,but if it dose not take the first time,then it's bye bye scope-there is no returning to the original firmware. A few have lost there scopes trying this upgrade,so i am not taking the chance.
-
Brad:
Thank you PW.
I hope MH reads this,as he thinks this is some sort of death spike,and is not normal in a JT circuit operation. To what capacitance are you referring to?. Is the junction capacitance enough in the 2n3055 to allow(carry the current) for this spike to appear ?.
But what about some other possibilities? It looks like a pretty significant pulse to me. Who knows I could be wrong, but the point is to explore various options. When I saw the spike it looked highly unusual to me. I think there could indeed be another mechanism at play.
MileHigh
-
Indeed i have--many,and all are having the same issue.
Some have upgraded there firmware to the rigal firmware,but if it dose not take the first time,then it's bye bye scope-there is no returning to the original firmware. A few have lost there scopes trying this upgrade,so i am not taking the chance.
I am confused about the math trace business because the purple traces in your attached scope captures look like perfectly clean math traces except for the fact that it looks like they are upside-down, and I can't be sure of your "virtual ground reference" for the purple traces.
If the purple traces are indeed upside-down, then it would be trivial to set them right-side-up and dim out the other two traces and then you are good to go. Am I missing something?
MileHigh
-
Brad:
But what about some other possibilities? It looks like a pretty significant pulse to me. Who knows I could be wrong, but the point is to explore various options. When I saw the spike it looked highly unusual to me. I think there could indeed be another mechanism at play.
MileHigh
OK MH
Where would we start?
Perhaps the answer can be found by working out how the current can flow from emitter to base during the off time of the transistor?,as we know how it travels from base to emitter during the on time.
I am not sure what capacitance PW is talking about that is in relation to this reverse current flow spike as yet. But at a guess,i can see only two that exist. 1-being the small junction capacitance between the base/emitter junction,and 2- the winding capacitance between L1 and L2.
Perhaps it works like one of the joule ringer circuits that lasersaber had there,where the coil that is connected only to the base(L2) could be open at the other end,and the other connection was made via winding capacitance,in stead of a physical connection between L1 and L2.
Brad
-
To what capacitance are you referring to?. Is the junction capacitance enough in the 2n3055 to allow(carry the current) for this spike to appear ?.
When Q1 turns off and L2 collapses, the current flow thru L2 and the LED also induces a voltage across L2, which is the negative voltage portion of the base waveform. During that off time, whenever the base drive voltage is below the Vbe forward voltage, the base leg is basically an open circuit because Q1's base is not conducting. Under DC conditions, there would be a bit of reverse leakage current, but this would only be a few microamps at most.
As we have seen in your first video, as the variable base resistor's value is decreased, the negative going portion of the base waveform increases in amplitude slightly. The base resistor was only changed about 500 ohms or so. We know that the reverse leakage current of Q1's base is fairly low. Under DC conditions, we not expect to see any significant change in the reverse biased voltage observed at the base of Q1 by changing the resistance in series with the base by only 500 ohms (think of the reversed bias base as being a several megohm resistor forming a voltage divider with the L2 and base resistor).
The fact that the reverse voltage at the base does vary noticeably when the resistance is changed indicates that there remains a significant load on the waveform observed at the base of Q1 during the Q1 off time while the base is reverse biased. This can only mean that there is a significant load at the base with respect to AC conditions (far greater than the megohms expected under DC conditions).
Keeping in mind that the negative going portion of the base waveform is a rather fast transition (edge) containing significant high frequency components, the most likely explanation for the amplitude of that portion of the base waveform changing as the base resistor is changed is due to there being a significant capacitance loading the circuit at the base of Q1.
Some of this capacitance may be probe related, which is why it is very important to use your scope probes set to their 10X position (assuming they are 1X/10X switchable). More so important than increasing the probe's DC resistance to 10meg is the reduction of probe capacitance (AC reactance) while in the 10X mode.
That said, however, it is very likely that there is a significant amount of junction capacitance between the base and CE junctions of Q1 (a 2n3055 has a fairly large die area). During the fast transition portion of the waveform, the base waveform is going negative while the collector waveform is going positive. I would expect Miller capacitance alone (collector to base capacitance) to present a significant load to the otherwise open base during this time.
The base current trace became very spikey when you attached the scope ground to the base, as you were forcing the rest of the circuit to change potential with respect to the scope ground during that fast transition. This greatly greatly increased the stray capacitance and current seen across the 10R CSR at the base during the fast negative going edge of the waveform.
When the CSR (base current) is properly viewed, I would expect to see a very narrow spike (as in your recent CH1-CH2 attempts) as any base capacitance is charged, followed by a period of little to no current flow, a smaller. slower (more rounded) spike at Q1 turn on, and then the actual base current of 2ma or so as Q1 remains on until turn off.
Indeed i have--many,and all are having the same issue.
Some have upgraded there firmware to the rigal firmware,but if it dose not take the first time,then it's bye bye scope-there is no returning to the original firmware. A few have lost there scopes trying this upgrade,so i am not taking the chance.
Have the scope owners that successfully changed their software seen the math issue fixed/resolved?
PW
-
Here is what I thought was happening with respect to the big negative current spike:
When the transistor switches off, the potential at the L2 feedback coil was going way below ground potential, perhaps to -15 or -20 volts. The potential at the L1 coil also raises to start to push current through the LED. My assumption is that under these conditions the N-P junction between the collector and the base was breaking down, and current was punching through the junction and the Joule Thief transformer was briefly shorting itself out. After enough energy was burnt off, then the shorting would stop and the rest of the L1 discharge would go through the LED.
When Brad lowered the base resistor you could see the negative spike getting larger and deeper, indicative of a bigger "punch through" of the N-P junction between the collector and the base.
If this was indeed the case, then reducing the number of turns in the L2 feedback coil would reduce the negative potential on L2 and then the "punch through" would stop happening and all of the energy would go into the LED instead.
But now I am not so sure because the time base on the scope shot is 10 microseconds per division and the width of the negative spike is only a few microseconds. So it could be just a junction capacitance effect from the N-P junction between the collector and the base also, I am not certain. However, my gut feel is still going to go with a punch-through, I will go out on a limb. PW is here so his comments will most likely clarify this issue.
MileHigh
-
When Q1 turns off and L2 collapses, the current flow thru L2 and the LED also induces a voltage across L2, which is the negative voltage portion of the base waveform. During that off time, whenever the base drive voltage is below the Vbe forward voltage, the base leg is basically an open circuit because Q1's base is not conducting. Under DC conditions, there would be a bit of reverse leakage current, but this would only be a few microamps at most.
As we have seen in your first video, as the variable base resistor's value is decreased, the negative going portion of the base waveform increases in amplitude slightly. The base resistor was only changed about 500 ohms or so. We know that the reverse leakage current of Q1's base is fairly low. Under DC conditions, we not expect to see any significant change in the reverse biased voltage observed at the base of Q1 by changing the resistance in series with the base by only 500 ohms (think of the reversed bias base as being a several megohm resistor forming a voltage divider with the L2 and base resistor).
The fact that the reverse voltage at the base does vary noticeably when the resistance is changed indicates that there remains a significant load on the waveform observed at the base of Q1 during the Q1 off time while the base is reverse biased. This can only mean that there is a significant load at the base with respect to AC conditions (far greater than the megohms expected under DC conditions).
Keeping in mind that the negative going portion of the base waveform is a rather fast transition (edge) containing significant high frequency components, the most likely explanation for the amplitude of that portion of the base waveform changing as the base resistor is changed is due to there being a significant capacitance loading the circuit at the base of Q1.
Some of this capacitance may be probe related, which is why it is very important to use your scope probes set to their 10X position (assuming they are 1X/10X switchable). More so important than increasing the probe's DC resistance to 10meg is the reduction of probe capacitance (AC reactance) while in the 10X mode.
The base current trace became very spikey when you attached the scope ground to the base, as you were forcing the rest of the circuit to change potential with respect to the scope ground during that fast transition. This greatly greatly increased the stray capacitance and current seen across the 10R CSR at the base during the fast negative going edge of the waveform.
When the CSR (base current) is properly viewed, I would expect to see a very narrow spike (as in your recent CH1-CH2 attempts) as any base capacitance is charged, followed by a period of little to no current flow, a smaller. slower (more rounded) spike at Q1 turn on, and then the actual base current of 2ma or so as Q1 remains on until turn off.
PW
That said, however, it is very likely that there is a significant amount of junction capacitance between the base and CE junctions of Q1 (a 2n3055 has a fairly large die area). During the fast transition portion of the waveform, the base waveform is going negative while the collector waveform is going positive. I would expect Miller capacitance alone (collector to base capacitance) to present a significant load to the otherwise open base during this time.
Thank you PW for clearing this up.
Have the scope owners that successfully changed their software seen the math issue fixed/resolved?
To those i have spoken to,yes,there math is fully functional now since the firmware update.
But it has to be done right the very first time. If the power happens to go out when doing the upgrade,then you throw your scope in the bin.
One guy said he now gets channel drift on his scope since the upgrade,and has been unable to fix it.
I cannot afford a new scope ATM,so i am not going to chance it,as it seems to be only about a 90% success rate--and im bound to be one of the other 10% :(
Brad
-
Brad:
Decreasing the base resistance as the battery voltage drop's,dose indeed increase the brightness of the LED--proven.
Decreasing the base resistance dose increase the current flowing through L2--proven
Increasing the current through L2 dose increase the magnetic field strength--proven by the fact that the LED gets brighter.
Just a little reality check:
In your last clip when you decrease the base resistance the brightness increase is not significant to the human eye, and that's what counts. This is for the case when the battery voltage is about 1.1 volts. It may be different for lower battery voltages.
Of course decreasing the base resistance will increase the current flow through L2. However, PW is working with you to try to understand this in more detail. What happens to the collector-emitter voltage drop when the transistor is ON for high base resistance vs. low base resistance? You are supposed to make measurements of that. If the transistor is switching properly for the high base resistance, then for sure it will be switching properly for the low base resistance and you will barely, if at all, see any difference in the collector-emitter voltage for the two cases. Assuming the collector-emitter voltage is the same in both cases, then that means for a high base resistance or a low base resistance the build-up of current flowing through L1 will be identical. That means that decreasing the base resistance does not increase the build up of the current flowing through L1, but it does increase the current flowing through L2.
However, when you decrease the base resistance, the timing changes, and the energizing cycle for the L1 coil gets longer, and that results in slightly more current flowing through L1 when the transistor switches off, and hence a very slightly brighter LED as observed in your last clip.
With respect to increased current flow in L2 putting more magnetic energy into the core, and that makes the LED brighter, you are dead wrong. Myself, TK, and PW have stated this. The L1 coil and L2 coil in the Joule Thief transformer produce opposite and cancelling flux when the current flows from top to bottom for each coil. Therefore increased current flow in L2 will reduce the magnetic energy in the core that was originally put there by current flow through L1. This is the third time I am stating this.
MileHigh
-
Here is what I thought was happening with respect to the big negative current spike:
When the transistor switches off, the potential at the L2 feedback coil was going way below ground potential, perhaps to -15 or -20 volts. The potential at the L1 coil also raises to start to push current through the LED. My assumption is that under these conditions the N-P junction between the collector and the base was breaking down, and current was punching through the junction and the Joule Thief transformer was briefly shorting itself out. After enough energy was burnt off, then the shorting would stop and the rest of the L1 discharge would go through the LED.
When Brad lowered the base resistor you could see the negative spike getting larger and deeper, indicative of a bigger "punch through" of the N-P junction between the collector and the base.
If this was indeed the case, then reducing the number of turns in the L2 feedback coil would reduce the negative potential on L2 and then the "punch through" would stop happening and all of the energy would go into the LED instead.
But now I am not so sure because the time base on the scope shot is 10 microseconds per division and the width of the negative spike is only a few microseconds. So it could be just a junction capacitance effect from the N-P junction between the collector and the base also, I am not certain. However, my gut feel is still going to go with a punch-through, I will go out on a limb. PW is here so his comments will most likely clarify this issue.
MileHigh
MH,
Keep in mind that the very "spikey" scope shot was captured while scope ground was connected to Q1's base. Also keep in mind that the observed waveform during that test is actually indicative of current, not voltage.
In previous scope shots, the negative going base waveform was not nearly as "ugly". If we were dealing with the base reverse breakdown voltage, which to be honest I did not consider, I would think the waveform would have a consistent voltage level at which it is clamped fairly hard. Also, no current would flow until the waveform reached whatever that breakdown voltage actually was. The observed spike appears to happen immediately during the transition. Still, I am willing to consider the possibility.
It is a shame the differential measurements cannot be made a bit cleaner.
PW
-
Here is what I thought was happening with respect to the big negative current spike:
When the transistor switches off, the potential at the L2 feedback coil was going way below ground potential, perhaps to -15 or -20 volts. The potential at the L1 coil also raises to start to push current through the LED. My assumption is that under these conditions the N-P junction between the collector and the base was breaking down, and current was punching through the junction and the Joule Thief transformer was briefly shorting itself out. After enough energy was burnt off, then the shorting would stop and the rest of the L1 discharge would go through the LED.
When Brad lowered the base resistor you could see the negative spike getting larger and deeper, indicative of a bigger "punch through" of the N-P junction between the collector and the base.
If this was indeed the case, then reducing the number of turns in the L2 feedback coil would reduce the negative potential on L2 and then the "punch through" would stop happening and all of the energy would go into the LED instead.
But now I am not so sure because the time base on the scope shot is 10 microseconds per division and the width of the negative spike is only a few microseconds. So it could be just a junction capacitance effect from the N-P junction between the collector and the base also, I am not certain. However, my gut feel is still going to go with a punch-through, I will go out on a limb. PW is here so his comments will most likely clarify this issue.
MileHigh
MH
The v/CBO for the 2n3055 is 100 volt's.
I do not see 100volts anywhere in my scope shot's?.
I do not see anyway that this !punch through! could be taking place.
Brad
-
MH,
Keep in mind that the very "spikey" scope shot was captured while scope ground was connected to Q1's base. Also keep in mind that the observed waveform during that test is actually indicative of current, not voltage.
In previous scope shots, the negative going base waveform was not nearly as "ugly". If we were dealing with the base reverse breakdown voltage, which to be honest I did not consider, I would think the waveform would have a consistent voltage level at which it is clamped fairly hard. Also, no current would flow until the waveform reached whatever that breakdown voltage actually was. The observed spike appears to happen immediately during the transition. Still, I am willing to consider the possibility.
It is a shame the differential measurements cannot be made a bit cleaner.
PW
I could make the differential measurements cleaner by switching back to the 100 ohm resistor,but it would be without the math trace--we need to forget about the math function on my scope.
Brad
-
PW:
Just to be sure we are on the same page, the attached "death spike" screen cap from Brad's clip is indeed a current waveform. I did not consider the loading of the scope ground on the transistor base input.
It's nice to see that you are willing to consider base reverse breakdown voltage as a possible explanation. I am somewhat embarrassed for calling it "punch through." I know the proper technical terms but they are not on the tip of my tongue anymore, so I use "slang" to get my points across.
MileHigh
-
MH
The v/CBO for the 2n3055 is 100 volt's.
I do not see 100volts anywhere in my scope shot's?.
I do not see anyway that this !punch through! could be taking place.
Brad
Yes that doesn't surprise me. However, I believe there is a possibility that you can get avalanche effects, so perhaps a few nanoseconds could get the ball rolling. Or the transistor is old and beaten up and not meeting spec any more.
My first impression was that there was a breakdown in the transistor itself, so perhaps you will get to the bottom of it and find out one way or another. It looks very jarring to see that negative pulse of current.
MileHigh
-
MH
The v/CBO for the 2n3055 is 100 volt's.
I do not see 100volts anywhere in my scope shot's?.
I do not see anyway that this !punch through! could be taking place.
Brad
I just looked at the data sheet, max VEB is given as 7VDC. Moreover, I just applied a current limited negative voltage between the base and emitter of a 2n3055 here on the bench and it broke down at a Vbe of -8.7VDC. So hats off to MH!!
However, if the only current flowing thru the base circuit during the off time was related to VEB breakdown, the current flow should not begin until Vbe exceeds -7VDC (probably closer to the -8,7VDC I observed).
I would think capacitive loading would create immediate current flow/loading of the base waveform as soon as the negative going transition begins and then be clamped at the base emitter breakdown voltage (ca -8.7VDC) once that junction breaks down. If you look closely at Tinman's noisey diff measurement attempt, or the capture made with the scope ground on the base, there does appear to be a fairly flat period of current flow during the off time following the transitional spike. I had thought that to be noise but it likely is base/emitter breakdown clamping current.
Perhaps as MH suggests, a bit more scrutiny of the turn off period at a faster sweep rate is in order.
PW
-
Brad:
Just a little reality check:
If the transistor is switching properly for the high base resistance, then for sure it will be switching properly for the low base resistance and you will barely, if at all, see any difference in the collector-emitter voltage for the two cases. Assuming the collector-emitter voltage is the same in both cases, then that means for a high base resistance or a low base resistance the build-up of current flowing through L1 will be identical. That means that decreasing the base resistance does not increase the build up of the current flowing through L1, but it does increase the current flowing through L2.
However, when you decrease the base resistance, the timing changes, and the energizing cycle for the L1 coil gets longer, and that results in slightly more current flowing through L1 when the transistor switches off, and hence a very slightly brighter LED as observed in your last clip.
The L1 coil and L2 coil in the Joule Thief transformer produce opposite and cancelling flux when the current flows from top to bottom for each coil. Therefore increased current flow in L2 will reduce the magnetic energy in the core that was originally put there by current flow through L1. This is the third time I am stating this.
MileHigh
In your last clip when you decrease the base resistance the brightness increase is not significant to the human eye, and that's what counts. This is for the case when the battery voltage is about 1.1 volts. It may be different for lower battery voltages.
Do you not remember what the whole idea was in regards to having the VR MH?
It was so as we could reduce the base resistance as the battery voltage dropped-and bit by bit. Not start swinging the resistance about while the battery voltage is still quite high.
Of course decreasing the base resistance will increase the current flow through L2. However, PW is working with you to try to understand this in more detail. What happens to the collector-emitter voltage drop when the transistor is ON for high base resistance vs. low base resistance? You are supposed to make measurements of that.
Well lucky for me,i do things when i want,and get time to do them--not when MH thinks i should be doing them,and within his small time frame ;)
With respect to increased current flow in L2 putting more magnetic energy into the core, and that makes the LED brighter, you are dead wrong. Myself, TK, and PW have stated this.
Please repost these post where TK and PW have said this is incorrect.
Here is the conversation myself and PW had
PW-In your video, we might "assume" that the base current increases as you decrease the value of the potentiometer connected to the transistor's base. However, because the base voltage remains constant, there is no way to see (or know) what change is actually occurring to the base current as you adjust the pot with the tests you made in the video.
We now know the base current dose indeed increase.
My reply-Not entirely correct.
As the current flow in L1 is set once the transistor is fully switched on,then the only way the LED can receive more current from the inductive kickback is by way of a stronger magnetic field being produced during each on time pulse,and as L1's current is set,then the only way to increase that magnetic field is by way of L2. For this to happen,then L2 must be receiving more current flowing through it,and we know this would be the case if we reduce the base resistance value..-->and we do now know for sure that the base/L2 current dose increase when we reduce the base resistance.
PWs reply-Yes, one can "assume" that is what is happening and use what is observed as a proxy for base current. My point was that nowhere is base current itself being directly measured or observed in the video
.
But shortly after this post,we confirmed an increase in base current as we reduced the base resistance.
I have not seen a post from PW that states i am wrong ???
And the only two post i have seen from TK,said nothing about it.
So where are these post that PW and TK state i am wrong?-->you up to your old tricks again MH?.
Now,time for you to think about things a little here,as either way you are wrong.
What is needed in order for the LED to emit more light from the inductive kickback spike?-a larger/stronger magnetic field collapse?
How do we build a larger/stronger magnetic field?--a higher value of overall current flow through the inductor during the on time perhaps?
How do we get this higher value of current flow through the inductor during the on time?-the transistor switching on for a longer period of time perhaps ?.
What needs to happen in order to get the transistor to switch on for a longer period of time?-a longer period and higher value of current flow through L2 perhaps?.
How is this achieved?--well as clearly seen,we reduce the base resistance.
I am lost as to how you can say that the larger amount of current flow through L2 is not responsible for the building of a larger/stronger magnetic field in the inductor :o
I am also at a loss as to how you can say that the two fields built by L1 and L2 will cancel each other out. First up,the current traveling in the two coils is in opposite directions,and there for the two fields will buck,creating a larger field. Second,if the two fields canceled each other out,then when we raise the current flow in L2,the current should actually drop--not rise. But as we know,there is no decrease in current flow,there is only an increase in current flow,and there for there is no cancellation of magnetic fields,as there is no decrease in current flow.
If there was a field cancellation going on,then the circuit would not work as it dose.
You posted the working your self,and now you disagree with how the circuit work's.
Start of cycle.
current starts to flow through L2 as the transistor starts to conduct.
At this point current starts to flow through L1.
The current flowing through L1 increases the current flowing through L2.
This cascade effect/transformer effect keeps going on between the two coils until the transformer is fully switched on,and remains on until such time as the magnetic field in the inductor has reached it's peak-no longer varying in time. At this point,the current flowing through L2 drop's right down,and the transistor opens,and the inductive spike current from L1 is sent through the LED.
How on earth can any of that happen if the two coils fields cancel each other out?
Brad
-
I am confused about the math trace business because the purple traces in your attached scope captures look like perfectly clean math traces except for the fact that it looks like they are upside-down, and I can't be sure of your "virtual ground reference" for the purple traces.
If the purple traces are indeed upside-down, then it would be trivial to set them right-side-up and dim out the other two traces and then you are good to go. Am I missing something?
MileHigh
Because MH-as i stated to PW,that is a variation circuit,where the LED was place across the collector/base junction. That is why the math trace is very clean there,as the LED filtered out all the noise that you see in the later scope shot,where the original test circuit is being used,and the math trace is very noisy.
Brad
-
I have not seen a post from PW that states i am wrong ???
Because I never said you were wrong. I only stated that up until then you did not actually measure the increase in base current but were making assumptions based on proxies. What I will state is that it is very possible that either or both of Vce and Ic are likely changing as you decrease the resistance seen at the base.
But again, you need to measure that to be able to state that for sure. Vce is fairly easy. Put a scope probe on the Q1 collector and change the base resistor between the two values. Crank up the VPD so you are using the full screen and note the collector voltage during the on time.
The Q1 collector current is a bit more difficult if the diff measurements are a problem. The CSR in the emitter leg may be the only option at this point. Using as small a value as possible will reduce degeneration. Try the 10R first, you can always change it to 1R later.
PW
-
Yes that doesn't surprise me. However, I believe there is a possibility that you can get avalanche effects, so perhaps a few nanoseconds could get the ball rolling. Or the transistor is old and beaten up and not meeting spec any more.
My first impression was that there was a breakdown in the transistor itself, so perhaps you will get to the bottom of it and find out one way or another. It looks very jarring to see that negative pulse of current.
MileHigh
The transistor is brand new,i bought 10 of them last week.
I can how ever change it out for another,as i have had new faulty transistors before.
I am hoping Mag's will carry out the same test,as i am interested to see if he gets the same result's.
I have found the video that touches on the miller capacitance effect that was linked to me by a fellow researcher when we were looking into the operation of the cool joule circuit.
Maybe this will help explain thing's?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op_I3Ke7px0
Brad
-
Brad:
I have found the video that touches on the miller capacitance effect that was linked to me by a fellow researcher when we were looking into the operation of the cool joule circuit.
Maybe this will help explain thing's?.
Pointing at somebody else's clip for a different circuit is total BS. You want to explain how a Cool Joule works? Do an exercise just like you see in that clip for your own circuit. A "drive by" "throw spaghetti against the wall" "explanation" will not cut it, period.
MileHigh
-
The transistor is brand new,i bought 10 of them last week.
I can how ever change it out for another,as i have had new faulty transistors before.
I am hoping Mag's will carry out the same test,as i am interested to see if he gets the same result's.
I have found the video that touches on the miller capacitance effect that was linked to me by a fellow researcher when we were looking into the operation of the cool joule circuit.
Maybe this will help explain thing's?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op_I3Ke7px0
Brad
I use FET/bipolar cascode circuits every day in low noise/low THD amplifiers designed to reduce Miller effect.
Regarding the VEB breakdown issue, I am a bit perplexed as to how you are able to produce a waveform on the base that exceeds -8.5VDC or so. I think we have seen up to -16V or so on your base waveforms (correct me if I am wrong).
My breakdown test was with the collector open. I have since applied 20VDC to Vce while applying the negative voltage to Vbe with no change in the Vbe breakdown voltage, which was again -8.6V.
You might try measuring the Vbe breakdown voltage of your flavor of 2N3055. Set your supply to its lowest current setting or put a several K resistor in series with the base (I did both using 4K resistor). Connect the supply so that it applies a negative voltage between the base and emitter while measuring across the base and emitter. See where the voltage gets clamped (similar action to that of a zener). You can of course ground the base and apply a positive voltage to the emitter, its all relative (making the emitter ground and the base negative allowed me to apply a positive voltage between the collector and emitter as well)
PW
-
Brad:
How on earth can any of that happen if the two coils fields cancel each other out?
Did anybody say that they completely cancel each other out? Presumably you have a large current in L1 and a comparatively smaller current in L2, for both a high and low base resistance. That means that the current flowing in L2 takes a slice out of the magnetic energy built up by the current flowing in L1, but does not completely cancel it out by any means.
Even better, look at a toroid and the winding directions and the direction of the current flow for the two coils that make up the Joule Thief transformer and figure it out for YOURSELF. Don't just blindly assume that you are right. Blind assumption gives you a 50-50 chance of being right and you are wrong.
In post #1202 PW is mistakenly referencing a different subject.
Does current flow in L2 reduce the magnitude of the magnetic energy stored in the toroid that was built up by the current flow in L1? The answer to that is yes, and TK and PW also stated that. Go find the references yourself.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
In post #1202 PW is mistakenly referencing a different subject.
MileHigh
Did anybody say that they completely cancel each other out? Presumably you have a large current in L1 and a comparatively smaller current in L2, for both a high and low base resistance. That means that the current flowing in L2 takes a slice out of the magnetic energy built up by the current flowing in L1, but does not completely cancel it out by any means.
that small slice being taken from L1 by L2 is where you are lost MH,as the small slice that is taken from L1 by L2 is given right back by L2 due to the current flowing through it. The two fields built by both coils are apposing field's-not like fields,as the current is traveling around each coil in the opposite direction,and this causes a bucking field between the two.
Does current flow in L2 reduce the magnitude of the magnetic energy stored in the toroid that was built up by the current flow in L1? The answer to that is yes, and TK and PW also stated that. Go find the references yourself.
Please back up your claim,and post these two statements by PW and TK.
The answer is that the higher current flow through L2 ,produces a stronger magnetic field in the core--that is my claim,and im sticking to it. I have proven this to be the case,and i am yet to see PW or TK refute this claim.
Please post the post number where PW and TK say this.
Brad.
-
In post #1202 PW is mistakenly referencing a different subject.
I thought you two were "discussing" whether or not decreasing the base resistance increased the collector (and L1) current or just produced additional waste heat in the base resistor. Perhaps I misunderstood. As I said, I have no dog in this hunt.
This would of course depend on whether Q1 is fully saturated at both the lower and higher base resistance.
Measuring Vce and Ic at the two base resistances should help clarify is Q1 is fully saturated (turned on) at both base resistance values or is turned on harder with one more than the other.
PW
-
Please post the post number where PW and TK say this.
This is your bad karma biting your ass. Find the information yourself.
-
... That said, I do not believe the base current flowing thru L2 is acting in the manner you surmise. In fact, I would think that current flowing thru the base (and L2) would generate a flux in opposition to that generated by current flowing thru L1...
-
Brad:
Did anybody say that they completely cancel each other out? Presumably you have a large current in L1 and a comparatively smaller current in L2, for both a high and low base resistance. That means that the current flowing in L2 takes a slice out of the magnetic energy built up by the current flowing in L1, but does not completely cancel it out by any means.
Even better, look at a toroid and the winding directions and the direction of the current flow for the two coils that make up the Joule Thief transformer and figure it out for YOURSELF. Don't just blindly assume that you are right. Blind assumption gives you a 50-50 chance of being right and you are wrong.
Does current flow in L2 reduce the magnitude of the magnetic energy stored in the toroid that was built up by the current flow in L1? The answer to that is yes, and TK and PW also stated that. Go find the references yourself.
MileHigh
In post #1202 PW is mistakenly referencing a different subject.
Bullshit MH--your full of shit.
PW is talking about the very same subject,and now you are trying to place him in your court,when he is here to help. You are going to drag him down with you,and the outcome will be he leaves because of your lying ways.
Quote PW- Because I never said you were wrong. I only stated that up until then you did not actually measure the increase in base current but were making assumptions based on proxies.
Solid proof MH that he was refetring to the correct subject,as those proxies where the rise in light output from the LED due to a stronger magnetic field being built,which is a result of a higher current flow through L2 by the reduction of base resistance.
Quote: You have the wrong issue, it's about your claim that current flowing through L2 increases the magnetic energy in the core and hence the brightness of the LED.
Please tell us all how you can increase the magnetic field strength in the core, without increasing the current flow through L2--this should be good.
Brad
-
author=picowatt link=topic=8341.msg478352#msg478352 date=1458842767]
I thought you two were "discussing" whether or not decreasing the base resistance increased the collector (and L1) current or just produced additional waste heat in the base resistor. Perhaps I misunderstood. As I said, I have no dog in this hunt.
My claim is that an increase in current flow through L2 will increase the magnetic field strength in the core. As we now know that the current flow dose indeed increase as we reduce the base resistance in L2,and we know that the LED puts out more light when we reduce the base resistance,then how can that not mean that the magnetic field strength has increased in the core?.
The only way to get more light output from the LED is an increase in magnetic field strength in the inductor,and this can only happen when we increase the current flowing through L2and the base of the transistor. So how MH can say that increasing the current flow through L2 dose not increase the magnetic field strength in the inductor is beyond me ???
This would of course depend on whether Q1 is fully saturated at both the lower and higher base resistance.
Measuring Vce and Ic at the two base resistances should help clarify is Q1 is fully saturated (turned on) at both base resistance values or is turned on harder with one more than the other.
Oh-dont go there with MH. There is no such thing as switching on the transistor harder in the JT circuit.
It is late here now,so i will get to those test as soon as i can PW.
Brad
-
You are going to drag him down with you,and the outcome will be he leaves because of your lying ways.
LOL
Look at post #1210, PW was courteous enough to find the reference for you.
Oh-dont go there with MH. There is no such thing as switching on the transistor harder in the JT circuit.
Put your brain in gear and read PW's quoted text again. Plus I made a fairly detailed posting about the same subject.
-
Guy shows output of microwave transformers set up with and without a capacitor. With capacitors, resonance is just above 50hz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlG4NyQf3T0
Mags
-
Put your brain in gear and read PW's quoted text again. Plus I made a fairly detailed posting about the same subject.
There is no such thing as switching on the transistor harder in the JT circuit.
Whenever a Power Transistor such as the 2N3055 is used in a
switching circuit there is always the possibility of driving the
transistor into (a) non-saturation, (b) soft-saturation or
(c) hard-saturation.
Hard saturation is preferred since it will result in best circuit
efficiency, providing it is accomplished without excessive (just
enough) base drive. The drawback of Hard-Saturation is
charge-storage within the base region which slows turn-off
unless some means of applying momentary reverse-bias across
the base-emitter junction is incorporated to speed up turn-off.
The base drive winding of the Joule Thief transformer will normally
accomplish that to some degree. Placing a speed-up capacitor
across the base-drive-resistor will assure that the reverse bias
impulse is sufficiently strong to make a difference.
By the way, most transistors will operate reasonably well in
their inverse mode where it is "upside-down" in the circuit.
The Emitter is connected as the Collector and the Collector
is connected as the Emitter. Current gain is not good in
this configuration but that it does work is sometimes made
use of in exotic circuits.
-
:)
-
Please accept my apology for the mis-quote. Actually it was
TinMan who made the statement. Sarcastically, I'm quite sure.
The quote attribution in the offending message has been
corrected.
-
Please accept my apology for the mis-quote. Actually it was
TinMan who made the statement. Sarcastically, I'm quite sure.
The quote attribution in the offending message has been
corrected.
No problem,
Thanks,
PW
-
@PW
Below is a pic of the brand of 2n3055 i use,as it is what our local electronics store stocks.
I have carried out the V/EB breakdown voltage test,and for this particular brand of transistor ,it is 15.3 volt's before the voltage is clamped.
The test was carried out with a 10k ohm resistor in series,and gave a very clean and clear result.
I tried 4 out of the 10 transistors i bought ,along with the transistor being used in the circuit ATM,and all clamp the voltage at 15.3 volt's.
So now we have the answer as to why my reverse voltage spikes are around the 16 volt mark.
@ MH
Credit where credit is due,you hit the nail on the head with that one.
Now,this reverse current that is now flowing through the base resistor and L2--what is it doing?,where is it going?
Once that is worked out,then what happens when the base resistors resistance is reduced ?-where is this current flowing to?
We are looking at only the off period of the transistor at this point in time.
If we look at the schematic below,i have drawn in two options for L2s current path.
The red dots show the current flowing back into the battery.
The blue dot's show the current from L2 flowing into L1.
It is my belief that the later is correct,and that the current flowing through L2 flows into,and is additive to the current flowing through L1,and the LED.
This gives rise to an interesting situation,where we now have the current flowing through L1 and L2,where the flow of current in L1 is always in the same direction,but the current flowing through L2 during the off period is now flowing in the opposite direction through windings that are wound opposite to that of L1 from the common tap of the two windings(bat + in)
You have said-along with PW,that during the on time,the current flowing through L2 would subtract field strength from L1. But what about during the off period,where now the current flow in L1 remains in the same direction,but the current flow through L2 is now in the opposite direction. Would not the magnetic field being built by the current flow in L2 now be additive to the magnetic field that is now collapsing in L1. Could this be the reason for the brighter LED when the base resistance is lowered,in effect raising the current flowing through L2. It makes sense tome,as when we lower the base resistance,and increase the current flowing through L2 during the off period of the transistor,the LED on time(conducting time) increases.
I can test this by way of placing a CVR between B+ and the common connection of L1 and L2,and another CVR between L2 and B+ common. This will tell us if the current flowing from L2 is flowing into L1,or back into B+ during the off time.
Brad
-
Guy shows output of microwave transformers set up with and without a capacitor. With capacitors, resonance is just above 50hz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlG4NyQf3T0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlG4NyQf3T0)
Mags
Excellent video Mags. That technique of placing a capacitor
in series with a high voltage winding was commonly utilized
in the Lamp Driver circuit where a Mercury Vapor Lamp was
used as a source of UltraViolet Emissions. The capacitor
effectively doubles the voltage peaks applied to the load
which, in the case of the Mercury Vapor Lamp, resulted in
reliable starting and improved operation. In the case of
the Arc in the video, the length of the arc is lengthened
considerably.
The arc is a pretty strong source of both UltraViolet radiation
and Nitrogen Oxides/Ozone. Sustained arcs such as that
in the video were once used in Norway to make Nitric Acid
and Nitrates for commerce.
-
@ Mag's
Throughout my testing today so far,i have found that circuit 2 below is indeed more efficient than circuit 1. There is more light output for less P/in.
Testing another circuit ATM.
Will post findings soon.
Brad
-
Do you see why?
-
Do you see why?
Yes, and even better with the NPN Collector to the +, and Emitter to the coil, so the NPN above the Flipped Coil, and a small C over CE junctions.
-
Brad:
Credit where credit is due,you hit the nail on the head with that one.
And look at what you first said:
There is no death spike-you need to understand the circuit, and why there is a spike across L2 when the transistor becomes open. It all has to do with the number of turns on each coil-the more turns, the higher that L2 spike will be-there is nothing out of the ordinary with that spike.
Then you said:
It is not a massive anomaly,and is present in every JT--as seen in Mag's scope shot's.
You simply cannot work out why it is of a higher value in my setup.
It's all coming back now to bite you on the ass--and you are the one showing your own errors lol.
It's a never-ending slog with you. It's like driving down a road with a continuous series of speed bumps, and even worse, "don't back up" road spikes pointed in your direction. I am not going to be a bobbing duckie for you in a straitjacket, but I am also not going to do this kind of debate forever. Once this is done I am jumping off the train and you can go back to doing your experiments and leading yourself down a garden path with your bobbing duckies all nodding in agreement. Or I can hope that you become more open minded and get over this obsession with always being right no matter what. That's for you to decide because I won't be around.
MileHigh
-
Getting back to the matter at hand...
Your "red dot" current flow speculation is incomplete for starters, and wrong. If you are going to show current flow you have to show a complete loop of current. The blue dots are correct like you speculated, with the exception of the blue dots that lead to the LED and then stop and go nowhere. Like I said before the Joule Thief transformer is temporarily shorting itself out and burning off energy and stealing that energy away from the LED. This whole time your Joule Thief has been crippled.
But what about during the off period,where now the current flow in L1 remains in the same direction,but the current flow through L2 is now in the opposite direction. Would not the magnetic field being built by the current flow in L2 now be additive to the magnetic field that is now collapsing in L1. Could this be the reason for the brighter LED when the base resistance is lowered,in effect raising the current flowing through L2.
When you get the reverse current flow that is an energy burn where energy is burnt off in the N-P collector-base junction and also in the base resistor. So no go for a mechanism for making the LED brighter.
As I previously stated when you lower the base resistance, it's really a secondary effect that makes the LED brighter. If we assume that for both a 1k base resistance and a 500-ohm base resistance that the transistor is "fully ON" (a.k.a. "hard ON") then the rise in current through L1 when the transistor switches on is identical in both cases. However there is a secondary effect that makes the time period when the transistor remains on slightly longer, and that allows for a smidgen of increased current to flow through the L1 which results in an LED which is a smidgen brighter.
Now, we can't forget that your Joule Thief is not functioning properly. So it would be worthwhile to repeat the variable base resistor tests after the problem has been fixed and see what the results are. I am going to suspect we will see something similar with the LED slightly increasing in brightness for the same reasons. And of course when the problem is fixed presumably the LED will be brighter overall.
MileHigh
-
And look at what you first said:
MH
It is not a death spike at all.
It is in fact present in all JT circuit's--it's just that no one has taken any notice of it as of yet.
I have now tested 3 different JT circuit's,and it is present in all of them.
This !so called! death spike actually helps in raise the brightness of the LED.
It's a never-ending slog with you. It's like driving down a road with a continuous speed bumps, and even worse, "don't back up" road spikes pointed in your direction. I am not going to be a bobbing duckie for you in a straitjacket, but I am also not going to do this kind of debate forever. Once this is done I am jumping off the train and you can go back to doing your experiments and leading yourself down a garden path with your bobbing duckies all nodding in agreement.
You may do what you please MH,but as you only made this !death spike! discovery (that you didnt know existed until i showed some test results),it is clear that you do not really know all that is going on within the circuit.
Your "red dot" current flow speculation is incomplete for starters, and wrong. If you are going to show current flow you have to show a complete loop of current. The blue dots are correct like you speculated, with the exception of the blue dots that lead to the LED and then stop and go nowhere.
Im not going down this babying road with you MH. If you cannot work out where the current flow continues from where the marked dot's are,then you clearly do not belong here.
Like I said before the Joule Thief transformer is temporarily shorting itself out and burning off energy and stealing that energy away from the LED. This whole time your Joule Thief has been crippled.
In fact it is not.
The biggest waste of energy is actually in your 1k ohm resistor.
My testing today has confirmed this,and it also confirms my statements about being able to reduce the base resistance as the supply voltage drop's,that enables us to keep the LEDs light output at a constant(or near to)brightness.
Turns out that what i said is correct,in that the current flow in L2 dose actually add to the the current flow in L1 during the off period,and this is what is causing the LED to go brighter when the base resistance drop's.
So you see MH,the 1k ohm base resistor is actually dissipating power that could be otherwise used to drive the LED.
When you get the reverse current flow that is an energy burn where energy is burnt off in the N-P collector-base junction and also in the base resistor. So no go for a mechanism for making the LED brighter.
A contradiction on your behalf MH.
You clearly state that energy is being burned off in the base resistor--i say the same,and once that base resistance is removed,then that energy is added to the energy of L1,and sent to the LED.
As I previously stated when you lower the base resistance, it's really a secondary effect that makes the LED brighter. If we assume that for both a 1k base resistance and a 5000-ohm base resistance that the "fully ON" (a.k.a. "hard ON") then the rise in current through L1 when the transistor switches on is identical. However there is a secondary effect that makes the time period when the transistor remains on slightly longer, and that allows for a smidgen of increased current to flow through the L1 which results in an LED which is a smidgen brighter.
Partly correct,but only while the battery is still reasonably healthy. As the battery voltage reduces to around .8 volts(in my test setup),the secondary effect is from the current flow in L2.
As battery voltage drop's,the frequency rises,but as we reduce the base resistance,that frequency can be reduced,and the light output maintained--even though the P/in is now less.
Now, we can't forget that your Joule Thief is not functioning properly.
My JT is functioning correctly. It functions the very same way the other two i constructed-with only very minor differences due to things like number of turns of each coil,and the size of the toroid core.
All three have the very same operational characteristics,and near identical scope traces.
So it would be worthwhile to repeat the variable base resistor tests after the problem has been fixed and see what the results are. I am going to suspect we will see something similar with the LED slightly increasing in brightness for the same reasons. And of course when the problem is fixed presumably the LED will be brighter overall.
There is no problem with the way the circuit is operating,nor the other ones i built today.
In fact,i will be presenting a JT circuit that is most efficient based around this !now found! reverse current flow.
Brad
-
Do you see why?
Yes
As stated by Mag's and myself many times in the past,you do not get current flowing into the battery in the wrong direction,as the current loop now excludes the battery.
This is shown very clearly with the scope.
I am putting together a test circuit,where i can switch LED positions on the fly,and show the very clear current trace from the P/in(battery).
Should have it altogether by tomorrow.
This is why most do not use what MH calls the standard JT circuit. In fact,the most common circuit used as a JT is the second JT circuit,where the LED is across L2.
This so called !death spike! MH is talking about is very common in a lot of circuit's. Even the good old SSG pulse motor has it,but the back spike in them is far larger than the JTs we have been testing here. So it's not an anomaly(this death spike) ,it is quite normal in many circuit's.
Brad
-
Brad:
It is not a death spike at all.
It is in fact present in all JT circuit's--it's just that no one has taken any notice of it as of yet.
I have now tested 3 different JT circuit's,and it is present in all of them.
This !so called! death spike actually helps in raise the brightness of the LED.
More wilful ignorance and wilful stupidity on display for all to see. The Joule Thief circuits that you have built and tested are all not working properly. You have too many turns on the L2 feedback coil and that's causing a breakdown in the transistor junction. The moral of the story is that if you don't build a "canned version" of a Joule Thief just like beginners are told to build their first SSG without any modifications, then you have to know what you are doing and test it yourself to ensure that it is operating properly.
But since "Brad can't be wrong" you are following through with your insane line of reasoning. It's a farce.
The death spike does NOT help in the brightness of the LED - it kills some of the energy stored in the magnetic core - and you were told precisely why that is the case. You must be daft.
You may do what you please MH,but as you only made this !death spike! discovery (that you didnt know existed until i showed some test results),it is clear that you do not really know all that is going on within the circuit.
Big Brother wants you.
Im not going down this babying road with you MH. If you cannot work out where the current flow continues from where the marked dot's are,then you clearly do not belong here.
More "Brad can't be wrong" insanity. Follow the "red dot" current flow and find yourself at a dead end for lazy babies that are too daft to think through their own statements to completion. Go for it and show us all where the red dots lead. Are you the one that belongs here after six years and doing something as foolish and stupid as your "red dot current to nowhere - fill in the blanks yourself" nonsense?
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Partly correct,but only while the battery is still reasonably healthy. As the battery voltage reduces to around .8 volts(in my test setup),the secondary effect is from the current flow in L2.
As battery voltage drop's,the frequency rises,but as we reduce the base resistance,that frequency can be reduced,and the light output maintained--even though the P/in is now less.
Current flow in L2 reduces the magnetic energy stored in the core. But you "can't be wrong" so just stick to your story to the bitter end. Brad, the "Pope of Joule Thieves."
What it is looking like is that a reduced base resistance from 1k to 500 ohms does not change the transistor switching properties and therefore you are wasting battery power with a 500-ohm base resistor. A secondary effect is that the transistor ON time gets longer and the LED gets marginally brighter.
One can speculate with reasonable confidence that if you kept a 1k base resistance and increased the number of turns in L1 then you would get a longer transistor ON time and therefore a brighter LED with a more efficient Joule Thief design. Of course you still want to fix the error in the circuit first.
My JT is functioning correctly. It functions the very same way the other two i constructed-with only very minor differences due to things like number of turns of each coil,and the size of the toroid core.
All three have the very same operational characteristics,and near identical scope traces.
Then they are all defective with crippled efficiency and you need to fix the problem like I already stated.
There is no problem with the way the circuit is operating,nor the other ones i built today.
In fact,i will be presenting a JT circuit that is most efficient based around this !now found! reverse current flow.
Welcome to Planet Bizarro where when your device has an internal short-circuit because of a semiconductor junction breakdown, this fact is to be celebrated.
Sorry, but I was sarcastic indeed because of the upside-down dream world you are living in to "protect the Pope."
MileHigh
-
I will now be continuing my work and experiments on the thread below--where the garbage can be filtered out.
No point in arguing any more with some one that dose not even have a JT to experiment with,nor has any plans to do so--but still remains a self acclaimed ex-spurt in the subject.
I will also be putting the cool joule circuit back together,and having another look at that,and the effects of miller capacitance,where the circuit !can! operate using this effect.This will be done in the thread linked below.
http://overunity.com/16486/resonance-circuits-and-resonance-systems/new/#new
Brad
-
Well MileHigh,you have had a good dose of the Tinman!
John.
-
Well MileHigh,you have had a good dose of the Tinman!
John.
Indeed I have! lol You know how in many cities they have their annual "Zombie Walk?"
"The Night of the Living Joule Thief Zombies" - featuring the infallible Dr. Brainfry. Coming to a theater near you. Just remember it's all fantasy.
I will close the loop on the wine glass later and then stay tuned for "The Birth of the Resonant Joule Thief" - featuring the prophet Resotrance Man. In spectacular 4D.
MileHigh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf0wxx6Eec0
-
Indeed I have! lol You know how in many cities they have their annual "Zombie Walk?"
"The Night of the Living Joule Thief Zombies" - featuring the infallible Dr. Brainfry. Coming to a theater near you. Just remember it's all fantasy.
I will close the loop on the wine glass later and then stay tuned for "The Birth of the Resonant Joule Thief" - featuring the prophet Resotrance Man. In spectacular 4D.
MileHigh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf0wxx6Eec0
I think that a zombie would be a more accurate description of your self MH.
I mean a zombie is just something that is dead-dose not do much-and moans all the time,but still is a pain in the ass to the living :D
Perhaps this is where you got your !!death spike!! from lol.
Oh ,by the way--about your !!death spike!!-->some one forgot to tell Lasersaber about it-->daaang
I mean,he drives 110volt CFL's,LED's, incandescent bulb's,halogen bulb's--all sorts of loads from the base emitter reverse !!death spike!!,and it's one of the most versatile and efficient circuits around lol
Death spike- LMAO. :D
-
@MH
Just leave it alone. Let me just say that all you have explained thus far I could counter and this thread could again go on by you answering a series of questions on function and soon you will realize that the "current flow (CF)" construct is BS. It just looks like CF from your present vantage point and from the limited way our scopes can portray the effect, but man oh man, you guys are just off the mark on real logic function but I have to say, perfectly fluent in the standard model of unproven effect.
@all
That's exactly why everyone is still in the race but only stuck at the starting line, all the toes right on the edge ready to sprint, but no one can hear the starter pistol because the standard EE just loves making so much noise and so much wrangling. hahaha
This little JT circuit is the perfect device, small, simple and easy to manipulate to learn tons more then anything so far but guys just get side tracked (had other posts but never got the chance) with so much undue commotion that for me just makes it impossible to post anything additional.
@tinman
OK, now that the storm has passed, maybe try this. I will not go into any great details.
Notice I added a coil (1) and a switch (2) to the diagram just to give some of you a new way of testing this thingy. Now the coil (1) could be an air core but will require more wire, it could be a rod core coil with less wire or it could even be a small toroid transformer with descent primary wire and as much secondary wire as you want that can light another LED or return the juice back to the battery sides. I will not say any more for now.
Maybe one last thing. @tinman I know you always use your scope with the ground reference but it may be a good idea for you that when you do that, also do it with only the probe lead on each side to see the differences in waveforms. Taking differential readings is not always the way to go. This can also create other potential loops that you do not know to what degree it is affecting the function of these very small devices.
Let's say you scope each side of a coil with your probe lead. We know that at each point if taken with only the probe, let's say you see this elaborate waveform and they are identical on each side of the coil. What does that tell you? Now with the ground and probe on that same coil, what will you see? If both sides are identical then you should see a flat line because the "differential" between these two points will be zero since they are identical even though they are actual real waveforms. But usually when we see a flat line, we think there is no activity, or you see another waveform which is the "remainder" waveform once both have been cancelled out. But don't you really want to know what is happening only at the start or end of the coil. I mean that's the main impetus to all this which is the change it undergoes from one end to the other.
Pointal scoping will tell you exactly what is going on in the coil and differential scoping will then tell you what it amounts to. But without the pointal telling you this side is hitting 500 volts while the other side is hitting 200 volts for you to then get your differential waveform. You need to know everything, not just one factor. But you guys only use the later, always satisfied with half the story. Puzzling indeed. The actual values shown of the pointal probing is NOT IMPORTANT. It is how the waveform is produced, up, down, squiggly, ragged, sloping all of these tell you what is going on inside the coil to produce those waveforms. They do not happen by accident.
wattsup
-
I think that a zombie would be a more accurate description of your self MH.
I mean a zombie is just something that is dead-dose not do much-and moans all the time,but still is a pain in the ass to the living :D
Perhaps this is where you got your !!death spike!! from lol.
Oh ,by the way--about your !!death spike!!-->some one forgot to tell Lasersaber about it-->daaang
I mean,he drives 110volt CFL's,LED's, incandescent bulb's,halogen bulb's--all sorts of loads from the base emitter reverse !!death spike!!,and it's one of the most versatile and efficient circuits around lol
Death spike- LMAO. :D
I am no zombie I can assure you because I don't sleepwalk when there is an issue that needs attention like you do. You are losing energy every time the Joule Thief has a death spike. If you have another identical core, you could build the same Joule Thief but this time pay attention to the number of turns in L1 and L2, and make sure the transistor switches fully on without wasting excess base current. That Joule Thief would blow your existing crippled Joule Thief out of the water. But I seriously doubt that you have the courage to challenge yourself and make abetter circuit and prove that your original circuit was no good. Two opposing stimuli and something might snap.
Wattsup, the truth is that you live in your own unique electronics dream world, and I would be surprised if anything truly interesting comes of it. No need to play the bouncer either, Brad is no angel as was clearly evidenced in this thread. He decided to run away to pursue electronics on his own terms. So it's back to both of you practicing your own extra unique special custom versions of electronics.
MileHigh
-
I am no zombie I can assure you because I don't sleepwalk when there is an issue that needs attention like you do.
Wattsup, the truth is that you live in your own unique electronics dream world, and I would be surprised if anything truly interesting comes of it. No need to play the bouncer either, Brad is no angel as was clearly evidenced in this thread. He decided to run away to pursue electronics on his own terms. So it's back to both of you practicing your own extra unique special custom versions of electronics.
MileHigh
You are losing energy every time the Joule Thief has a death spike. If you have another identical core, you could build the same Joule Thief but this time pay attention to the number of turns in L1 and L2, and make sure the transistor switches fully on without wasting excess base current. That Joule Thief would blow your existing crippled Joule Thief out of the water. But I seriously doubt that you have the courage to challenge yourself and make abetter circuit and prove that your original circuit was no good. Two opposing stimuli and something might snap.
MH
Some of what you say is true--if we build your standard JT,where it has a fixed base resistor value.
But with a higher turn ratio on L2 to that of L1,and a variable base resistance,then the (your) JT circuit is just as efficient,as i have already done what you say above.
The whole point was to be able to maintain maximum light output,as the battery voltage drop's,and the !death spike! version dose that very well. The other advantage is that by lowering the base resistance,the circuit will run normally at a much lower voltage that your standard fixed resistor circuit. In fact,your standard JT circuit is quite inefficient in it self,and the second version where the LED is across the L1 coil only,is far more efficient,as it excludes the battery in the current loop during the off time of the transistor.
The second circuit below will drain more of the remaining energy from the battery--can you work out why?. Can you see how in the original circuit(your fav circuit)that the battery is being drained even during the Off time of the transistor,while the second circuit only draws power from the battery during the on time.
Brad
-
The second circuit below will drain more of the remaining energy from the battery--can you work out why?. Can you see how in the original circuit(your fav circuit)that the battery is being drained even during the Off time of the transistor,while the second circuit only draws power from the battery during the on time.
Brad
Its funny. How many times have we talked about this. I had seen it before I built it. It is kinda easy to see that the battery is in series with the led when across the transistor, and the direction of that current through the led is depleting the battery during transistor off time.
Did TK ever show his findings of the difference of input with the led across the coil then the transistor? Remember the right way and the wrong way?
Im just not sure why they cant see it.
Hey Brad. Can you repost the circuit with the led on the base side coil. ;D
Mags
-
Its funny. How many times have we talked about this. I had seen it before I built it. It is kinda easy to see that the battery is in series with the led when across the transistor, and the direction of that current through the led is depleting the battery during transistor off time.
Did TK ever show his findings of the difference of input with the led across the coil then the transistor? Remember the right way and the wrong way?
Im just not sure why they cant see it.
Hey Brad. Can you repost the circuit with the led on the base side coil. ;D
Mags
Ah yes.
The first one below is the circuit i posted some time back. It is just the SS/SSG circuit,without the death spike driving the LED.
The second is the new beaut DSJT (deathspike joule thief)circuit--works a treat :D
But the third(new circuit) is the king of JTs. We call this one the Triple DSJT ;)
In the Triple DSJT,all most all the energy is used driving LED's. The two LEDs across the VR clamp the voltage across the VR,so as the VR may only have a voltage drop across it that is equal to the clamping voltage of the LED's. As the battery voltage drop's,the base resistance can be decreased. This will insure that the LED on L1 remains lit as bright as can be at low battery voltages. It also removes the wasted energy dissipated by the VR,and uses most of that energy to drive the other two LED's. :D :D :D
Brad
Brad
-
MH
Some of what you say is true--if we build your standard JT,where it has a fixed base resistor value.
But with a higher turn ratio on L2 to that of L1,and a variable base resistance,then the (your) JT circuit is just as efficient,as i have already done what you say above.
The whole point was to be able to maintain maximum light output,as the battery voltage drop's,and the !death spike! version dose that very well. The other advantage is that by lowering the base resistance,the circuit will run normally at a much lower voltage that your standard fixed resistor circuit. In fact,your standard JT circuit is quite inefficient in it self,and the second version where the LED is across the L1 coil only,is far more efficient,as it excludes the battery in the current loop during the off time of the transistor.
The second circuit below will drain more of the remaining energy from the battery--can you work out why?. Can you see how in the original circuit(your fav circuit)that the battery is being drained even during the Off time of the transistor,while the second circuit only draws power from the battery during the on time.
Brad
I don't think the standard Joule Thief was ever intended to keep the light output of the LED steady as the battery voltage dropped over time. And I will say it again because I believe it is important; the output impedance of the battery increases over time also. I have never seen a single person on the forums try to measure the output impedance of a given battery to understand what they were working with. If you play with batteries all the time and want to extract the maximum energy from them, how could you NOT want to do this measurement, but that's going off on a bit of a tangent.
I believe the Joule Thief was just a fun little circuit that demoed how to extract more than the "normal" amount of energy from a battery. It's nothing more than a timing circuit to energize an inductor and discharge the inductor though an LED.
Now, if you want to keep the LED illumination level manually adjustable to compensate for the dropping battery voltage that makes perfect sense. However, clearly if you add extra turns to L2 to allow the transistor switching to still run at low battery voltages you run into the problem of too high an EMF from L2 causing a death spike and shorting out the transformer by punching through the transistor. In any design situation there are trade-offs and compromises that have to be made. Then you have the base resistor connected to L2. From what I have seen so far, having a variable base resistor is a very poor way of adjusting the LED brightness. It is not a "brightness control" by a long shot. Is there any other way to adjust the LED brightness in a standard Joule Thief? I am not sure you can, but nothing is stopping anybody from experimenting with all of the parameters. Don't lock yourself into a box and just assume that varying the base resistor is the only way to do it because in fact it looks like a crappy way to do it.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
In fact,your standard JT circuit is quite inefficient in it self,and the second version where the LED is across the L1 coil only,is far more efficient,as it excludes the battery in the current loop during the off time of the transistor.
The second circuit below will drain more of the remaining energy from the battery--can you work out why?. Can you see how in the original circuit(your fav circuit)that the battery is being drained even during the Off time of the transistor,while the second circuit only draws power from the battery during the on time.
No, you are wrong. The standard Joule Thief circuit is more efficient than the second circuit. Also, the standard Joule Thief circuit will do a better job at draining the battery compared to the second circuit. It's not a huge difference in both cases but that's not the point. So you and Magluvin are foiled again because you did not think it through. So now the two of you now have an opportunity to think it through and find the error in your ways.
MileHigh
-
Well the tripple DSJT is a winner :D
At just 200mV supply voltage,the transistor(a 2n3055) is still switching on cleanly and fully--no spastic operation seen here :D ;D
LED 2 is the only one still lit brightly ;)
P/in 2.12mA @ 200mV
Scope shot across base/emitter junction.
The standard JT using the very same inductor,stop's working at 340mV
Thank god for the death spike :P
Brad
-
Brad:
No, you are wrong. The standard Joule Thief circuit is more efficient than the second circuit. Also, the standard Joule Thief circuit will do a better job at draining the battery compared to the second circuit. It's not a huge difference in both cases but that's not the point. So you and Magluvin are foiled again because you did not think it through. So now the two of you now have an opportunity to think it through and find the error in your ways.
MileHigh
" The standard Joule Thief circuit is more efficient than the second circuit."
You made the claim. So now you should explain and or show why. ;) Someone else makes a claim and you pounce to push them to explain their claims. So follow your own rules. ;)
" Also, the standard Joule Thief circuit will do a better job at draining the battery compared to the second circuit."
Again. Explain your claim.
"So now the two of you now have an opportunity to think it through and find the error in your ways."
No. You made 2 'claims'. You need to prove them. Otherwise nobody here needs to explain themselves to you. Simple fairness. Otherwise you are just playing make believe, silly talk, falsehoods, fairy tales. ;) Right???? Prove your statements. Otherwise its just wishy wash. ::)
Mags
-
Brad:
No, you are wrong. The standard Joule Thief circuit is more efficient than the second circuit. Also, the standard Joule Thief circuit will do a better job at draining the battery compared to the second circuit. It's not a huge difference in both cases but that's not the point. So you and Magluvin are foiled again because you did not think it through. So now the two of you now have an opportunity to think it through and find the error in your ways.
MileHigh
You have lost your marbles MH,and it once again comes down to not being able to understand how the two circuits work.
The first circuit with scope shot,clearly shows more current flowing from the battery. With your circuit,the battery is in series with L1, and the LED. So with your circuit,the battery is having power drawn from it for an entire cycle. The scopes channel A is across L1,and reads 2.32v max(top of the spike during off time. Then the battery voltage is also added to that,so as there is enough voltage to drive the LED--all while energy is being drained from the battery--it gets no rest phase between cycles.
In the second circuit-along with scope shot,we can clearly see that the current draw is less,and the battery is not supplying any power to the circuit while the transistor is switched off. Only L1 is supplying the power needed to drive the LED during the OFF period.
The second circuit will drain more of the remaining energy from the battery that your JT circuit will,as the battery gets a rest phase during each cycle.
Your circuit looses efficiency as more components are included during the off time of each cycle.
There will be small losses through -,the battery-- will dissipate more heat due to current always flowing through it--more losses.
Your circuit !during the off time!,includes L1,the LED,and the battery.
The second circuit includes !During the off time! L1 and the LED.
So try again guru ::)
Which circuit is more efficient?.
Brad
-
I don't think the standard Joule Thief was ever intended to keep the light output of the LED steady as the battery voltage dropped over time... MileHigh
the Joule Thief was never intended to "light an LED"....
This simple minded assumption is what keeps many people
from understanding what it is that they have built.
The JT is intended to charge the ferrite, the field of which, then collapses.
What you do with that afterwards, is your own business.
If it is "light an LED", great.
Some people have more in mind to do with it.
But the device still functions, even when you throw the LED in the trash can.
the LED has nothing to do with the oscillator.
it serves no more purpose than the little green light
on the front of your computer that tells you it's "on".
-
I don't think the standard Joule Thief was ever intended to keep the light output of the LED steady as the battery voltage dropped over time. And I will say it again because I believe it is important; the output impedance of the battery increases over time also. I have never seen a single person on the forums try to measure the output impedance of a given battery to understand what they were working with. If you play with batteries all the time and want to extract the maximum energy from them, how could you NOT want to do this measurement, but that's going off on a bit of a tangent.
I believe the Joule Thief was just a fun little circuit that demoed how to extract more than the "normal" amount of energy from a battery. It's nothing more than a timing circuit to energize an inductor and discharge the inductor though an LED.
Now, if you want to keep the LED illumination level manually adjustable to compensate for the dropping battery voltage that makes perfect sense. However, clearly if you add extra turns to L2 to allow the transistor switching to still run at low battery voltages you run into the problem of too high an EMF from L2 causing a death spike and shorting out the transformer by punching through the transistor. In any design situation there are trade-offs and compromises that have to be made. Then you have the base resistor connected to L2. From what I have seen so far, having a variable base resistor is a very poor way of adjusting the LED brightness. It is not a "brightness control" by a long shot. Is there any other way to adjust the LED brightness in a standard Joule Thief? I am not sure you can, but nothing is stopping anybody from experimenting with all of the parameters. Don't lock yourself into a box and just assume that varying the base resistor is the only way to do it because in fact it looks like a crappy way to do it.
MileHigh
Well oddly enough,i would have to agree with everything you stated above.
I guess the aim here,is to make the most efficient circuit we can,where losses are reduced as much as possible . Some of which would be to drain as much energy as we can from the !otherwise! dead battery,and obtain maximum light output while doing so.
Funny thing is,so far,i have not been able to make a JT that out performs the circuit you find in a $2.00 garden light ::). The only problem with them,is they stop working around 660mV,but they will drive a white 10mm LED at 1.2 volts very brightly for only 3mA of current. The circuit for the LED christmas lights will light 100 LED's at 1.2 volt's for only a 7mA current draw.
Seems we have a ways to go yet,before we can come close to !off the shelf! JTs ;)
In fact,i might throw one on the scope,and have a close look at what is happening with one of them.
Brad
-
So you guys are given the opportunity to pause, reflect, and think it through and both of you balk. You don't even try. And one wonders why knowledge flows like a glacier in warm weather around here.
Let's assume that both circuits pulse an identical amount of energy into the LED, and let's explore the losses associated with each circuit in simple terms. Let's make a reasonable assumption that less energy is lost in the battery itself to energize L1 as compared to the resistive losses in L1 when it energizes or discharges.
For the first circuit, there are looses in the battery to energize L1 of B_LOSS. Then there are losses in L1 as it's being energized of L1_LOSS. Then there are losses in L1 as it discharges into the LED of L1_LOSS. When the discharge into the LED occurs, there are losses again in the battery. Let's say those losses are 0.3xB_LOSS.
Total losses first circuit are: 1.3xB_LOSS + 2xL1_LOSS.
For the second circuit, more energy has to be put into L1 to light the LED because you don't have the battery "helping" the discharge cycle. Therefore there is a longer energizing cycle for L1. So lets say the battery losses are B_LOSS + DELTA_B and the L1 losses are L1_LOSS + DELTA_L1
For the second circuit, there are looses in the battery to energize L1 of B_LOSS + DELTA_B. Then there are losses in L1 as it's being energized of L1_LOSS + DELTA_L1. Then there are losses in L1 as it discharges into the LED of L1_LOSS + DELTA_L1.
Total losses second circuit are: B_LOSS + DELTA_B + 2xL1_LOSS + 2xDELTA_L1.
We are assuming that B_LOSS is less than L1_LOSS. For sure DELTA_B is very small.
To summarize:
Total losses first circuit: 1.3xB_LOSS + 2xL1_LOSS.
Total losses second circuit: B_LOSS + DELTA_B + 2xL1_LOSS + 2xDELTA_L1.
Let's remove B_LOSS and 2xL1_LOSS from each equation:
Differential losses first circuit: 0.3xB_LOSS
Differential losses second circuit: DELTA_B + 2xDELTA_L1.
For the fist circuit 0.3xB_LOSS is the energy lost in the battery during the "helper phase" as the battery and L1 light the LED together.
For the second circuit, DELTA_B is the small amount of extra losses incurred in the battery to put extra energy into L1 and 2xDELTA_L1 is that extra battery energy that is lost twice in the resistance of the L1 coil.
My sense is that the differential losses in the second circuit are higher because the assumption is that the battery internal impedance losses are less than the L1 coil resistive losses.
Then the other thing that gives the first circuit an efficiency advantage is that the discharge cycle to light the LED will have a "flatter top." A flatter top means more of the discharge to light the LED will be in the sweet spot range for the LED.
The first circuit will be able to discharge more of the battery energy because the battery EMF added to the discharging coil gives you more overall discharge EMF "push" than just the coil alone. So the assumption is that the first circuit will be still running with a dim LED when the second circuit craps out and dies.
MileHigh
-
Some basic colour commentary about my previous posting:
I am making an assumption that the identical amount of energy is discharged in to the LED in both cases. This is a thought experiment so nothing is stopping us from making slight timing changes in the operation of the circuit, and these slight timing changes can be realized in real life.
Since the energy that is discharged into the LED for the first circuit is a combination of battery energy and L1 energy, then is goes without saying that for the second circuit you have to put more energy into L1 and energize it for a longer time to get the same amount of energy in the discharge pulse.
And that is were the second circuit loses efficiency. You have to cycle more energy twice through L1 for the second circuit and that means you incur more resistive losses.
-
Some basic colour commentary about my previous posting:
I am making an assumption that the identical amount of energy is discharged in to the LED in both cases. This is a thought experiment so nothing is stopping us from making slight timing changes in the operation of the circuit, and these slight timing changes can be realized in real life.
Since the energy that is discharged into the LED for the first circuit is a combination of battery energy and L1 energy, then is goes without saying that for the second circuit you have to put more energy into L1 and energize it for a longer time to get the same amount of energy in the discharge pulse.
And that is were the second circuit loses efficiency. You have to cycle more energy twice through L1 for the second circuit and that means you incur more resistive losses.
Only that is not the case,as can clearly be seen in the two scope shot's.
As the battery it self has an internal resistance that increases as the battery voltage drop's,the resistive losses will increase in the first circuit,as the battery voltage drop's--this you know MH.
The second circuits resistive losses become less as the battery voltage drop's,as the battery is omitted from the circuit when the transistor switches off,and thus the resistive losses of the battery are also omitted from the circuit during the off period.
This makes the second circuit more efficient,as both circuits see the resistive losses from L1 during the on time,but only the first circuit incur the resistive losses of the battery during the off period of the transistor. L1 may have a resistance value of .1 ohm if your lucky--i would suspect even less than that. So the resistive losses through L1 are very low,but the resistive losses of the battery can be very high. The internal resistance of a depleted 1.5 volt battery would be 4 to 6 ohm's--or even greater. This we can test without to much trouble.
Like i said MH--it pays to think a little before making claim's that you cannot even back up--where as i can through experiments.
You are also about to learn about resonant systems being far more efficient than a non resonant system.
In about 1 1/2 hours,i will be posting a video,showing you that energy can be drawn from a resonant system,that decreases the required input power of that system.
You will also see that when the system is out of resonance,less power can be drawn from it,but the system draws more power.
This system was inspired by Mag's system he is working with now,where as i have replaced the electric motor with a coil,and pulse that coil at the resonant frequency of the mechanical side of the system,and draw energy from that system,and have the P/in go down when doing so.
I will post the video in the mechanical resonant systems thread,but will post it here as well for you to comment on.
Brad
-
Brad:
Only that is not the case,as can clearly be seen in the two scope shot's.
How do you even know the two scope shots are comparable? The truth is you don't. The two scope shots are not a valid comparison because you are not doing a controlled experiment. That's just you in your typical mode of blindly moving forward. You have to think more about what you are saying and what you are doing. The most logical controlled experiment would be to have the two setups put identical amounts of energy into the LED per pulse, and that has to be measured with a DSO. Then make your other measurements.
As the battery it self has an internal resistance that increases as the battery voltage drop's,the resistive losses will increase in the first circuit,as the battery voltage drop's--this you know MH.
I know that but I don't know what the numbers are and I am presuming that you don't either.
The second circuits resistive losses become less as the battery voltage drop's,as the battery is omitted from the circuit when the transistor switches off,and thus the resistive losses of the battery are also omitted from the circuit during the off period.
Without a controlled experiment that statement is meaningless.
L1 may have a resistance value of .1 ohm if your lucky--i would suspect even less than that.
I am operating under the assumption that the resistance is much higher than that. Such a low resistance would put lots of stress on the transistor and/or the battery.
Like i said MH--it pays to think a little before making claim's that you cannot even back up--where as i can through experime
It pays to think before you just hook up the two circuits to your scope and declare victory. No controlled experiment putting the two circuits on an equal playing field, then you can't say anything. Garbage in - garbage out.
My gut feel is telling me that the first circuit loses less energy to heat per LED pulse. I am not going to make the precise measurements and neither are you. You blindly took some scope captures and thought that it was a valid test, in typical Brad fashion.
MileHigh
-
Since you are back Brad, time to close the loop on this:
The red dots show the current flowing back into the battery.
Show us your smarts.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg478541#msg478541 date=1459004901]
MileHigh
I know that but I don't know what the numbers are and I am presuming that you don't either.
Oh,so now we put forward valid arguments based on assumptions.
Without a controlled experiment that statement is meaningless.
Says he who dose no experiments at all.
I am operating under the assumption that the resistance is much higher than that. Such a low resistance would put lots of stress on the transistor and/or the battery.
Like i said,you dont understand how the JT circuit work's,and yet here you are trying to tell us all about it.
I see you are making more assumption's--fantastic. Well here is something to think about.
How many turns of wire would you say the standard JT has around that small toroid core?.
Let's say L1 has 20 turns,and the circumference of the cross section of the core is 40mm-- a thick core i know,but as an example we'll use that. The smaller cross section would mean less wire for the 20 turns. Anyway,20 x 40mm = 800mm + lets say another 100mm for the angled winding.
I use .6mm copper wire in most of my JT's,so lets go with that. Thicker wire of course has a lower resistance per meter. so .6mm copper wire has a resistance value of .059 ohm's per meter,and we just used 900mm for a very thick core. 90cm of .6mm copper wire has a resistance value of .053 ohm's.
http://chemandy.com/calculators/round-wire-resistance-calculator.htm
So now lets look at the scope shot below on my JT,where i used the .6mm wire. Now we would be lucky if i used 1/2 the amount of wire i calculated above,but we will stick with the 900mm,with a resistance of .053 ohm's. We can see the voltage across the coil is close to 1 volt at the maximum current. As we are using a 1 ohm CVR,we can calculate the peak current at about 24mA.
So how is it MH,that the L1 resistance value is less than .053 ohm's,and we have 1volt across it,but the peak current is only 24mA?,when we should have about 18.6 amps.
So you see how silly your statement is?.
You simply do not understand how a JT work's.
It pays to think before you just hook up the two circuits to your scope and declare victory. No controlled experiment putting the two circuits on an equal playing field, then you can't say anything. Garbage in - garbage out.
What is garbage MH,is you basing your guru claims on assumption's--that are all wrong.
You have posted this your self--i am going on assumption's you said. ::) Now,what kind of blasting would you give the rest of us if we based claims on assumption's :o.
Oh-by the way,the internal resistance of an eveready extra heavy duty battery at 1.1 volt's is 5.7 ohm's--just did the test for you,so as you know.
My gut feel is telling me that the first circuit loses less energy to heat per LED pulse.
If the first circuit was using the battery i stated above,then it will include the resistive losses of the battery during the off time,where that resistance is 5.7 ohm's. This value increases as the voltage gets lower in the battery,so the first circuit will become less efficient as it drains the battery.
The second circuit excludes this loss.
I am not going to make the precise measurements and neither are you.
I already have,and unlike you ,i can look at a circuit,and see all the losses involved,where as you cannot--like the batteries internal resistance.
Now,can you work out why we only have 24mA peak current,with 1volt across a coil that has less than .053 ohms of resistance?
Why dose the transistor switch of before we get anywhere near peak current?
Answer that,and then you may start to understand as to how the JT work's,and know why only a very low current flows into a coil with a very low resistance value.
Then you wont have to make silly assumptions that the coils resistance must be much higher than it actually is,because it will put great stress on the transistor and battery.
You blindly took some scope captures and thought that it was a valid test, in typical Brad fashion.
I base all my findings on experiment's,where you have admitted to basing your claims on assumption's.
How the hell have you made it this far MH,when you post garbage like you have above.
I cannot believe you have been arguing with myself and Mag's (who do experiment,and base there findings around those experiments),and making claims (with some sort of authority) ,based around assumptions--that are way out to lunch ::).
Brad
-
Here ya go MH--
Grab ya popcorn.
Just like gaining the maximum amplitude in the wine glass
Welcome to the world of resonance ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wD6aDzEVdQ
Brad
-
Brad:
You are back into your zone I see. Let's see you be a man and comment on the red dots.
Says he who dose no experiments at all.
If I did experiments I would spin circles around you.
Your quote above is a non-responsive answer to my statement, "Without a controlled experiment that statement is meaningless."
When you are in a squeeze you make a non-responsive answer. You did not perform any kind of serious experiment at all. All that you did is throw up some anecdotal scope captures that amount to no more than garbage-in-garbage-out and clearly your statements are garbage without any substance behind them.
Like i said,you dont understand how the JT circuit work's,and yet here you are trying to tell us all about it.
That is just more BS propagandizing. Early on in the thread you were making mistake after mistake and I called you on it. You are not used to that, you are used to being comfortably numb and having your own way with the the bobbing ducks in bondage looking at you do "Brad flavour" electronics. So you have been attempting over and over to make the "you don't understand" pitch about me. All that you do when you propagandize like that that is make yourself look like a disingenuous fool that is as fake-ass as a three dollar bill.
I am not perfect and when I make mistakes I admit them. Meanwhile your brain is frying as we speak over the red dots.
I will repeat: It pays to think before you just hook up the two circuits to your scope and declare victory. No controlled experiment putting the two circuits on an equal playing field, then you can't say anything. Garbage in - garbage out.
If the first circuit was using the battery i stated above,then it will include the resistive losses of the battery during the off time,where that resistance is 5.7 ohm's. This value increases as the voltage gets lower in the battery,so the first circuit will become less efficient as it drains the battery.
The second circuit excludes this loss.
No the second circuit doesn't really exclude this loss because like I clearly explained, if you are going to have the same energy in the LED pulse, then by definition the second circuit has to put more energy into the L1 coil as compared to the fist circuit. The second circuit will also have increasing battery losses as the battery internal impedance increases.
Believe me, it can get very frustrating to state things and have them disappear down the drain into your huge mental blind spot. It happens all the time. You know, the "It passed right through Brad like he wasn't even there" phenomenon.
Now,can you work out why we only have 24mA peak current,with 1volt across a coil that has less than .053 ohms of resistance?
Why dose the transistor switch of before we get anywhere near peak current?
Because the switching is based on approaching a time constant that is based on L/R-effective. The resistance of the wire may or may not play a part in R-effective. It all depends on the build of the Joule Thief.
I base all my findings on experiment's,where you have admitted to basing your claims on assumption's.
Most of your experiments, after six years of working on the bench, are amateurish without ever doing any kind of a serious organized measurement regimen. They are typically half a step above the absolute beginner that does his very first SSG build. Your presentation skills are almost non-existent. If you want more credibility with your experiments, then earn it. The assumptions that I made about the efficiency for the two circuits are reasonable and logical and set up the framework for actually doing a serious experiment. On the other hand your "comparison and conclusion" for the two circuits as you presented it is junk.
How the hell have you made it this far MH,when you post garbage like you have above.
I cannot believe you have been arguing with myself and Mag's (who do experiment,and base there findings around those experiments),and making claims
Keep pushing that propaganda Big Brother.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
You are back into your zone I see. Let's see you be a man and comment on the red dots.
If I did experiments I would spin circles around you.
Your quote above is a non-responsive answer to my statement, "Without a controlled experiment that statement is meaningless."
When you are in a squeeze you make a non-responsive answer. You did not perform any kind of serious experiment at all. All that you did is throw up some anecdotal scope captures that amount to no more than garbage-in-garbage-out and clearly your statements are garbage without any substance behind them.
That is just more BS propagandizing. Early on in the thread you were making mistake after mistake and I called you on it. You are not used to that, you are used to being comfortably numb and having your own way with the the bobbing ducks in bondage looking at you do "Brad flavour" electronics. So you have been attempting over and over to make the "you don't understand" pitch about me. All that you do when you propagandize like that that is make yourself look like a disingenuous fool that is as fake-ass as a three dollar bill.
I am not perfect and when I make mistakes I admit them. Meanwhile your brain is frying as we speak over the red dots.
I will repeat: It pays to think before you just hook up the two circuits to your scope and declare victory. No controlled experiment putting the two circuits on an equal playing field, then you can't say anything. Garbage in - garbage out.
No the second circuit doesn't really exclude this loss because like I clearly explained, if you are going to have the same energy in the LED pulse, then by definition the second circuit has to put more energy into the L1 coil as compared to the fist circuit. The second circuit will also have increasing battery losses as the battery internal impedance increases.
Believe me, it can get very frustrating to state things and have them disappear down the drain into your huge mental blind spot. It happens all the time. You know, the "It passed right through Brad like he wasn't even there" phenomenon.
Because the switching is based on approaching a time constant that is based on L/R-effective. The resistance of the wire may or may not play a part in R-effective. It all depends on the build of the Joule Thief.
Most of your experiments, after six years of working on the bench, are amateurish without ever doing any kind of a serious organized measurement regimen. They are typically half a step above the absolute beginner that does his very first SSG build. Your presentation skills are almost non-existent. If you want more credibility with your experiments, then earn it. The assumptions that I made about the efficiency for the two circuits are reasonable and logical and set up the framework for actually doing a serious experiment. On the other hand your "comparison and conclusion" for the two circuits as you presented it is junk.
Keep pushing that propaganda Big Brother.
MileHigh
Sorry MH,but i will no longer be paying any attention to some one that has admitted to making claims based around assumption's.
You overlooking the resistive losses in the battery is a big mistake,and so your claim that the first circuit is more efficient,has just been proven wrong--beyond doubt. At 1.1 volt's,you already have losses over a 5 ohm resistance,and this loss is not present in the second circuit. The second circuit eliminates all those losses(including the extra wiring to the battery),and the only small losses are in the L1 coil itself,which the first circuit also see's.
You dont stop and think,you dont experiment,and your claims are based around assumptions-which you admitted to,while my claims are based around experiments,and the ability to see all the losses in the circuit--like the batteries internal resistance that you failed to take into account.
The second circuit is far more efficient,and that is a fact,and one you cannot refute on claims based around assumptions.
Brad
-
Ha ha ha... The drama queen is making yet another hasty exit, and he is apparently still not processing information properly and he can't cope with the fact that the comparison he did between the two circuits was not a controlled experiment and is pure junk.
Plus you are haunted by the red dots. What do you get when an unstoppable fact meets an immovable intellect?
Answer: The infallible Dr. Brainfry.
-
Ha ha ha... The drama queen is making yet another hasty exit, and he is apparently still not processing information properly and he can't cope with the fact that the comparison he did between the two circuits was not a controlled experiment and is pure junk.
Plus you are haunted by the red dots. What do you get when an unstoppable fact meets an immovable intellect?
Answer: The infallible Dr. Brainfry.
Come on MH,you can do better than that--i havnt even worked up a sweat yet.
Your insults are about as good as your claimed assumptions ::)
I dont know why,but i picture you as being like the guy in the video below.
That old fella made an assumption as well,but it wasnt a bottle of booze after all. :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSr0l5sljOs
Brad
-
Brad:
Your purely anecdotal scope captures for the two circuits and your claim that you can draw a conclusion from that shows both how far you have to go technically, and how far you have to go psychologically.
Look at the bloody red dots. They are an embarrassment for someone with your experience, and yet you don't have the guts or character or integrity to just admit you made a big fat mistake. Why should anybody listen to you or take you seriously when you act like that?
You talk about the Joule Thief and this quest for a bright LED for as long as possible. So why not run with that idea and open it up, and forget about the bloody Joule Thief? You have already agreed with me that it was never designed to keep the LED at a constant brightness anyway.
Give yourself a design challenge: Design a circuit that keeps an LED brightly and evenly lit off of an AA cell for as long as possible, and a brightness control is permitted. Say the clock stops when the brightness of the LED drops by 10%. Anybody can take up the challenge and all that they need is a smartphone running a light meter app. Standardize on the battery and standardize on the light meter app and take it from there. I already know one way to do it in the sense that I can architect out the solution paper-napkin style.
The stupid Joule Thief is pretty boring at this point. Beyond that, you have to stop bullshitting yourself and others. Your bit about your conclusions from your two scope captures is pure bullshit. It's ridiculous that you can't cope with dealing with the red dots.
I predict that nothing is going to come of the "resonant Joule Thief" and I don't believe with your current attitude you would be capable of presenting convincing data about that issue anyway. You need to get it together. Why not give yourself the design challenge that I suggested and give yourself something new and different to do, but it is still in a way related to the saga of the Joule Thief. Perhaps other people will have fun with it too.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
If I did experiments I would spin circles around you.
MileHigh
If you did experiments, half of the statements you make about a JT,
would never have happened.....
-
If you did experiments, half of the statements you make about a JT,
would never have happened.....
Kiss my butt Smoky2 because the vast majority of my statements about the Joule Thief are right because we are talking about basic electronics. It would seem that you have been batting pretty much full goose eggs on the esoteric and metaphysical side of things with respect to the Joule Thief. Most of your "profound" statements about the Joule Thief are silly, and you seem to be in the same boat as me, not showing any current Joule Thief experiments. Nada on the resonance also, I thought that you were here to lead the boys into resonance Nirvana. I also can tell that you have enough knowledge such that when you read Brad that many times you are just a bound bobbing duckie yourself. And you ran away from Picowatt because he is the Real Thing.
Finally, besides static of the Battle Royale, I am quite sure that there are many silent Joule Thief keeners out there that are taking notes and have learnt more about the Joule Thief on this thread than they ever knew before.
-
I have no experience with JT circuit ..
can some one run the test with the LED replaced by a 4148 diode so light out put is eliminated
what I see the basic circuit is similar to a HV flyback trans minus air gap . the diode opens the secondary which is wound out of phase to primary
-
Kiss my butt Smoky2 because the vast majority of my statements about the Joule Thief are right because we are talking about basic electronics. It would seem that you have been batting pretty much full goose eggs on the esoteric and metaphysical side of things with respect to the Joule Thief. Most of your "profound" statements about the Joule Thief are silly, and you seem to be in the same boat as me, not showing any current Joule Thief experiments. Nada on the resonance also, I thought that you were here to lead the boys into resonance Nirvana. I also can tell that you have enough knowledge such that when you read Brad that many times you are just a bound bobbing duckie yourself. And you ran away from Picowatt because he is the Real Thing.
Finally, besides static of the Battle Royale, I am quite sure that there are many silent Joule Thief keeners out there that are taking notes and have learnt more about the Joule Thief on this thread than they ever knew before.
That is why this discussion is great. We get to see a lot of different perspectives,
analyze different parts of the circuit, under different conditions.
I don't need to "run from" Picowatt. I let what he said stand for what it is.
Because he was absolutely correct, in what he was presenting.
Just as, you are (sometimes) correct with what you say, although it be from a completely different perspective
than that of the person you are saying it to.
there is no "resonance nirvana". No "magic", no disenchanted electromagnetic fumblegarble...
What I have been saying this whole time,
now here again in 'plain english'
is this-
When you are using ferrite torroids, that "resonate":
You should take into consideration the SRF of the ferrite,
and how it affects your circuit.
THAT, my friend, is basic electronics.
To understand what that is or means, you can go back... I don't know,.. 40 pages?
all of the math is there, links to relevant information,
as well as the input of several people other then myself
that are educated in this area.
This shouldn't be a "battle". fighting over this stuff is actually quite senseless.
Almost all of this knowledge, has been known for over 200 years.
To the point where we custom design the constituent parts of our ferrite materials.
Entire fields of industry are devoted to engineering special ceramics for ferrite cores.
There is a reason they give us this special number (SRF), when they sell us the ferrite.
Look at how this is used (or sometimes intentionally NOT used) in the circuitry of any/every device that uses them,
and you will already know more about the Joule Thief than most others.
An argument that "resonance" does not affect your circuit,
is like saying the baking pan isn't hot, because you are wearing mittens.
I'm not here to pad anyone's cushion, or to promote some obscure grandiose concept
about "resonance", like its a magical event.
It is something that occurs, naturally, everywhere, and in everything around us.
All I am trying to do is make people aware of it, and how it applies to this particular circuit.
When you finally see this for what it is, you will know that the LED has had you jerking yourself off the whole time...
talks of "brightness" are pointless (human perception aside), that is a work function of the diode junction,
which by self-definition consumes power along a curve.
This can be examined all day and give us all sorts of useless "data".
It is better to simply observe the diode as a "load" function, added to the circuit.
Replace this with any other type of load.
Or better yet, remove it completely, and drive the load from a secondary coil on the core. (transformer)
Then you can remove electrical impedance effects of the load on the primary (driver) circuit.
Now, you can measure your load directly, be it a diode, a resistor, a capacitor charging, an inductive/reactive load, etc.
Now your "data" contains vector and amplitude, quality to go with your quantities.
You can give meaning to what the load is doing to the primary circuit.
Armstrong was not the only one to build oscillators. He was just the one who designed THIS one.
Many other oscillators work in similar manners to this one.
Resonant frequencies are self-defined in all of them. As a manner of design.
The joule Thief should also be built in this manner.
All else, is less efficient.
-
Well, I am not really sure what to say to that except the Joule Thief "is what it is." It energizes an inductor and discharges it where the timing mechanism is derived from the energizing cycle and discharging cycle itself.
The "battle" has been about rejecting the concept of leading yourself down a garden path and playing "wishful thinking" pseudo electronics games instead of dealing with the reality of what is actually taking place for real on your bench. That is very much the fishing technique the scammers use so why scam yourself where the currency is not money but instead it is ideas. I will stress again once the "campaign" is over, it's over.
With respect to the SRF of a core, honestly I don't know why you would really be concerned with this. You have mentioned very high SRF frequencies for cores. If you excite a coil around a core at the SRF of the core, then does that really do anything for you? Take the example of the SRF for a coil itself. Nobody has ever done anything special with this. It's all because of a Tesla patent, the patent that launched 10,000 inconclusive bench experiments. A coil at its SRF is a coil that has crapped out and is basically useless except for perhaps some small niche applications. But don't let the fanboys hear that, they will get all upset.
Anyway, the Joule Thief has been covered to a certain extent, but very basic investigations have never been done as far as I am aware. What happens as you increase the number of turns in L1? What happens as you increase the number of turns in L2? What happens as you play with the ratio of L1 and L2 for different sizes of L1 and L2. How can you adjust the energizing period with a certain measure of control? Can I change my threshold voltage and timing for the snap OFF of the transistor. Just some very basic basic tests to understand how the operational parameters of the Joule Thief will trend as you change different basic parameters.
Here is a real doozie: My energizing time period for my Joule Thief is x milliseconds. What is the initial current flow when the transistor switches off and is that current flow a proper match for my LED or is the initial current flow too high or too low? Instead, people build Joule Thieves and just get their LED illuminated and they have no clue about this issue. You would think that they would want to do a separate test to know if the current flow is in the sweet spot for the LED - but they never pose that question to themselves and they don't care or are completely oblivious to the entire issue. If the current flow was too high, they would need to shorten the time period for the energizing cycle. How do you do that? See above where I suggest a series of tests on varying the parameters to explore that issue.
The Joule Thief is just a novelty, and even though some properly controlled tests like I state above have never been done from what I can see, in the long run it doesn't matter.
MileHigh
-
Well, I am not really sure what to say to that except the Joule Thief "is what it is." It energizes an inductor and discharges it where the timing mechanism is derived from the energizing cycle and discharging cycle itself.
The "battle" has been about rejecting the concept of leading yourself down a garden path and playing "wishful thinking" pseudo electronics games instead of dealing with the reality of what is actually taking place for real on your bench. That is very much the fishing technique the scammers use so why scam yourself where the currency is not money but instead it is ideas. I will stress again once the "campaign" is over, it's over.
With respect to the SRF of a core, honestly I don't know why you would really be concerned with this. You have mentioned very high SRF frequencies for cores. If you excite a coil around a core at the SRF of the core, then does that really do anything for you? Take the example of the SRF for a coil itself. Nobody has ever done anything special with this. It's all because of a Tesla patent, the patent that launched 10,000 inconclusive bench experiments. A coil at its SRF is a coil that has crapped out and is basically useless except for perhaps some small niche applications. But don't let the fanboys hear that, they will get all upset.
Anyway, the Joule Thief has been covered to a certain extent, but very basic investigations have never been done as far as I am aware. What happens as you increase the number of turns in L1? What happens as you increase the number of turns in L2? What happens as you play with the ratio of L1 and L2 for different sizes of L1 and L2. How can you adjust the energizing period with a certain measure of control? Can I change my threshold voltage and timing for the snap OFF of the transistor. Just some very basic basic tests to understand how the operational parameters of the Joule Thief will trend as you change different basic parameters.
Here is a real doozie: My energizing time period for my Joule Thief is x milliseconds. What is the initial current flow when the transistor switches off and is that current flow a proper match for my LED or is the initial current flow too high or too low? Instead, people build Joule Thieves and just get their LED illuminated and they have no clue about this issue. You would think that they would want to do a separate test to know if the current flow is in the sweet spot for the LED - but they never pose that question to themselves and they don't care or are completely oblivious to the entire issue. If the current flow was too high, they would need to shorten the time period for the energizing cycle. How do you do that? See above where I suggest a series of tests on varying the parameters to explore that issue.
The Joule Thief is just a novelty, and even though some properly controlled tests like I state above have never been done from what I can see, in the long run it doesn't matter.
MileHigh
So many claims MH,based around assumptions ::)
There is an easy way to test which circuit is more efficient-the first, or the second ?.
After taking into account resistive losses in the battery,do you still claim the first circuit to be more efficient?.
I now have a test bed,where we can accurately calculate light output per mW of input power.
What ya say MH--do you still stick with the first circuit as being more efficient?.
Brad
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K53beWYdIpc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K53beWYdIpc)
How to make an authentic Joule Thief. By BigClive
Clive is the guy that coined the term Joule Thief way back when and here he shows how to make a "real" one.
Bill
PS He also gives a detailed explanation on how the circuit works.
-
So many claims MH,based around assumptions ::)
There is an easy way to test which circuit is more efficient-the first, or the second ?.
After taking into account resistive losses in the battery,do you still claim the first circuit to be more efficient?.
I now have a test bed,where we can accurately calculate light output per mW of input power.
What ya say MH--do you still stick with the first circuit as being more efficient?.
Brad
I have some news for you. You make a simplistic anecdotal comparison between two scope captures for two different setups and you make the huge assumption that everything is on a level playing field for a host of parameters that you haven't even measured. Then you make the totally unrealistic assumption that you have valid data and a valid conclusion. Then when you are told this you say nothing because you are the infallible Dr. Brainfry.
When I make an assumption I am trying to be conscious of any problems or pitfalls associated with the assumption and I am trying to avoid them and make reasonable assumptions that will stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.
With respect to your test, there is another issue that I realized. Even if you could hypothetically ensure that both pulses that illuminate the LED have the same amount of energy in them, if one pulse is taller and shorter than the other pulse, then the LED will be brighter for the taller and shorter pulse. Then you can add in the factor of the persistence of human vision, making the taller and shorter pulse appear to be brighter also. Then there is the issue of how sloped the top of the pulse is. So in an ideal case you would want both pulses to not only have the same energy, but have approximately the same height and width and slope, then measure the losses. It's not an easy thing to do at all.
Nonetheless, go ahead and do whatever test it is that you want to do. But be aware that if I see any problems associated with your test that render it invalid then that is exactly what you will hear from me. If your test is valid and the second circuit is better and more efficient than the first circuit, then that is exactly what you are going to hear from me.
I am never going to be a bobbing duckie for you nodding affirmation for what you do, if there are indeed shortcomings in your test. I am just going to be real.
MileHigh
-
MH
quote
When I make an assumption I am trying to be conscious of any problems or pitfalls associated with the assumption and I am trying to avoid them and make reasonable assumptions that will stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.
------------------------------------------
MH
You go way past assumption and declare _FACT_ things you are clueless about !
In this area ..you stand head and shoulders above the fray ,and routinely holler scam where you have
no experimental ,personal or any knowledge whatsoever.
I speak mainly Of LENR ,however most recently your claims on an ICE and resonance are a blaring example !
you are a shameless Hypocrite .
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K53beWYdIpc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K53beWYdIpc)
How to make an authentic Joule Thief. By BigClive
Clive is the guy that coined the term Joule Thief way back when and here he shows how to make a "real" one.
Bill
PS He also gives a detailed explanation on how the circuit works.
Maybe we should call up Clive and see what he thinks about the difference of putting the led across the coil instead of the transistor?
At 7:45 in the vid he talks of a 'ringing' in the transformer. ;D
Mags
-
So many claims MH,based around assumptions ::)
There is an easy way to test which circuit is more efficient-the first, or the second ?.
After taking into account resistive losses in the battery,do you still claim the first circuit to be more efficient?.
I now have a test bed,where we can accurately calculate light output per mW of input power.
What ya say MH--do you still stick with the first circuit as being more efficient?.
Brad
Well maybe we should have a JT distance run of 2 circuits, one with the led across the coil and one with the led across the transistor. Use fresh, quality batteries to start and no base resistor to shorten testing time.
Ill wip up a board with 2 identical JTs and give it a go. ;)
See, I have an assumption about an assumption that I am assuming is assumptionless assumption. ;D
Mags
-
@ALL
It is really too bad that guys don't really want to talk about the real things. The real effect behind what you think is happening in that teeny weeny circuit called the JT no matter how it is designed. Can JT be short for Just Truth?
Well here are some small clues for those who are silently on their benches day after day and know better then to post on these threads. Smart Chickens. hahahaha.
1) Put a small resistance (CVR) between the emitter and ground and scope across it (yes take a differential on this one) while the circuit is running. What do you see? hahaha
2) Then explain to us how a transistor works in this circuit one more time and leave out any current flow jargon and think think think.
3) What does the diode inside that transistor do? Forget the forward bias crap if you did step #1. Think of the negative potential.
4) Then explain when the transistor closes and current is supposed to start to flow through the L1 to ground why is the L2 not energized?
5) Why is the L2 energized when the transistor is open? Don't give me any field collapse crap either. Just think it through. Field collapse are words used by people who don't have enough brainpower to realize how illogical it is.
There are more but five are enough for now.
Field collapse, current flow, electron flow, flux, these are all illusions that you guys chew on every single day and all it produces is one big pile of you know what. Now count how many belief systems this little circuit is asking you to hold onto while the standard model is explaining all this dreamy fanfare.
You see, here is the major problem. You guys don't ask the right questions. Resonance in a wine glass just wasted your brains away while you drink EE Kool-Aid. One simple circuit and already everything is upside down and you wonder why our devices are not working at OU levels. How can they when we don't know how to play by natures rules and instead decide to follow man's rules. Oh, I forgot, we know better.
Look you guys, if you want to graduate into being the next local TV technician (my dad was so great so full respect) then by all means, follow @MH to the land of EE called Wallington. Why, because all it has are four walls and a thick roof. But if you plan on working towards OU devices, then this little shit fest won't cut it at all. But just forget it, it is always much simpler to pretend everything is fine and dandy.
wattsup
PS: I don't really care if guys prefer to ignore since this thread is being read by more then those who post here, so for me it is more important to just get it out there regardless. Just carry on and pretend I am not even here. @tinman, don't worry I won't bother you on your new thread. From now on, if you need anything that's not in the box, just PM me. I won't run after you any more.
-
Maybe we should call up Clive and see what he thinks about the difference of putting the led across the coil instead of the transistor?
At 7:45 in the vid he talks of a 'ringing' in the transformer. ;D
Mags
Yes Mags, I noticed that too...hmm....ringing. That video is fairly recent too...I think within the past year. The thing that amazes me to this day about "this simple circuit" is that it turns out to not be all that simple after all.
I do agree that we have seen many variants of the legendary JT circuit and I have no problem with them being called JT's. I have used many different ones myself so, how could I argue? I just wanted folks to see the original circuit from the guy that named it...even though he gave credit to a Russian guy for the design. I really like how Clive graphed the battery depletion which really demonstrates the real purpose for this circuit. That is what got me involved early on was to be able to use 90%+ of an AA battery instead of 20%.
It is a fairly long video but worth watching.
Transformer Ringing...hmm....
Bill
PS Clive also talks about how the circuit will run way below the voltage level that it will start at. I have seen this myself many times. The circuit will self-fire at say .6 volts but not .4. If allowed to run it will continue to oscillate down to .3 or so but it will not start that low. That alone shows something is ringing around back and forth to keep it going right? I believe it was TK that demonstrated that the oscillations continue long after the led is no longer illuminated. I had never even thought to look for that.
-
MH
quote
When I make an assumption I am trying to be conscious of any problems or pitfalls associated with the assumption and I am trying to avoid them and make reasonable assumptions that will stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.
------------------------------------------
MH
You go way past assumption and declare _FACT_ things you are clueless about !
In this area ..you stand head and shoulders above the fray ,and routinely holler scam where you have
no experimental ,personal or any knowledge whatsoever.
I speak mainly Of LENR ,however most recently your claims on an ICE and resonance are a blaring example !
you are a shameless Hypocrite .
Stop your ridiculous "hurt fanboi - bobbing duckie extreme" crapola.
-
Wattsup:
The EE Kool-Aid runs your computer and runs the Internet and heats your house and cooks your meals and gives you access to this forum. It lets you stream "Revenge of the Nerds" on Netflix or by other means.
This thread is not about OU devices, it is about the Joule Thief with a wine glass thrown in to see if understanding the wine glass will resonate with interested people.
MileHigh
-
MH
Your readers need to understand that you are a complete hypocrite and attempt to twist the Facts to suit your present needs
you called TinMan an imbecile for claiming an internal combustion engine utilizes resonance in any way shape or form.
laughed and scoffed at him using this claim [HIS CLAIM] as an example of his utter ignorance on the subject.
Post 512
MH
Quote: Adjusting the timing of an ICE has absolutely nothing to do with resonance and there is no connection at all.
Quote post 514
MH
Quote: No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever.
Post 516.
MH
Quote; Just because a mechanical device like an ICE or a sewing machine has all sorts of adjustments that are related to the cycle timing, it does not necessarily mean that said device "resonates."
The whole idea is simply wrong.
Post 519-
MH Quote : I did not compare an ICE to a sewing machine.
Post 519
MH Quote: It's all moot because we are not talking about ICEs except to state that they have!! nothing!! to do with resonance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this thread.. MH found out that TinMan was right and Milehigh was COMPLETELY wrong.
he made the above comments as a complete authority on resonance calling TinMan an imbecile for making the statement.
MH boldly claimed this from a perspective of ignorance ,he has done this many times .
and today he makes this statement referring to his own personal Rigor and honesty and Titman's Lack of same.
MH
Quote
When I make an assumption I am trying to be conscious of any problems or pitfalls associated with the assumption and I am trying to avoid them and make reasonable assumptions that will stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.
end quote
MH
Your words fail to hold up to scrutiny.
and IMO those posting in this forum have a much better understanding of resonance and its potential.
And The TinMan has already taught you things you were completely clueless about on the Subject .
yet you try to stand as some total authority on the Topic and
MH quote
"I can't wait to close it down " on this forum !!
End Quote
And End of story
-
Chet:
Stop this mother hen on steroids nonsense.
I have been through the ICE business before. You are just gratuitously attacking me and what for? You want some nice low-hanging fruit then pull up some Brad quotes, the huge bowl is overflowing. Whoops, I forgot about your tight straitjacket, you hypocrite. You are just pathetically pandering to one side like some twisted and frustrated mother hen.
Screw your "enforcer" role, work the phones with GDS Technologies and drum up some business for them.
MileHigh
-
Chet:
Here, go ahead and please complete the current loop from Brad's diagram for the red dots for after the transistor has switched OFF. The current starts in the right L1 coil moving from top to bottom. Please mark up the diagram showing the full current loop and settle it once and for all. Fulfill your destiny as a mother hen.
To quote your illustrious experimenter Brad, "Im not going down this babying road with you MH. If you cannot work out where the current flow continues from where the marked dot's are,then you clearly do not belong here."
MileHigh
-
Chet:
Here, go ahead and please complete the current loop from Brad's diagram for the red dots for after the transistor has switched OFF. The current starts in the right L1 coil moving from top to bottom. Please mark up the diagram showing the full current loop and settle it once and for all. Fulfill your destiny as a mother hen.
To quote your illustrious experimenter Brad, "Im not going down this babying road with you MH. If you cannot work out where the current flow continues from where the marked dot's are,then you clearly do not belong here."
MileHigh
I dont think you actually know your self--do you MH.
In fact,i think you wait until others answer your question's,so as you then know what the answer to your question is--just to back up your assumptions.
Yes--it's all becoming quite clear now. Your claim to fame rides on the back of others hard work--this is how you do it,this is where your knowledge come's from-the guys that do all the bench work here. Your assumptions only become truth's once some one else has confirmed them for you.
Yes,i dont think you actually know the current path of L1 your self, when the transistor becomes open ;)
Should i baby you MH,and show you the current path,as i do not think you will be able to complete it.
Brad
-
Go ahead Brad and complete the current loop for the red dots. It's your claim.
Chet?
-
Well maybe we should have a JT distance run of 2 circuits, one with the led across the coil and one with the led across the transistor. Use fresh, quality batteries to start and no base resistor to shorten testing time.
Ill wip up a board with 2 identical JTs and give it a go. ;)
See, I have an assumption about an assumption that I am assuming is assumptionless assumption. ;D
Mags
Didn't I already do this test for you, a few weeks ago? Sorry, I didn't take a video but as I recall, I reported the results in this thread, including light-meter readings. But please, repeat the test as necessary, of course.
-
Yes Mags, I noticed that too...hmm....ringing. That video is fairly recent too...I think within the past year. The thing that amazes me to this day about "this simple circuit" is that it turns out to not be all that simple after all.
I do agree that we have seen many variants of the legendary JT circuit and I have no problem with them being called JT's. I have used many different ones myself so, how could I argue? I just wanted folks to see the original circuit from the guy that named it...even though he gave credit to a Russian guy for the design. I really like how Clive graphed the battery depletion which really demonstrates the real purpose for this circuit. That is what got me involved early on was to be able to use 90%+ of an AA battery instead of 20%.
It is a fairly long video but worth watching.
Transformer Ringing...hmm....
Bill
PS Clive also talks about how the circuit will run way below the voltage level that it will start at. I have seen this myself many times. The circuit will self-fire at say .6 volts but not .4. If allowed to run it will continue to oscillate down to .3 or so but it will not start that low. That alone shows something is ringing around back and forth to keep it going right? I believe it was TK that demonstrated that the oscillations continue long after the led is no longer illuminated. I had never even thought to look for that.
That's right. You may find this video of mine of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7msKzlNzKw
However... I don't think that "ringing" (as in resonant ringing) is the proper word to describe this oscillatory behaviour. So MH is right. ;)
However x2: Joule Thiefs of a particular design can certainly exhibit _true_ resonant ringing. See the scopeshots below for examples of this. So MH is wrong. ;)
But note that the ringing (true resonance) is of a much higher frequency than the basic JT pulse-oscillations. So... MH is right. :P
(If you search my YT channel for Joule Thief videos you will find lots and lots of demonstrations and explorations of various variants, far too many to list here.)
-
Didn't I already do this test for you, a few weeks ago? Sorry, I didn't take a video but as I recall, I reported the results in this thread, including light-meter readings. But please, repeat the test as necessary, of course.
ya did? Must have missed it. Was waiting on it. ;) Was it more eff with the led across the transistor?
Mags
-
ya did? Must have missed it. Was waiting on it. ;) Was it more eff with the led across the transistor?
Mags
I can't find the report at the moment using the forum's Search function, but I think it's back in this thread somewhere, about where you first mentioned your idea about the efficiency of the two variants. Maybe someone else remembers where it is.
-
Go ahead Brad and complete the current loop for the red dots. It's your claim.
Chet?
Below i have marked the current flow path(conventional current flow) during the !OFF! time of the transistor.
Brad
-
I can't find the report at the moment using the forum's Search function, but I think it's back in this thread somewhere, about where you first mentioned your idea about the efficiency of the two variants. Maybe someone else remembers where it is.
I do remember the tests you did with the light meter saying the led was slightly brighter across the transistor, but you were going to do a comparison of the input power for each.
But i may have missed that.
Mags
-
Below i have marked the current flow path during the !OFF! time of the transistor.
Brad
Looks right to me, but were you holding your tongue towards mecca, whilst holding one finger to the wind and standing on one foot when you drew them?. That could be a very important set of missing details. :P to some ...
Cheers
-
Below i have marked the current flow path(conventional current flow) during the !OFF! time of the transistor.
Brad
There you go you pathetic sleazy little weasel. Why should anybody trust you at all?
The revenge of Dr. Brainfry, his head is turning bright purple.
-
There you go you pathetic sleazy little weasel. Why should anybody trust you at all?
The revenge of Dr. Brainfry, his head is turning bright purple.
Are you saying it's wrong MH--alone with all your insult.
Brad
-
Are you saying it's wrong MH--alone with all your insult.
Brad
Here you weasel.
If you cannot work out where the current flow continues from where the marked dot's are,then you clearly do not belong here.
-
There you go you pathetic sleazy little weasel. Why should anybody trust you at all?
The revenge of Dr. Brainfry, his head is turning bright purple.
Quote post 1219 from me--If we look at the schematic below,i have drawn in two options for L2s current path.
Post 1275 from MH--The current starts in the right L1 coil moving from top to bottom. Please mark up the diagram showing the full current loop and settle it once and for all.
!!!DOH!!
Whos a pathetic little weasel now MH.
Trying your little scams again are we--doing the old switcharoony to suit your need's.
You just got caught out again.
Here you clearly are talking about L1's current path during switch off,and i was clearly talking about L2's current path.
You poor pathetic looser.
I have drawn in the current path for L1--as you asked Chet to do. Then you make some stupid attempt to catch me out by posting a diagram (which you completed incorrectly i might add) of my two options for the current path of L2 during switch off time.
You truly are a retard MH--there is no end to your bullshit.
I hope everyone here reads all of this thread,and finds you to be the fake that you are.
Brad
-
Lol
MH
I bet you think im mad right now lol,but you couldnt be more wrong .
I just fried ya ass once again,and once again showed everyone here your true nature lol
!BIG! epic fail that time MH--BIG ;)
Lol--this is a hoot :D
Brad
-
Brad:
When you act like you are acting, I think it could be an indication that you have some serious psychological problems.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
When you act like you are acting, I think it could be an indication that you have some serious psychological problems.
MileHigh
The way you act MH,is a clear sign of being both delusional and sarcastic.
The diagram you posted is from me-post 1219.
Here is the description of that diagram.
Quote: If we look at the schematic below,i have drawn in two options for L2s current path.
The red dots show the current flowing back into the battery.
The blue dot's show the current from L2 flowing into L1.
It is my belief that the later is correct,and that the current flowing through L2 flows into,and is additive to the current flowing through L1,and the LED.
Your post to Chet
Post 1275 Quote: Here, go ahead and please complete the current loop from Brad's diagram for the red dots for after the transistor has switched OFF. The current starts in the right L1 coil moving from top to bottom. Please mark up the diagram showing the full current loop and settle it once and for all. Fulfill your destiny as a mother hen.
Here we can clearly see that you are trying to Catch Chet out,so as you can claim some sort distorted victory.
I clearly stated that the diagram shows two possible current paths for L2,and state clearly that i believe that the path marked with blue dot's is correct for L2's current flow path during the transistor off period.
You then ask Chet to complete the RED dot current path,and to further throw in some sort of delusional effort to catch Chet out,you state that the current flow path starts at the top of L1--yes L1,and then proceed to say-->The current starts in the right L1 coil moving from top to bottom.
A clear indication that you want Chet to mark out the current flowing through L1.
You are a sleazy delusional twat MH-->but we have all woken up to your antic's,and now know that you are nothing more than a man who's aim in life is to cause trouble,and misguide those here on this forum.
You never dare answer any of your own question's,as you have no answers--you do not know the answer's. But ,instead ,you spend your time trying to belittle others in an attempt to turn the spot light of incompetence away from your self.
I just caught you out red handed trying to trap Chet into answering another loaded question from you.
How about you complete the current path of the red dot's,that start at the top right of L1,and move from top to bottom.
Go ahead child--complete the path--answer your own question,and then once again,i will come back and correct yet another of your mistake's.
You need to go back to your doctor,and get a refill for your presciption drug's,as the delusions are increasing within you every day MH.
Brad.
P.S
Just so as you dont try and distort thing's again,i have added your original schematic--just incase you try and say--er i dont know which one is L1 and L2.
And do not try and distort the fact that this diagram and related current flow paths was in regards to MY JT that had your !!!death spike!!--no more distorting of facts MH to try and save your ass.
-
Chet:
Here, go ahead and please complete the current loop from Brad's diagram for the red dots for after the transistor has switched OFF. The current starts in the right L1 coil moving from top to bottom. Please mark up the diagram showing the full current loop and settle it once and for all. Fulfill your destiny as a mother hen.
To quote your illustrious experimenter Brad, "Im not going down this babying road with you MH. If you cannot work out where the current flow continues from where the marked dot's are,then you clearly do not belong here."
MileHigh
Chet
Dont bother with this question,as it is another of MHs loaded question's,that have no right answer.
He is asking you to complete the current path of the red dot's,but says that this path starts at the top of L1,and moves from top to bottom--as in the path of the blue dot's.
This diagram was in relation to my JT circuit that had MHs !!death spike! of reverse current at the base of the transistor during the transistors off period.
He cannot answer this question of his correctly him self,as it cannot be answered correctly going by his description of the question.
This is a loaded question he has put to you ,as he knows that you will never be ablet to answer it correctly--or so he think's.
So dont fall for this garbage question--it's about as good as his wine glass resonance questions--which he himself also cannot answer,nor has done so.
Brad
-
Brad:
If we look at the schematic below,i have drawn in two options for L2s current path.
The red dots show the current flowing back into the battery.
The blue dot's show the current from L2 flowing into L1.
It is my belief that the later is correct,and that the current flowing through L2 flows into,and is additive to the current flowing through L1,and the LED.
We are talking about the event of the transistor collector-base junction breaking down and current being observed flowing in the reverse direction through the base. The source of the current flow causing the breakdown of the junction is L1. So when you talk about the "two options for L2s current path" anybody that has a Brad Secret Decoder Ring knows that what you are really saying is the "two options for L2s current path after that current is supplied from the discharge from L1." It's just the usual scrambled brains in action.
You have avoided responding to this issue because Dr. Brainfry is supposedly infallible. Push has come to shove and instead of acknowledging that you failed to think through your statements before you posted them and admit that you were in fact wrong, now you are instead having a good freak out and going nuts in an attempt to still not admit that you are dead wrong. Dr. Brainfry is having a brain seizure.
MileHigh
-
his wine glass resonance questions--which he himself also cannot answer,nor has done so
The wine glass resonance questions can be answered and they will be answered in due time. This is your bad karma from when I asked you for where something was that you had posted earlier in the thread and like a rude jackass you repeatedly refused to point me to some unlabeled content in one of your own postings. You thought that it was a big joke to outright refuse my simple requests for showing me where something you had posted was and you got your jollies from repeatedly refusing my requests and from when I had to read though a big chunk of the thread to find it.
So you are waiting because you were a rude discourteous smug little jackass and you thought it was funny to refuse my simple requests multiple times. And lo and behold it turns out that Dr. Brainfry can't answer two simple questions about a simple resonating wine glass after all of his big talk about resonance. So you can continue to sit on the spot and fry. You are just going to have to wait some more, karma is a bitch when you act like a rude smug little jackass and sometimes it bites back.
-
Brad:
We are talking about the event of the transistor collector-base junction breaking down and current being observed flowing in the reverse direction through the base.
Dr. Brainfry is having a brain seizure.
MileHigh
Wrong
Try again.
Lets see who has the brain seizure.
The first scope shot is of your death spike.
The second scope shot is showing the trace over a 1 ohm CVR at the collector.
I have placed the ch2 probe at the base,so as you can see where the timing of the !!death spike!! is
Where is this current flowing through the collector,that flows into the base via this junction breakdown of your's?.
Brad
-
Wrong
Try again.
Lets see who has the brain seizure.
The first scope shot is of your death spike.
The second scope shot is showing the trace over a 1 ohm CVR at the collector.
I have placed the ch2 probe at the base,so as you can see where the timing of the !!death spike!! is
Where is this current flowing through the collector,that flows into the base via this junction breakdown of your's?.
Brad
Wrong my ass. The cycle time is 75 microseconds for one trace (spike) and 60 microseconds for the second trace (collector). You don't even show how the first trace was made. Was the CVR for the collector trace in the same place when you captured the spike trace? Or did you have two different circuits for each test and that's why the cycle time is different between the two? Oops you don't say anything about that and even the best Brad secret decoder ring can't help in this situation. Why didn't you put the CVR for the collector trace on top of L1 so that you would not disturb the equipotential between the LED anode and the collector because preserving that equipotential might be important?
You are second-guessing our mutual original conclusion (yourself, myself, Picowatt) about the death spike and now you are questioning me about your own second guessing? Remember in your ever present quest to insist that you are never wrong that you were insisting that the reverse current spike was normal? Did you even try to reduce the number of turns in L2 to see if the reverse current spike would go away in the original setup? Brain fry indeed.
Not surprisingly and as expected Brad, what you have shown is incomplete and it is a complete shambles.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg478758#msg478758 date=1459169878]
The cycle time is 75 microseconds for one trace (spike) and 60 microseconds for the second trace (collector).
What planet are you on MH?.
The first scope shot was across the 1k ohm resistor--to show you that the death spike is still there--read bloody post.
The spike trace--blue base trace is shorter than than the collector current trace-the yellow trace.
Can you not follow a very simple schematic and scope placements?--do you not know that voltage leads current in an inductor,and thus the reason for the blue trace(base trace) being slightly shorter than the yellow trace-collector current trace in time period-->voltage leads current MH-you doofus.
Was the CVR for the collector trace in the same place when you captured the spike trace?
All was taken on the same circuit--nothing changed.
Or did you have two different circuits for each test and that's why the cycle time is different between the two?Oops you don't say anything about that and even the best Brad secret decoder ring can't help in this situation.
No-as stated above-->same circuit.
It is not my fault you do not understand the fact that voltage lead's current with inductors,and not my fault you cant work out the time difference between voltage and current rise.
The transistor switches off(blue trace) at the very same time the CVR on the colletor shows 0 volts across it. Then the voltage from the battery show across L1 and L2 before(BEFORE MH) current starts to flow,and you get a voltage drop across the collector CVR.
Why didn't you put the CVR for the collector trace on top of L1
For the very simple reason that we are looking for your current flow through the collector junction,into the base junction,due to junction breakdown.
You ask the dumbest of questions some time's. ??? ::)
You are second-guessing our mutual original conclusion (yourself, myself, Picowatt) about the death spike and now you are questioning me about your own second guessing?
No-i said the current flow through the base in the opposite direction,was due to junction capacitance-->and PW said that is quit possible. So dont go bullshitting again,as your about to learn something--guru.
Remember in your ever present quest to insist that you are never wrong that you were insisting that the reverse current spike was normal?
It is normal when you wind a JT toroid so as it will operate at a lower voltage--there is no set MH winding parameters for the JT.
Did you even try to reduce the number of turns in L2 to see if the reverse current spike would go away in the original setup? Brain fry indeed.
Many time's. But why would i wind a JT to stop functioning at 320mV,when i can wind one that keeps running right down to 180mV?
Not surprisingly and as expected Brad, what you have shown is incomplete and it is a complete shambles.
Whats not suprising, is that you dont know that voltage appears across an inductor,before current flows through it. If you did,you wouldnt be asking as to why the two time basses are different.
Biiiggg blunder there MH--again.
The battery was run down to 500 odd mV in the last scope shot's,so here are the new ones with a fresh battery--1.6 volts.
The first scope shot is with the probe ground on one side of the 1k base resistor,and the probe tip on the other side of the 1k base resistor--is that clear enough MH?
The second scope shot is as the circuit depic's-->the circuit is not changed at all during the tests--is that clear MH?
Minimum voltage across 1 ohm CVR at the collector is 0mV-->no reverse current is flowing from the collector ,through the collector/base junction,and out through the base-->none.
Wrong my ass.
Yes-wrong your ass
Please try again MH. ;)
Brad
-
Dose the below explain the time difference of around 20uS MH.
Do you see now how the CH2 spike shot is taken across the 1k ohm resistor(as it should be) to show the reverse current spike, is based on current flow rise time,and how the second scope shot,CH2 is based around voltage rise time. And did you read in my post that the scope is being triggered by CH2?
Are there any more questions MH?.
Where is the reverse current flow at the collector?
Brad
-
MH
I have decreased the VPD on CH1,and inverted it.
I have also moved it across,so as it lines up with the current triggered death spike shot.
Dose this make it any clearer as to what is happening ?
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg478746#msg478746 date=1459159374]
Brad:
The source of the current flow causing the breakdown of the junction is L1. So when you talk about the "two options for L2s current path" anybody that has a Brad Secret Decoder Ring knows that what you are really saying is the "two options for L2s current path after that current is supplied from the discharge from L1." It's just the usual scrambled brains in action.
We are talking about the event of the transistor collector-base junction breaking down and current being observed flowing in the reverse direction through the base.
You have avoided responding to this issue because Dr. Brainfry is supposedly infallible. Push has come to shove and instead of acknowledging that you failed to think through your statements before you posted them and admit that you were in fact wrong, now you are instead having a good freak out and going nuts in an attempt to still not admit that you are dead wrong. Dr. Brainfry is having a brain seizure.
Brad:
When you act like you are acting, I think it could be an indication that you have some serious psychological problems.
You are second-guessing our mutual original conclusion (yourself, myself, Picowatt) about the death spike and now you are questioning me about your own second guessing?
I never agreed to anything about collector/base breakdown voltage,and as far as im aware,neither did PW. If he did say that,then he may learn something to.
At this point in time MH,i would strongly suggest you go back and re read what PW said.
You should be looking in the mirror when you make your insult's toward me--as those stated above-along with a basket full of others.\
Brad
-
Exceeding the base-emitter reverse breakdown voltage of Q1 does not turn on the collector-emitter junction.
The spike seen in the recent "death spike" capture looks more like a Miller current spike than as being due to Vbe breakdown current.
In these recent captures, there is no evidence that the base voltage is exceeding the Vbe breakdown voltage (I believe Tinman measured his 2N3055's as breaking down around 20 volts)
PW
-
In these recent captures, there is no evidence that the base voltage is exceeding the Vbe breakdown voltage (I believe Tinman measured his 2N3055's as breaking down around 20 volts)
PW
To quote post 1219
The Breakdown voltage of the 2n3055s i use is 15.3 volt's.
Exceeding the base-emitter reverse breakdown voltage of Q1 does not turn on the collector-emitter junction.
Correct.
I am not sure why MH is talking about collector/base junction breakdown.
The spike seen in the recent "death spike" capture looks more like a Miller current spike than as being due to Vbe breakdown current.
That is also correct !some what! PW.
If we look at the scope shots below,even though the voltage is above the 15.3 volt breakdown voltage,current continues to flow below the 15.3 volt threshold. But i believe that the bulk of this! so called! current flow is happening around the breakdown voltage limit.
The first scope shot is across the base/emitter junction,and shows a voltage value peak of about 20 volt's.
The second scope shot is from across the 1k base resistor,and you can see that current is (apparently ;)) still flowing well below the 15.3 volt junction breakdown threshold.
!BUT! there is something odd with this !so called! current flow--but i am still looking into that.
Brad
-
Tinman,
As you change the scope ground connection point, different portions of the circuit become dynamic with respect to stray capacitance (mainly to your bench top or nearby equip). This can produce some "not really there" spikes or other anomalies as the strays are charge/discharged.
Consider using a short and neat circuit layout and placing the entire circuit on a piece of glass/plexiglass elevated above your bench by insulators.
PW
-
If we look at the scope shots below,even though the voltage is above the 15.3 volt breakdown voltage,current continues to flow below the 15.3 volt threshold. But i believe that the bulk of this! so called! current flow is happening around the breakdown voltage limit.
The first scope shot is across the base/emitter junction,and shows a voltage value peak of about 20 volt's.
The second scope shot is from across the 1k base resistor,and you can see that current is (apparently ;)) still flowing well below the 15.3 volt junction breakdown threshold.
!BUT! there is something odd with this !so called! current flow--but i am still looking into that.
It is becoming difficult, if not impossible impossible, to keep track of what the scope captures are depicting. This has become more of a problem as the scope ground is also being relocated in different captures.
Consider posting a schematic of test probe locations with each of your captures as test points change.
A schematic of test point locations for this last set of captures would be handy.
PW
-
Brad:
Whats not suprising, is that you dont know that voltage appears across an inductor,before current flows through it. If you did,you wouldnt be asking as to why the two time basses are different.
Why do you say such nonsensical trash talk idiocy like the comments about voltage leading current? Why do you lower yourself into the gutter and make such a fool of yourself like that? It just destroys your credibility and why should anybody trust you for anything when you play ridiculous mind games like that? It feels like a crank call from a 12-year-old sometimes.
I never said anything about the time bases being different. Brain ricochet! I asked you why the periods are different and you did not offer up any kind of real explanation.
I am getting exhausted with the stream-of-consciousness/churning spaghetti/brain-ricochet talk from you. It's like you need a bloody Google translator just for you. Throw in the ridiculous immature trash talk that is embarrassing and you are left with Dr. Brainfry on overload. Perhaps later I will try to deal with it but not now. I get a headache just thinking about it.
MileHigh
-
I am getting exhausted with the stream-of-consciousness/churning spaghetti/brain-ricochet talk from you. It's like you need a bloody Google translator just for you. Throw in the ridiculous immature trash talk that is embarrassing and you are left with Dr. Brainfry on overload. Perhaps later I will try to deal with it but not now. I get a headache just thinking about it.
Gosh Miles! :o
That sort of a response is troubling indeed! ???
Let us hope that you're not going into a "breakdown"
mode and that perhaps a little rest might restore your
vitality and sense of reason? ;)
The Tin Man makes perfect sense to me. 8)
-
Tinman,
As you change the scope ground connection point, different portions of the circuit become dynamic with respect to stray capacitance (mainly to your bench top or nearby equip). This can produce some "not really there" spikes or other anomalies as the strays are charge/discharged.
Consider using a short and neat circuit layout and placing the entire circuit on a piece of glass/plexiglass elevated above your bench by insulators.
PW
I have the circuit pretty much as small as i can get it,but i do believe that the voltage seen across the base resistor is not showing a reverse current flow,but is more some sort of artifact that you mention above.
As i said in my previous post,i am looking into it a little further,and will post my findings here when they become apparent.
I have been trying to keep up with schematics along with every scope shot,but it was late last night,and it gets hard to keep up,so i post a quick description instead of a schematic with every scope shot.
Brad
-
Just found my JT with the 11t by 11t transformer running low and turning on and off, like 10sec on 30 sec off. Running the 33 ohm resistor, 3904, the batt is at .44v when it dies out then the battery recoups and back on. Ill try to eliminate and the resistor and see if I can get it to stay on below .44v.
Anyway, it seems to be a battery cycling thing if the jt is blinking, so far.
Just ditched the resistor and goes down to .43v, cuts out, and back on at .45v. seems odd. I might expect the need to go higher before coming back on.
Mags
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg478791#msg478791 date=1459185829]
MileHigh
Why do you say such nonsensical trash talk idiocy like the comments about voltage leading current? Why do you lower yourself into the gutter and make such a fool of yourself like that? It just destroys your credibility and why should anybody trust you for anything when you play ridiculous mind games like that? It feels like a crank call from a 12-year-old sometimes.
I never said anything about the time bases being different. Brain ricochet! I asked you why the periods are different and you did not offer up any kind of real explanation.
Quote from you MH : The cycle time is 75 microseconds for one trace (spike) and 60 microseconds for the second trace (collector).
First off,you have that ass about,where the cycle time for the spike(blue trace as marked with attached schematic) is about 45uS,and as i said,this is from a voltage source,and the scope is being triggered from that voltage source.
The yellow trace is across the 1 ohm CVR,and there for is reading the voltage drop across that 1 ohm CVR,and so that is from a current source.
The two dips in the traces in the center of the scope screen,are showing you the OFF period. The blue trace shows a positive voltage(take note of where zero volts is for blue trace)-transistor switching on,before the yellow trace shows a voltage rise,as that trace is measuring the voltage drop across the CVR,and as current lag's voltage,the yellow trace will show a longer off time period than the blue trace.
As i clearly stated in my reply,the difference is because voltage lead's current when it comes to inductors. Quoting my post where you said i left no explanation
Quote: The spike trace--blue base trace is shorter than than the collector current trace-the yellow trace.
Can you not follow a very simple schematic and scope placements?--do you not know that voltage leads current in an inductor,and thus the reason for the blue trace(base trace) being slightly shorter than the yellow trace-collector current trace in time period-->voltage leads current MH-you doofus.
I am getting exhausted with the stream-of-consciousness/churning spaghetti/brain-ricochet talk from you.
From me ??>
Things are clearly explained to you,but you say they are not.
Then you say that i agreed with you and PW on the collector/base breakdown thing--but i did not do anything of a kind.
You first agree on emitter/base breakdown voltage being the cause of the reverse current flow(that i still think is not there),and then out of no where you come up with plan B,and switch to some !unicorn! collector/base breakdown voltage claim.
It's like you need a bloody Google translator just for you.
For me?.
How did we go from emitter/base breakdown voltage, to collector/base breakdown voltage??
Where did that translation go,and how did it come about?
I never agreed to anything about collector/base breakdown voltage's,as the V/cb for the 2n3055 is over 60 volt's.
Throw in the ridiculous immature trash talk that is embarrassing and you are left with Dr. Brainfry on overload. Perhaps later I will try to deal with it but not now. I get a headache just thinking about it.
You are in need of a break MH.
One minute we are talking about the breakdown voltage of the emitter/base junction--which i was in agreeance with--along with the junction capacitance being the first order of events for the reverse base current flow,and then out of the blue,you switch to collector/base junction breakdown.
You have people running all over the place here MH,and you are getting hard to follow,with these leap's from one theory ,to the next.
I tried to show you that there was no reverse current flow spike at the collector,and you just continued to insult me.
I then explained as to why the two time periods are different,and still you kept insulting me.
I then ask you to go back and read what PW said,and still you kept insulting me-as can be seen with nearly every reply you make to me,and so i give them right back to you.
Why have you switch to collector/base breakdown voltage?. Is this another of your attempts to catch me out?--another loaded question?.
You continue to insult me every chance you get,but as you can see,it is you that is wrong every time.
So please stop your insults toward me--at least until !you! get it right.
Brad
-
I have the circuit pretty much as small as i can get it,but i do believe that the voltage seen across the base resistor is not showing a reverse current flow,but is more some sort of artifact that you mention above.
As i said in my previous post,i am looking into it a little further,and will post my findings here when they become apparent.
I have been trying to keep up with schematics along with every scope shot,but it was late last night,and it gets hard to keep up,so i post a quick description instead of a schematic with every scope shot.
Brad
Here's a scopeshot you might find interesting.
-
Brad:
This is quickly approaching a dead end.
You said this:
The first scope shot is of your death spike.
The second scope shot is showing the trace over a 1 ohm CVR at the collector.
I responded with this:
The cycle time is 75 microseconds for one trace (spike) and 60 microseconds for the second trace (collector).
Your response was this:
First off,you have that ass about,where the cycle time for the spike(blue trace as marked with attached schematic) is about 45uS,and as i said,this is from a voltage source,and the scope is being triggered from that voltage source.
The yellow trace is across the 1 ohm CVR,and there for is reading the voltage drop across that 1 ohm CVR,and so that is from a current source.
The two dips in the traces in the center of the scope screen,are showing you the OFF period. The blue trace shows a positive voltage(take note of where zero volts is for blue trace)-transistor switching on,before the yellow trace shows a voltage rise,as that trace is measuring the voltage drop across the CVR,and as current lag's voltage,the yellow trace will show a longer off time period than the blue trace.
As i clearly stated in my reply,the difference is because voltage lead's current when it comes to inductors. Quoting my post where you said i left no explanation
Quote: The spike trace--blue base trace is shorter than than the collector current trace-the yellow trace.
Can you not follow a very simple schematic and scope placements?--do you not know that voltage leads current in an inductor,and thus the reason for the blue trace(base trace) being slightly shorter than the yellow trace-collector current trace in time period-->voltage leads current MH-you doofus.
Essentially everything in that response is wasted energy, a bunch of mush. The reason it is mush is because you did not make the connection between "death spike" and "spike" and "CVR at the collector" and "collector" and you are talking about something completely different.
The gross difference in periods between the two captures suggested to me that your circuit had changed or the scope probe was changing the circuit frequency though loading. Incidentally, putting the scope ground on the transistor collector node is a somewhat bizarre thing to do. But of course you didn't even mention the different periods or different voltages when you posted the captures and only after the fact did you mention that the battery voltage was significantly different between the two captures which explained the different frequencies. It's mass confusion.
It's exhausting and it never ends.
-
Brad:
This is quickly approaching a dead end.
You said this:
The first scope shot is of your death spike.
The second scope shot is showing the trace over a 1 ohm CVR at the collector.
I responded with this:
The cycle time is 75 microseconds for one trace (spike) and 60 microseconds for the second trace (collector).
Your response was this:
Essentially everything in that response is wasted energy, a bunch of mush. The reason it is mush is because you did not make the connection between "death spike" and "spike" and "CVR at the collector" and "collector" and you are talking about something completely different.
The gross difference in periods between the two captures suggested to me that your circuit had changed or the scope probe was changing the circuit frequency though loading. Incidentally, putting the scope ground on the transistor collector node is a somewhat bizarre thing to do. But of course you didn't even mention the different periods or different voltages when you posted the captures and only after the fact did you mention that the battery voltage was significantly different between the two captures which explained the different frequencies. It's mass confusion.
It's exhausting and it never ends.
MH
As I stated, the spike shot was across the 1k resistor on the base. This makes it a current source. This voltage will come after voltage seen across the inductor.
The second scope shot is as per schematic attached to that scope shot.
The point of the test was to show you that there was no current flow through the collector during the off time of the transistor.
I am also confused as to why or how you went from emitter/base junction breakdown, to collector/base junction breakdown. Just out of the blue, you make this switch, and I was doing my best to check your claim, and try to work out where this switch came from.
I then spent more of my time tracing back through the thread, trying to find some posts I must have missed by PW.
I still have no answer from you for the reason for the switch from emitter/base breakdown, tocollector/base breakdown.
You asked Chet to complete the current path due to this collector/base junction breakdown, and you abused me for saying it is non existent.
So please tell me what I am suppose to see at the collector during the off period of the transistor.?
Brad
-
I am at work ATM, and will not know the below to be true until I get home, and carry out further test.
After thinking about it for some time, I believe the reverse voltage spike seen across the base resistor---is a phantom voltage, and no actual current is flowing through the resistor as the scope may suggest.
It is either due to the miller effect between the base/emitter or base/collector junction, that make the actual value look much larger than it is.
The second possible explanation is as PW said--there is some sort of capacitive conection with the scope and leads.
All this can be checked using my FG to simulate the pulses across the 1k resistor.
Brad
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K53beWYdIpc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K53beWYdIpc)
How to make an authentic Joule Thief. By BigClive
Clive is the guy that coined the term Joule Thief way back when and here he shows how to make a "real" one.
Bill
PS He also gives a detailed explanation on how the circuit works.
Thanks Bill
I don't know how much you remember of this, but we were playing with this circuit, prior to the 1999 magazine article.
What was sent to the magazine, and later became the "Joule Thief",
is a variant of BruceTPU's oscillator circuit.
I think you were there for that. '97 maybe?
-
Brad:
Why do you say such nonsensical trash talk idiocy like the comments about voltage leading current? Why do you lower yourself into the gutter and make such a fool of yourself like that? It just destroys your credibility and why should anybody trust you for anything when you play ridiculous mind games like that? It feels like a crank call from a 12-year-old sometimes.
I never said anything about the time bases being different. Brain ricochet! I asked you why the periods are different and you did not offer up any kind of real explanation.
I am getting exhausted with the stream-of-consciousness/churning spaghetti/brain-ricochet talk from you. It's like you need a bloody Google translator just for you. Throw in the ridiculous immature trash talk that is embarrassing and you are left with Dr. Brainfry on overload. Perhaps later I will try to deal with it but not now. I get a headache just thinking about it.
MileHigh
this is the kind of nonsensical argumentation that I am talking about....
You could have just as easily stated that it is the current that leads the voltage,
then explained why.
I think that would be the more productive approach.....
-
@tinman
The scopes of base/collector junction show 20 something volts so one side of the scope probe (ground or probe) had to receive 0 volts (or near 0) while the other side had to receive the higher volts to produce that scope shot. So where did that 0 come from while the transistor is on (closed).
As per my last post, can you please as per your test "explain 2.JPG" where you have the cvr placed between the collector and L1, now try it with the cvr between the emitter and ground. That's the one I want to see and maybe even you too. Then put the cvr between the LED ground and ground and do it again. If you can do that, it will help explain this circuit.
So in essence the present location of the LED is the main bummer in this circuitry always bleeding and not helping to find the real (stabilized) circuit effect because it is placed parallel to the collector/emitter.
Here is a curiosity? Try repositioning the LED between L1 and the collector. Since the LED would require a ground from the collector, what will happen? Will it light or not? I can get into more detail showing the actual circuit flow with dots, if these tests can be done. The "effect pattern" because it is not really a "flow pattern", because there is not really any flow, should marry perfectly to the scopes wave pattern.
Then, for more confirmation try with the LED between the emitter and ground and this will show if positive will now pass the transistor when it is on. The LED is good because it can delimit up to where the negative can reach before it is consumed with the positive from the other side.
The final test is across the L1 to provide the full effect during those pulses. With these I can draw out the effect patterns to match the wave forms and it will amaze you to know what is really happening in that circuit. No EE Kool-Aid but fully logical and fully provable.
@MH
EE Kool-Aid is fine for our day to day toys but for OU we need something better. Better tasting, more nutritious and no additives. The Kool-Aid is stunting our growth where growth is required to pass to the next level. Otherwise, maybe you can find a better way to advance but downing jugs of Kool-Aid all day will not do it.
Also, I think your free attacks on @tinman are highly unwarranted and will soon approach some level of indecency. Best you stop it. We are all in the same damn boat. All a bunch of ignorant assholes, all of us trying to cope with both observation and logic. Your logic is not God given, it is man derived and thus highly fallible. The day you accept it is the day you will advance as well. If you don't think @tinman has a shred of credibility here, then why waste your time? This one little furty circuit could help learn mountains of information but only if you ask the right questions.
wattsup
-
Wattsup:
Also, I think your free attacks on @tinman are highly unwarranted and will soon approach some level of indecency.
Did you see Brad repeatedly attacking me with a bunch of unwarranted nonsense? You did but like a jackass you won't say anything about that. Why not? What is wrong with you?
When this thread dies I am likely never going to debate him again, and this is the third or fourth time I have stated that. The arguments are sometimes beyond ridiculous, like arguing if you have to factor in whether or not you are on a hill when you measure a car's top speed. I have had enough of that nonsense.
Don't you give me your crap without looking at the other side. That makes you morally bankrupt.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
I am also confused as to why or how you went from emitter/base junction breakdown, to collector/base junction breakdown. Just out of the blue, you make this switch, and I was doing my best to check your claim, and try to work out where this switch came from.
Yes, I was part of the mass confusion here and I looked back in the thread. In post #1191 I speculated that there was a collector-base breakdown. Then in post #1199 PW confirms an emitter-base breakdown and congratulates me on getting it right. I mistakenly think he is confirming my theory. Then in post #1219 you congratulate me for getting it right. I even make a posting about the collector-base junction capacitance potentially starting an avalanche that leads to the collector-base junction breaking down and nobody says anything.
I thought the collector-base junction would break down before the emitter-base junction because the collector would be at higher potential than the emitter. I have long forgotten about the nuances about the inner guts of a transistor nor did I look at a datasheet. Needless to say, reverse current going through the base could theoretically come from the collector or the emitter.
So if you and PW have been talking about an emitter-base junction breakdown, then I apologize because I thought that the focus was on a collector-base junction breakdown. Only much more recently did I start thinking about a possible emitter-base junction breakdown.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
In post #1296 I say this:
Why didn't you put the CVR for the collector trace on top of L1 so that you would not disturb the equipotential between the LED anode and the collector because preserving that equipotential might be important?
This is your reply in #1297:
For the very simple reason that we are looking for your current flow through the collector junction,into the base junction,due to junction breakdown.
You ask the dumbest of questions some time's.
<<< It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Learn something new. >>>
Oooh, I could take that as an insult. Wattsup would have an issue with your tone, better watch out.
Take a look at the attached schematic and weep. Is this not clear enough for you, "Why didn't you put the CVR for the collector trace on top of L1?"
MileHigh
-
Anyway, I have had it talking about the Joule Thief. I couldn't care less about various unresolved technical issues, it's not worth the slog and I am totally burnt out on the crazy ridiculous arguments with Brad.
Instead of the stupid worn-out Joule Thief ad nauseam, I suggested a project for a circuit that is purpose-designed to drain a battery of as much energy as possible, and also keep a LED lit at a certain minimum brightness. Nobody said anything, just blank stares. How about an egg dropping competition then?
Where is the resonant Joule Thief I wonder? I am not expecting anything to come of it.
On the subject of resonance, the questions about the wine glass will be answered later.
MileHigh
-
author=wattsup link=topic=8341.msg478897#msg478897 date=1459256292]
@tinman
wattsup
The scopes of base/collector junction show 20 something volts so one side of the scope probe (ground or probe) had to receive 0 volts (or near 0) while the other side had to receive the higher volts to produce that scope shot. So where did that 0 come from while the transistor is on (closed).
I have no idea as to what you are referring too?. Could you post the scope shot,and point out what you mean.
0 volt's is just a reference point for the scope,as that 0 volt's may be a negative voltage to that of ground.If we place the scope across an AC voltage--where is 0 volts as far as the scope is concerned?. Well as most scope's negative and earth ground are common,but then we measure an AC voltage that is isolated from earth ground--where is the 0 volt point?.
As per my last post, can you please as per your test "explain 2.JPG" where you have the cvr placed between the collector and L1, now try it with the cvr between the emitter and ground. That's the one I want to see and maybe even you too. Then put the cvr between the LED ground and ground and do it again. If you can do that, it will help explain this circuit.
My scopes common is also earth ground,so you would see nothing between the emitter and ground-as they are one in the same.
Here is a curiosity? Try repositioning the LED between L1 and the collector. Since the LED would require a ground from the collector, what will happen? Will it light or not?
I would think not-->will have to think about that one a little.
I can get into more detail showing the actual circuit flow with dots, if these tests can be done. The "effect pattern" because it is not really a "flow pattern", because there is not really any flow, should marry perfectly to the scopes wave pattern.
You post the circuit,and i will test it ;)
Then, for more confirmation try with the LED between the emitter and ground and this will show if positive will now pass the transistor when it is on. The LED is good because it can delimit up to where the negative can reach before it is consumed with the positive from the other side.
Which way around?--turn ratio of L1 to L2 ?
Draw up the schematics ,and i will test the circuit.
Also, I think your free attacks on @tinman are highly unwarranted and will soon approach some level of indecency. Best you stop it.
Some times you have to stand back,and think about thing's for a while.
I think we have both given as good as we got,and it is not doing much good either way.
The blame must go both ways Wattsup,and putting an end to it must also come from both.
-
Brad:
Yes, I was part of the mass confusion here and I looked back in the thread. In post #1191 I speculated that there was a collector-base breakdown. Then in post #1199 PW confirms an emitter-base breakdown and congratulates me on getting it right. I mistakenly think he is confirming my theory. Then in post #1219 you congratulate me for getting it right. I even make a posting about the collector-base junction capacitance potentially starting an avalanche that leads to the collector-base junction breaking down and nobody says anything.
I thought the collector-base junction would break down before the emitter-base junction because the collector would be at higher potential than the emitter. I have long forgotten about the nuances about the inner guts of a transistor nor did I look at a datasheet. Needless to say, reverse current going through the base could theoretically come from the collector or the emitter.
So if you and PW have been talking about an emitter-base junction breakdown, then I apologize because I thought that the focus was on a collector-base junction breakdown. Only much more recently did I start thinking about a possible emitter-base junction breakdown.
MileHigh
Ah-ok,i see what happened now.
I just got all setup to look further into this emitter/base breakdown,and then seen you talking about collector/base breakdown. So went out to the workshop,and started looking for this collector/base breakdown,and posted my finding's. But now i know we are still talking about the emitter/base breakdown,i can continue on with that
Brad
-
Gosh Miles! :o
That sort of a response is troubling indeed! ???
Let us hope that you're not going into a "breakdown"
mode and that perhaps a little rest might restore your
vitality and sense of reason? ;)
The Tin Man makes perfect sense to me. 8)
I actually don't believe your last statement. You just want to step in for your typical little cameo and with a barely concealed smile on your face say something out of kilter that is in tune with the whole "Dr. Strangelove" atmosphere in the thread.
One can imagine a reedited Dr. Strangelove where a few times in the film they cut to some freezing sailor standing on watch on a navy ship way above the arctic circle. The freezing sailor doles out some quixotic "pearls of wisdom" that add to the whole unreality of the scene. Blame that behaviour on the effects of the chemtrails.
Thank you for your cameo.
-
I actually don't believe your last statement. You just want to step in for your typical little cameo and with a barely concealed smile on your face say something out of kilter that is in tune with the whole "Dr. Strangelove" atmosphere in the thread.
One can imagine a reedited Dr. Strangelove where a few times in the film they cut to some freezing sailor standing on watch on a navy ship way above the arctic circle. The freezing sailor doles out some quixotic "pearls of wisdom" that add to the whole unreality of the scene. Blame that behaviour on the effects of the chemtrails.
Thank you for your cameo.
Holy crap! I just had a visual of Slim Pickens riding a Joule Thief circuit dropped from a B-52.
I should get more sleep.
Bill
-
The scopes of base/collector junction show 20 something volts so one side of the scope probe (ground or probe) had to receive 0 volts (or near 0) while the other side had to receive the higher volts to produce that scope shot. So where did that 0 come from while the transistor is on (closed).
Measurement of a voltage potential is always made relative to some point of reference.
In this circuit, when the transistor is turned on, electrons flow from the negative terminal of the battery (BATT-) to the transistor's emitter, from the emitter thru the base/ L2 and collector/L1 paths and then back to the positive terminal of the battery (BATT+).
Where the scope reference (probe "ground" clip) is connected to the circuit determines the polarities (and values) of measured voltages.
In this circuit, when the transistor is turned on, the base terminal is approximately 0.7 volts less negative than the voltage at the emitter (which is the same as saying the base is 0.7V positive with respect to the emitter).
If the scope reference is the BATT+, when the transistor is turned on, the voltage at the base will measure approximately -0.8V and the emitter will measure -1.5V (assuming battery voltage is 1.5V). The voltage measured at the battery side of L1 and L2 will measure zero volts (excluding any Vdrop in wires).
If the scope reference is the BATT-, when the transistor is turned on, the voltage at the base will measure approximately +0.7V and the voltage at the emitter will measure 0.0V (again, excluding Vdrop in wires).
Both measurements are correct, it is all relative. This is why the measurement reference point must be specified for us to make sense of the measurements, particularly with regard to scope captures. Note how TK provided his reference as being the emitter in the scope capture (image) he recently posted. As well, Tinman typically provides a schematic with measurement and reference points indicated.
Use of the word "ground" is rather ambiguous, as there are actually some instances where that literally means connected to ground, such as a ground rod driven into the dirt. However, it is often just used to mean the measurement reference point, a circuit common, etc, and not necessarily meaning actually connected to an Earth ground.
PW
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg478907#msg478907 date=1459261299]
Brad:
In post #1296 I say this:
Why didn't you put the CVR for the collector trace on top of L1 so that you would not disturb the equipotential between the LED anode and the collector because preserving that equipotential might be important?
This is your reply in #1297:
<<< It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Learn something new. >>>
Oooh, I could take that as an insult. Wattsup would have an issue with your tone, better watch out.
MileHigh
For the very simple reason that we are looking for your current flow through the collector junction,into the base junction,due to junction breakdown.
You ask the dumbest of questions some time's.
Yes,the last bit-and the likes of,will not be included in my replies from now on.
Take a look at the attached schematic and weep. Is this not clear enough for you, "Why didn't you put the CVR for the collector trace on top of L1?"
As my answer above,and a little more for clarity.
If we put the CVR on top of L1,we would be seeing the current flowing through the LED,battery,and then back to the CVR on top of L1. As we wanted to see only the current flowing into the collector,through the collector/base junction,and then out through the base of the transistor during the OFF period,i placed the CVR on the collector to view only this current we were looking for.
If you look at the scope shot below,you will see why i placed the CVR at the collector,and what i was looking for.
The scope shot below is with the CVR on the emitter,and there you can see the spike i was looking for,in regards to this breakdown between the emitter and base junction.
Both channels are inverted,so as it is easier to match it with the reverse current flow out of the base,that has a positive potential.
I hope that clears that up.
Brad
-
One can imagine a reedited Dr. Strangelove where a few times in the film they cut to some freezing sailor standing on watch on a navy ship way above the arctic circle. The freezing sailor doles out some quixotic "pearls of wisdom" that add to the whole unreality of the scene. Blame that behaviour on the effects of the chemtrails.
Thank you for your cameo.
Lately there has been a steady increase in 'mercury' being found in west US. Not just in rivers and lakes but on the land. Mercury is pretty heavy. There is not that much westerly wind to say its from power plants, even if it were, the concentrations found it could not possibly be. I study this stuff. You dont. :P
Besides, even though you dont believe and have always 'denied' chem trails to exist, the gov has already admitted it but claim other reasons for it, like trying to reflect the heat of the sun to try and cool the earth down. And that clumsy admission is fact that they do spray, not assumption. Even Hawaii has had court battles to keep the chem trails from being dropped over their land. I can pull the documentation of that if you like. But you will just say its bogus spaghetti what ever. ::) But at least the readers can investigate themselves and see what garbage you post. :P
Tired of it all, for some time now. ;)
Mags
-
I don't post garbage but speaking of garbage, how is the "resonant Joule Thief" cumming along? Anything exciting to post?
-
I don't post garbage but speaking of garbage, how is the "resonant Joule Thief" cumming along? Anything exciting to post?
I have a new one going together this evening. Just spoke to Brad about it. Im using a 6mm OD ferrite toroid(input choke off a small cfl circuit board) and starting with 2t by 2t and will step up the turns if necessary incase of operational issues. The reason for beginning with 2 turns is to try and get the operating freq up to where we would need to be to get the core freq to resonate. The 3904 will operate up to 300mhz. Smoky said in a recent post about getting the core into saturation. So smaller core, easier saturation. Especially with the small amounts of power we are dealing with.
Windings will be 30awg. Very short wires so low resistance. Putting on a square of RS circuit board.
Mags
-
Great so post it on your thread when you are ready and we will see if a pulse switching circuit takes wings and really flies when you convert it into a resonant circuit.
-
When it becomes a resonant jt it will get its own thread. ;)
Mags
-
;D
Mags
-
I have a new one going together this evening. Just spoke to Brad about it. Im using a 6mm OD ferrite toroid(input choke off a small cfl circuit board) and starting with 2t by 2t and will step up the turns if necessary incase of operational issues. The reason for beginning with 2 turns is to try and get the operating freq up to where we would need to be to get the core freq to resonate. The 3904 will operate up to 300mhz. Smoky said in a recent post about getting the core into saturation. So smaller core, easier saturation. Especially with the small amounts of power we are dealing with.
Windings will be 30awg. Very short wires so low resistance. Putting on a square of RS circuit board.
Mags
Good for you. Those little toroids work quite well.
You may want to consider other transistors though. MPSA18, BC337-25, perhaps even MPSH10 for your higher frequencies.
Also don't forget about my 6-Pad JT design for circuit board:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5x8T2UkuI
-
Good for you. Those little toroids work quite well.
You may want to consider other transistors though. MPSA18, BC337-25, perhaps even MPSH10 for your higher frequencies.
Also don't forget about my 6-Pad JT design for circuit board:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5x8T2UkuI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5x8T2UkuI)
Nice. ;) Thanks, Ill try some different transistors.
Mags
-
I don't post garbage but speaking of garbage, how is the "resonant Joule Thief" cumming along? Anything exciting to post?
For the Engine & Resonance - beginners:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXsG4McpsqY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXsG4McpsqY)
http://www.daenotes.com/electronics/microwave-radar/cavity-resonator (http://www.daenotes.com/electronics/microwave-radar/cavity-resonator)
Its all the same, in serie and synchronise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl2aYFv_978 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl2aYFv_978)
So in harmony and each is contributing, not like mostly on this forum, more clear it can't be!
-
Yes Cavity resonance would seem a path to results.
your friend Robby squeezing 1HP for every 2CC's of displacement with a Huge standing wave.
here is a very simple Cavity resonance device which has always tickled My Fancy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZoiY3FvxKo
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg478909#msg478909 date=1459261930]
Instead of the stupid worn-out Joule Thief ad nauseam, I suggested a project for a circuit that is purpose-designed to drain a battery of as much energy as possible, and also keep a LED lit at a certain minimum brightness. Nobody said anything, just blank stares. How about an egg dropping competition then?
MileHigh
I already have that circuit--the Cool Joule.
It will pull the battery down to less than 150mV.
It will run for up to a year on a full 1.5v AAA battery,while recharging a second.
For a higher light output from the LED,simply remove battery 2.
A very simple circuit.
L1 and L2 cannot be hooked up the wrong way around,as the circuit dose not rely on inductive coupling between L1 and L2 to operate. Each coil must be hooked to the specific
connections on the circuit though.
@ PW
Dose this look like it operates using the miller capacitance effect? ;)
Brad
-
Yes Cavity resonance would seem a path to results.
your friend Robby squeezing 1HP for every 2CC's of displacement with a Huge standing wave.
here is a very simple Cavity resonance device which has always tickled My Fancy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZoiY3FvxKo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZoiY3FvxKo)
That's great, promoting a fake "resonance" device with a fake clip from a group of people that are universally recognized as fake scam artists.
-
Miles
Go Back to your Canadian scam promo's ,
here we have cavity resonance doing things it should not do in an ICE ,*1 HP per 2 CC's displacement.
Utilizing resonance to do this,[something you were clueless about yet felt the need to holler BS and call
Brad an idiot.
One Man's BS is another mans Curiosity ...
cavity resonance needs further investigation !
Just ask the Bug with a specifically designed cavity fist that Knocks photons out of orbit causing a 9000 C
biological sonoluminescent event .
Oh is he a proven scammer too ??
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=BBC+Pistol+shrimp&view=detail&mid=1128D1B631537D2C53981128D1B631537D2C5398&FORM=VIRE
your credibility here [cavity resonance ] is non existent.
To be Clear ...I hold Witts in complete contempt .
not so ..this claim about cavity resonance and the things which are truly possible .
The Bug Pings a cavity and gets 9000 C from water .
Ultrasound pinging a cavity ......?
-
here we have cavity resonance doing things it should not do in an ICE
Wow wee, if you put air into a cylinder under pressure it helps you get more air into the cylinder and therefore you can put more fuel into the cylinder for a bigger bang. That's really amazing out-of-the-box thinking that the PTB don't want you to know about. But the actual engine itself, the pistons, the valves, the camshaft, the crankcase, the ignition, etc, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with resonance.
And then you roll out the pistol shrimp for the 30th time - which has nothing to do with resonance.
-
Wow wee, if you put air into a cylinder under pressure it helps you get more air into the cylinder and therefore you can put more fuel into the cylinder for a bigger bang. That's really amazing out-of-the-box thinking that the PTB don't want you to know about. But the actual engine itself, the pistons, the valves, the camshaft, the crankcase, the ignition, etc, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with resonance.
The below linked paper is from the era where indepth research started on diesel engine's.
Once they started to understand what was going on within the engine itself,large advancements where made,and today the diesel engine can be found in race car's,where there performance is up there with the gasoline engine of the same cubic size.
High performance diesel engine's are common place today,and in the future i see them surpassing todays gasoline engines in performance and efficiencies.
As you will see in this paper from 2002,research and results are found and given on the cavity resonance inside the motors cylinder. The cavity in this case is the bowl found in diesel piston's,where resonance of this cavity plays a vital roll in engine efficiency and performance. These resonant frequencies are at the human audible range-between 10 and 20 KHz.
There is also a lot of information out there about the resonant vibration's of the ICEs cylinder wall's,and this also plays a vital roll in heat dissipation,and efficiencies.
Back when i was doing my trainee ship,there was very carful calculations made on the cooling fins of the two stroke air cooled engine,so as they did not go into resonance during the engines rev range. In the early day's,cooling fin's use to break off cylinders for no reason at all--or so they thought. But it was later found that some that were of the right size and shape-in relation to engine vibration,would go into resonance,and reach an amplitude that high,they would just break off--much the same as the wine glass reaching an amplitude where it can no longer hold the amount of built up energy.
Anyway,back to internal resonance of the ICE.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0jCyWkETt6wC&pg=PA352&lpg=PA352&dq=Cylinder+resonance+phenomenon+in+reciprocating+engines&source=bl&ots=QDonv4e45X&sig=bwpj56SnaSB3IWAYtK77RZOthBE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj05yjyejLAhWCH5QKHSUqAG8Q6AEIPDAI#v=onepage&q=Cylinder%20resonance%20phenomenon%20in%20reciprocating%20engines&f=false
Brad
-
Once resonance is achieved, the standard laws that govern EM "THEORY" no longer fully apply. In electrical circuits, resonance separates the dielectric/voltage component from the magnetic/amperage component. When this happens, you are into a new electrical paradigm in which what was operating largely as a closed system begins to operate as an open system, interacting much more readily with the local electrostatic environment. Similar open system shifts occur when mechanical systems or parts thereof begin to operate at resonance.
Bob
-
Once resonance is achieved, the standard laws that govern EM "THEORY" no longer fully apply. In electrical circuits, resonance separates the dielectric/voltage component from the magnetic/amperage component. When this happens, you are into a new electrical paradigm in which what was operating largely as a closed system begins to operate as an open system, interacting much more readily with the local electrostatic environment. Similar open system shifts occur when mechanical systems or parts thereof begin to operate at resonance.
Bob
No, that's complete nonsense and you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
-
Once resonance is achieved, the standard laws that govern EM "THEORY" no longer fully apply. In electrical circuits, resonance separates the dielectric/voltage component from the magnetic/amperage component. When this happens, you are into a new electrical paradigm in which what was operating largely as a closed system begins to operate as an open system, interacting much more readily with the local electrostatic environment. Similar open system shifts occur when mechanical systems or parts thereof begin to operate at resonance.
Bob
Dear Bob,
You naughty boy, you can't post this kind information without getting first permission, min. 5 copy and stamp, 3-6 month's waiting, this from the flying Upper-Totem-Pole.
And Right, you see, with in only 5 min. a negative reaction, Red-Card!!
WITTS, Ainslie .............. all crazy, according our balcony chicken / nickname.
Thanks, Johan
P.s. Fast jets are flying with slow burning Diesel fuel, the better LNG we let, because bad mixture with TMA, science slaves.
-
It's worthwhile to point out the truth, and reject wishful thinking and fantasy talk. We are adults and not children watching a cartoon. WITTS and Ainslie are fantasy junk, and the WITTS organization is just a front for sucking money out of people. Posting your resonance fantasies and stating them like they are true facts is simply ridiculous. It's the same reason that people spend $100 on a flashlight that supposedly "never needs recharging" and in reality it doesn't work. It looks like Orbo Girl has stopped posting her weekly updates for her cell phone that "never needs recharging." At least have the courage to speak the truth among yourselves. If you make a claim that is out of the ordinary then prove it.
The "Red Card" should be the "Red Truth Card." Forget your MIB fantasies. I played the truth card, this is not the Flintstones.
-
Anyway,back to internal resonance of the ICE.
As you will see in this paper from 2002,research and results are found and given on the cavity resonance inside the motors cylinder. The cavity in this case is the bowl found in diesel piston's,where resonance of this cavity plays a vital roll in engine efficiency and performance. These resonant frequencies are at the human audible range-between 10 and 20 KHz.
Really? You apparently didn't even read the results of your Google book search.
Yeah, when the fuel mixture explodes inside the cylinder, the burned gasses create pressure waves at resonant frequencies which causes an undesirable "diesel knock." This causes the engine block walls to vibrate causing noise radiation.
They are studying ways of understanding and reducing or eliminating this problem by putting pressure transducers inside the cylinders and recording the undesirable pressure waves associated with the combustion process.
So resonance in the combustion chamber is undesirable. It causes excessive noise and certainly if the walls of the engine block are taking on added vibrational stresses that's can't be a good thing. If you could eliminate that resonance, then the energy that causes the noise and vibrates the walls of the engine block could be directed towards pushing on the pistons instead.
MileHigh
-
That's just silly nit-picky BS because I am using common vernacular to describe the combustion in the cylinder. It's gratuitous nonsense. Why are you ignoring what is actually being stated, that resonance inside the cylinder is no good? You are creating your own Orwellian nightmare yourself. No need to brainwash the citizens, they will happily brainwash themselves.
-
That's just silly nit-picky BS because I am using common vernacular to describe the combustion in the cylinder. It's gratuitous nonsense. Why are you ignoring what is actually being stated, that resonance inside the cylinder is no good? You are creating your own Orwellian nightmare yourself. No need to brainwash the citizens, they will happily brainwash themselves.
Common words to use for people who 'know' about engines well enough to debate about them is 'burn' and 'detonation'.
Effects of resonance, from what Im seeing so far, can be had in just 1/4 cycle. When we disconnect input to a coil, the field collapse voltages rise to the freq of the coils resonant freq. So the first spike is at the resonant freq of the coil. If we look closer by changing the time base on the scope, we can see the spike is just the first upward, or downward, swing of the coils resonant cycle. So we dont have to have full, multiple waves of resonant freq for it to be called a resonance effect. The effects of it can be had in just 1/4 of the first wave. ;)
Mags
-
Really? You apparently didn't even read the results of your Google book search.
Yeah, when the fuel mixture explodes inside the cylinder, the burned gasses create pressure waves at resonant frequencies which causes an undesirable "diesel knock." This causes the engine block walls to vibrate causing noise radiation.
They are studying ways of understanding and reducing or eliminating this problem by putting pressure transducers inside the cylinders and recording the undesirable pressure waves associated with the combustion process.
So resonance in the combustion chamber is undesirable. It causes excessive noise and certainly if the walls of the engine block are taking on added vibrational stresses that's can't be a good thing. If you could eliminate that resonance, then the energy that causes the noise and vibrates the walls of the engine block could be directed towards pushing on the pistons instead.
MileHigh
MH
I was replying in regards to your comment -Quote: But the actual engine itself, the pistons, the valves, the camshaft, the crankcase, the ignition, etc, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with resonance.
The fact is,i have read that paper,and many more like it.that are based around the same research.
What they are saying,is that the correct bowl cavity shape and size within the piston,plays a vital roll in the performance of that engine. they are showing you how the incorrect bowl configuration can lead to unwanted vibration's,and thus expended energy in way of vibration's.
Like i said,there is much more research and information on combustion resonance research,and this has led to todays very high performance diesel engine's. They shape this bowl in such a way that it creates a standing wave within that bowl,which has led to much faster,complete, and more powerful combustion explosion's.
These are not fairy tails MH,these are realities.
So we can either base our research around realities,or we can continue to put all our eggs into the one basket that is doomed to fall.
You are very correct when you say that some resonance in ICE's is a bad thing--E.G,like i was saying with the cooling fin's of the old air cooled ICE's. But there are also places that achieving resonant states increases the performance of the engine. The best research is done by finding the wanted and unwanted resonant states of each component of the ICE.
It is the very same for a transformer,where reaching a resonant state of that transformer will allow you to draw more energy from that transformer,while at the same time reducing the input energy to that transformer. So resonance dose indeed increase efficiencies.
Brad
-
No, that's complete nonsense and you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Thank you for proving my point.
Bob
-
Dear Bob,
You naughty boy, you can't post this kind information without getting first permission, min. 5 copy and stamp, 3-6 month's waiting, this from the flying Upper-Totem-Pole.
And Right, you see, with in only 5 min. a negative reaction, Red-Card!!
WITTS, Ainslie .............. all crazy, according our balcony chicken / nickname.
Thanks, Johan
P.s. Fast jets are flying with slow burning Diesel fuel, the better LNG we let, because bad mixture with TMA, science slaves.
Heh heh
Yes,
I have transgressed the paradigmantic norms
And spoken of things taboo.
Your red card I gladly will take with honour,
And wear it with pride, I shall too!
;)
Bob Smith
Resonant Renegade
Running with a shaky crowd :o
-
Common words to use for people who 'know' about engines well enough to debate about them is 'burn' and 'detonation'.
Effects of resonance, from what Im seeing so far, can be had in just 1/4 cycle. When we disconnect input to a coil, the field collapse voltages rise to the freq of the coils resonant freq. So the first spike is at the resonant freq of the coil. If we look closer by changing the time base on the scope, we can see the spike is just the first upward, or downward, swing of the coils resonant cycle. So we dont have to have full, multiple waves of resonant freq for it to be called a resonance effect. The effects of it can be had in just 1/4 of the first wave. ;)
Mags
This sounds like the nodding duck affirmation club, just believe what you want to believe to make yourself happy.
-
...
Bob Smith
Resonant Renegade
Running with a shaky crowd :o
Excellent! You've got Spunk! ;)
Rotational Resonance in machinery that is
inherently "unbalanced" can be very "shaky"
itself. To the point of self destruction on
occasion. :( :'(
-
Brad:
If there is "much more research and information on combustion resonance research" then how come the only link you could come up with talked about the undesirable effects of any kind of resonance associated with combustion in a cylinder? Right now I am suspecting that you tried to find something and thought that you struck pay-dirt, but you didn't really read through it. I am sure there is a ton of research on combustion in a piston, but you are going to have to prove with good links that there is "combustion resonance research" to convince me.
MileHigh
-
Thank you for proving my point.
Bob
This is not Planet Bizarro and I did not "prove your point." The burden of proof would be on you to prove your outlandish claims. Strangely enough, seemingly nobody in the trillion-dollar global electronics industry is drinking the same Kool-Aid as you. The truth is that you are just cranking out words with no meaning because it feels good. It's the revenge of the nodding duckie.
-
This is for all you edgy resonance rebels to draw inspiration from.
Dig.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZuFq4CfRR8&spfreload=10
-
Brad:
If there is "much more research and information on combustion resonance research" then how come the only link you could come up with talked about the undesirable effects of any kind of resonance associated with combustion in a cylinder? Right now I am suspecting that you tried to find something and thought that you struck pay-dirt, but you didn't really read through it. I am sure there is a ton of research on combustion in a piston, but you are going to have to prove with good links that there is "combustion resonance research" to convince me.
MileHigh
I will dig up some more info for you ASAP.
Like I said, there is truth in what you say about unwanted resonance. But that truth also dismisses your claim about there being no resonancs what so ever within the internals of the ICE ir self.
They use information gathered around these resonant effect to increase the efficiency of the ICE.
Brad
-
while this is interesting and all, History seems to side with Milehigh on this one.
It was discovered in the days of early locomotive trains,
when 4-cylinder Sterling engines were being used to ship goods across the country
the resonant frequency of the combustion chamber
(think of it as the tube of a pipe organ)
results in an uncontrollable vibration that shook the entire train to pieces.
every since then, engines were designed NOT to do this.
from the intake, to the stroke distance, the explosion time, to the exhaust.
This timing is intentionally designed to NOT be resonant with the combustion chamber.
Otherwise, the standing wave would make the engines RPM unpredictable,
and cause unwanted vibrations at the resonant frequency, throughout the entire vehicle.
This is just one form of resonance that can occur (the primary one) within an ICE.
there are also, resonances that can occur within the drive-belt system.
diameters of pulleys, spinning masses, tension, and a tiny wobble in one of the pulleys,
at just the right rpm, you can shake the engine on its' mounts!
there are also resonances that can occur within the exhaust system,
as it pertains to RPM, back-pressure, lengths and diameters of the pipes, etc.
one of the functions of the muffler/cat is to restrict flow to prevent resonance.
full resonance resulted in a violent 'sputtering' of the exhaust
while half-wave created a vacuum in the exhaust manifold that decreased the overall power of the engine.
or even back-firing
cars that remove these components can sometimes experience this.
Now, half the bore of your engine, squared, times pi,
which is coincidentally, the displacement, as well as the volume of the resonant standing wave...
is a frequency in the Ghz range.
so the resonance you are incurring is the 6th lower harmonic.
or rather, the 6th higher harmonic of the engines RPM can be resonant with the combustion cylinder.
[this is unwanted]
I said that both ways, so everyone gets it.
I like to think of these things as being transfluent, like a musical scale.
going up or down to infinity and the infinitesimal.
then all I have to keep track of is at what point it goes from a multiple, to a divisor.
Some people, because of education or occupation, are trained to only go up, or only down respectively.
If you think about the frequency of the explosions,
with respect to the volume of gas exiting during the exhaust part of the cycle
and the volume of tube this gas will occupy during the amount of time before the next gush comes out.
a resonance in this volume of the pipe will do nothing good for the engine cycle,
because it is post-exhaust.
It can either evacuate the chamber very quickly, or it can restrict such from occurring.
If either of these conditions exceed engine tolerances, it causes problems.
Resonance may help push the exhaust out the end of the tailpipe, and I guess in some abstract way it can help
with propulsion (pulsejet?)
but I would hardly consider that to be an "efficiency gain", when considering the eventual replacement
of rubber mounts, and weld-points.
Now, if we consider a resonance in the intake part of the engine,
perhaps the periodicity of pulses from the fuel pump,
with respect to the intakes of the cylinders
this could result in a decrease in restrictive flow losses from tank to engine
meaning less "load" on the fuel pump,
perhaps there is an RPM, which your fuel pump works more efficiently.
how much of the cars fuel usage is attributed to the pump? not much.....
But this does give futile credence to an ICE resonance discussion.
[Then I said to myself:
"self - you just said to them that resonance was a bad thing, then showed them a way that it could help!"
and myself said to me "No, you just got turned around at the alternator".]
the alternator!?!
This operates desirably at a self resonant frequency,. the manufacturer told us so.....
can we drive at an RPM, that our alternator operates the best at?
yes, when the A/C clutch is not engaged, you can generally notice a brightening of your dash lights
within a certain RPM range.
it is usually between 2 and 3,000 or so, when the secondary coil is fully saturated, and the belt is spinning at just the right speed.
Then we get to resonance in the tires/wheels....... let's not waste our time, its just Bad...
Now,. we can go through all of the systems within car, or motorcycle, or gocart, or lawnmower,
and find different scenarios where resonance may help or hinder operation.
But it is impossible for all of these frequencies to be resonant together.
you may have one, or another, at different rpms.
it all seems like a pointless argument, in general you don't want resonances in an ICE,
and if you did manage to achieve one that was helpful, you have to keep your vehicle at that RPM
to sustain the effect....
drive 55 Mph, and only on cold days.
you will get the best MPG :)
-
Yes Cavity resonance would seem a path to results.
your friend Robby squeezing 1HP for every 2CC's of displacement with a Huge standing wave.
here is a very simple Cavity resonance device which has always tickled My Fancy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZoiY3FvxKo
That doesn't belong to them.
This was part of a set of experiments done by a scientist named Peter Davey
Physical acoustic vibrations simulate the effect caused electromagnetically by your microwave oven.
the larger sphere shown here, is a container, holding the water.
the "heater" is a smaller sphere inside, of a specific diameter.
Peter worked on this technology for the later of the last 20 years of his life.
it got media attention in 2008, (he was 91 or 92 then)
but still able to explain how it works in great detail.
its quite simple, but so complex no one understands it.
a standing wave is created inside the sphere, which causes it to physically vibrate like a speaker.
the water vibrates at the same freq, which causes it to heat up.
you can't see it in this (hijacked) video, because its inside the thing that is shown,
which is just a tank of water.
-
Wow wee, if you put air into a cylinder under pressure it helps you get more air into the cylinder and therefore you can put more fuel into the cylinder for a bigger bang. That's really amazing out-of-the-box thinking that the PTB don't want you to know about. But the actual engine itself, the pistons, the valves, the camshaft, the crankcase, the ignition, etc, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with resonance.
And then you roll out the pistol shrimp for the 30th time - which has nothing to do with resonance.
Than why more joule on a spark-plug is not always better?
When the Plasma-Ingition builders, are doing measurements than they will agree: That a certain fuel needs a certain spark! ;-))
-
It's worthwhile to point out the truth, and reject wishful thinking and fantasy talk. We are adults and not children watching a cartoon. WITTS and Ainslie are fantasy junk, and the WITTS organization is just a front for sucking money out of people. Posting your resonance fantasies and stating them like they are true facts is simply ridiculous. It's the same reason that people spend $100 on a flashlight that supposedly "never needs recharging" and in reality it doesn't work. It looks like Orbo Girl has stopped posting her weekly updates for her cell phone that "never needs recharging." At least have the courage to speak the truth among yourselves. If you make a claim that is out of the ordinary then prove it.
The "Red Card" should be the "Red Truth Card." Forget your MIB fantasies. I played the truth card, this is not the Flintstones.
Wow, so defensive, your typing like a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun)
Not sharp, but just random, every is your enemy: Bedini, Dollard, what did you say about Cristal-Meth?
So many need for compensating, can be: Lonely, balcony to low, .................. ?
Please and Real, come here for a month's or 2, welcome if you have the .............. or nuts!
Next take: RA, now some other engine (electric) on the move, yep retired, you still not?
-
author=sm0ky2 link=topic=8341.msg479089#msg479089 date=1459410978]
while this is interesting and all, History seems to side with Milehigh on this one.
No one was arguing with MH that some !!some!! resonant factors within the ICE can give a negative value to efficiencies.
But how is it that MH can state !once again! that Quote: But the actual engine itself, the pistons, the valves, the camshaft, the crankcase, the ignition, etc, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with resonance.,and then place some sort of valid argument that these resonances can cause negative effects,when he also states they are not here to begin with ???
one of the functions of the muffler/cat is to restrict flow to prevent resonance.
full resonance resulted in a violent 'sputtering' of the exhaust
while half-wave created a vacuum in the exhaust manifold that decreased the overall power of the engine.
or even back-firing
cars that remove these components can sometimes experience this.
This is totally incorrect.
The muffler is only designed to reduce the noise level of the exhaust-and nothing more.
Hi performance muffler's were designed so as to reduce noise level's,while providing the least restrictive exhaust flow.
The cat converter is only there to reduce harmful emissions produced by the burnt fuel-and nothing more.
I have been building high performance engines for over 30 year's,and we always design the exhaust systems to be as free flowing as possible. As soon as you add back pressure to the exaust gasses,the engine it self then has to push these gasses out,and that exerts a pressure on the pistons,and thus reduces the HP of the engine.
If you think about the frequency of the explosions,
with respect to the volume of gas exiting during the exhaust part of the cycle
and the volume of tube this gas will occupy during the amount of time before the next gush comes out.
a resonance in this volume of the pipe will do nothing good for the engine cycle,
because it is post-exhaust.
This is also absolutely incorrect.
The two stroke engine relies on resonance in the exhausts expansion chamber,to ensure a total evacuation of the burnt fuel/gas mix from the cylinder,and to draw part of the fresh charge from the crank case,into the expansion chamber,where the returning pressure wave inside the expansion chamber then pushes this new part of fresh charge back into the cylinder at the precise time the piston is about to close the exhaust port.
For the 4 stoke engine,it is as i said in my previous reply--the less the restriction,the more efficient the engine will be.
It is possible to tune the exhaust pipe length for each cylinder,so as the next exhaust cycle is sucked out by the previous exhaust gas charge that has now cooled and contracted. This creates a vacuum in the tube,and it is that vacuum that draws out the new charge of exhaust gas. This creates a situation now where the piston it self is not what pushes the exhaust gases out. These tuned lengths of exhaust pipe's -some people will know them--there called extractor's.--> If you want to increase the efficiency of your car,then you fit extractors-or header's,which are a more compact system,but not as efficient as extractors.
So any restriction on an exhaust system only results in a loss of power,as your pistons have now become compressors,and this reduces the HP of your engine,as well as overall efficiency.
It can either evacuate the chamber very quickly, or it can restrict such from occurring.
If either of these conditions exceed engine tolerances, it causes problems.
The very thing you!do! want to do,is evacuate the burnt gases from the cylinder as fast as you can in any ICE,when it is on it's exhaust stroke. There is no need at all to keep hot,burnt gases inside the engines cylinder. This would only increase the engines temperature,and that results in an efficiency decrease--a hot engine is not a happy engine.
Resonance may help push the exhaust out the end of the tailpipe, and I guess in some abstract way it can help
with propulsion (pulsejet?)
but I would hardly consider that to be an "efficiency gain", when considering the eventual replacement
of rubber mounts, and weld-points.
I have no idea as to what replacing consumable parts has to do with engine efficiencies.
Now, if we consider a resonance in the intake part of the engine,
perhaps the periodicity of pulses from the fuel pump,
with respect to the intakes of the cylinders
this could result in a decrease in restrictive flow losses from tank to engine
meaning less "load" on the fuel pump,
perhaps there is an RPM, which your fuel pump works more efficiently.
how much of the cars fuel usage is attributed to the pump? not much.....
But this does give futile credence to an ICE resonance discussion.
This also makes no sense at all,as all direct injection engine's inject there fuel into the cylinder when the compression is almost at it's highest point,and so there is no resonant state that can change the pressure the fuel system has to overcome.
If we then look at ICE's that have a gravity feed system,like most motorcycle's and stationary engine's,then there is no fuel pump load,as there is no fuel pump.
Then there is the alternator.
This operates desirably at a self resonant frequency,. the manufacturer told us so.....
can we drive at an RPM, that our alternator operates the best at?
yes, when the A/C clutch is not engaged, you can generally notice a brightening of your dash lights
within a certain RPM range.
it is usually between 2 and 3,000 or so, when the secondary coil is fully saturated, and the belt is spinning at just the right speed.
At this point smOky2,i would suggest a refresher coarse in automotive electrical system's.
Then we get to resonance in the tires/wheels....... let's not waste our time, its just Bad...
This is called wheel balancing,and has nothing to do with resonant factors until you get into large lug tires-such as mud terrain tires.
it all seems like a pointless argument, in general you don't want resonances in an ICE,
and if you did manage to achieve one that was helpful, you have to keep your vehicle at that RPM
to sustain the effect....
drive 55 Mph, and only on cold days.
you will get the best MPG :)
Once again--not even close to correct.
All of todays high end performance engines rely on resonant effects that are tuned to achieve the desired result's. Those results are-high HP output,high efficiencies,and an engine that is as compact as it can be made.
It is post like this that make me angry.
We are here to present the most accurate of data,and developing system's ,in the hope of bettering our live's,and making the world a better place for our children.
The ICE is going to be here for some time yet,so the only thing we can do,is make the ICE the best we can.
So it is imperative that correct information is provided,and not some incorrect assumptions presented from some one that is not well versed in the area of the ICE.
Brad.
-
@all
Boy if this was a baseball game, what is the score and where the hell is the bear vendor? Why are you guys changing the issues here? What happened? We all know that any resonance issues in a car or a wine glass is totally irrelevant to our coils. Try and make a link and you will just be going down another dead end road or in this baseball case, running around in circles. Come on.
@picowatt
Thanks for your very concise comments. I have so much to say about this but it seems the topic has derailed so I will just wait.
@tinman
Nothing is more important then that little circuit.
wattsup
-
...it seems the topic has derailed...
A well rounded study of resonance as it applies to any
possible circuit configuration would seem only to enable
a greater comprehension of the various resonances which
exist within the simple Joule Thief Blocking Oscillator.
I love it when discussions delve into "side effects." Often
a True Gem of Knowledge will manifest which broadens the
abillity to think Outside the Box. The thoughts and experiences
of others are a wonderful resource.
-
Resonance is the elephant in the room, I'm afraid. Standard EM theory cannot account for its anomalous effects.
-
Had issues with my ebike yesterday and had to diagnose and repair. Tiny turn on wire at the controller had broken away from its connector. Suspected a more likely battery or switch connection at first. Its a 48v sla battery setup. The 48v chargers go bad too often so I used 4 DPDT switches to convert the batteries from series for running and parallel for charging and use a Shumacher 12v charger. So many things could have possibly happened there with soo many connections. But no. ;D
So Im finishing the tiny JT here after dinner. Hoping for the best. Looking to make it tight with all leads of components as short as possible. Making 2 identical circuits on their own boards.
Looking for core resonance. ;)
Mags
-
Resonance is the elephant in the room, I'm afraid. Standard EM theory cannot account for its anomalous effects.
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."
- Winston Churchill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4IVEUapInk
-
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."
- Winston Churchill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4IVEUapInk
Glad you agree with me.
-
You can try to play silly games all you want, but in the end someone has to prove what you say is true. The fact is it is not true. Disagree? Then the burden of proof is on you, and that is an incontrovertible fact.
-
Resonance is the elephant in the room, I'm afraid. Standard EM theory cannot account for its anomalous effects.
While it is true that the subsonic calls made by elephants can at times invoke fear, there really is no need to be afraid.
That said, what are those "anomalous effects" that you speak of?
PW
-
...what are those "anomalous effects" that you speak of?
Perhaps first we should specify the type of "resonance" from
among the multitude of possibilities?
-
Perhaps first we should specify the type of "resonance" from
among the multitude of possibilities?
Do you know of any "anomalous effects" from any type of resonance?
Pw
-
Do you know of any "anomalous effects" from any type of resonance?
Pw
Isn't that why this thread started, because of anomalous effects of resonance?
-
Isn't that why this thread started, because of anomalous effects of resonance?
The first sentences of the first post on page one of this thread:
This thread is intended to be a place for people to learn the basics of how to make a JT ( Joule Thief ) and what can be done with them .
This thread is not to be used for asking questions or casual dialog . This thread is to be kept short and clean . The goal is to pack as much knowledge into a few dozen pages .
More recently there has been discussions related to resonance.
Some resonant conditions can be a bad thing, some can be a good thing, but I was unaware of any "anomalous effects" related to resonance that "standard EM theory", for example, cannot account for.
PW
-
Here is the circuit. I gotta git. 1:15 AM.
Will hook it up tomorrow n test. Still gotta put pins on the board for the scope.
Mags
-
Oh. The switch is to change the led from across the transistor to across the coil. And started this one with 3 turns.
Mags
-
The first sentences of the first post on page one of this thread:
More recently there has been discussions related to resonance.
Some resonant conditions can be a bad thing, some can be a good thing, but I was unaware of any "anomalous effects" related to resonance that "standard EM theory", for example, cannot account for.
PW
Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.
The biggest problem here,and by here i mean !world wide!,is that it seems most(if not all) have just settled for knowing what the magnetic field dose,and how we can use that magnetic field. It seems that no one is any longer interested in knowing -or trying to find out what the magnetic force is.
If we knew this,then we could then design devices based around that new found knowledge,and only then would we have machines that can be powered by PM's alone.
No one seems to even want to try and find out what the magnetic force is--but it is something,we know it is,as we can feel it.
Brad
-
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."
- Winston Churchill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4IVEUapInk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4IVEUapInk)
Mirror mirror, recognise: That the guy is talking only about his self, like you mostly when its over others!
The proof, picking the most short convenient so called true movie, study before you talk, this especially because our a appriciated host, Stephan Hartmann is also German, you blind Soul.
Educate you're self before typing, see the full true:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA7_S8oD7HU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA7_S8oD7HU)
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheWorldWar2History/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/TheWorldWar2History/videos)
You talk, and have no idea what you're saying!
So you're also believing that Napoleon was beaten by UK? ???
You are the perfect Tax-Payer, non social or democratic.
-
author=Erfinder link=topic=8341.msg479193#msg479193 date=1459507665]
I mean no one any disrespect, I get something from all of you, and would like to give back to the community one day. I feel I cannot accomplish this task so long as we cannot get beyond defending concepts which which didn't originate at least in part with individuals participating in the discussion.
Speaking for myself, I do want to know what the force is and where it comes from, and am actively perusing this aim.
As am i,and i think i may be close--we shall see.
The discussions taking place here, specifically the debate between you and Milehigh, is what keeps folks like myself from participating.
Because the time has come for me !once again! to believe in what i see,and not what im told i should be seeing.
The books have their place, and that place is not at the center of a brainstorming and speculation discussion. Nothing in the literature as far as I have been able to discern, has led anyone to a definitive answer.
That comment is at the heart of the problem we face here. There are those that !stick to the book's!,and those that believe we have not been told the complete truth--through the eyes of the book's.
We are guided by !so called! laws that are older than anyone on this forum.
The fact is,they are not laws at all--they are nothing more than a !best guess! ,that is derived from that that is known so far--or has been given ::)
This is not to say that the answer isn't in there somewhere, nor does it imply that if and when the answer is found, that the books cannot qualify it.
Anything can be twisted,so as it kind of represents something that is not there. It's much like being able to make pictures from cloud's-even though there just cloud's.
Our position should be neutral, this enables us to take the best from that which we are exposed to and combine it in any manner we see fit.
That is !how! it should be,but it is how it is not.
There are those here that !must! adhere to the book's,and the partial truths they preach.
The answer is probably not going to be as straight forward as books would have it to be, nor as simple as some researchers wish for it to be. We wont catch a glimpse of it if we are preoccupied with defending ideas which were prepared for us.
Time defending truth's are never a waste of time--they are a path built toward a correct understanding to the subject at hand.
If we let untruths slide,then those behind us will only be set on a false path--and this is how great things are missed.
The answers are in the book when we identify them, until that time, they aren't there.
I do not believe they are. In fact,i believe they have been left out on purpose-so as man can go no further than he has gone. Even when there are those that provide systems that greatly increase efficiencies--no one is interested.
I will give you an example of such,and this example is for an ICE--the 4 stroke,186ci holden 6 cylinder ICE valve train. It has 87 moving part's,and draws about 4HP from the engine. It has a limit of speed at which it can operate.
At the age of just 23,i designed a valve system for the same motor,that had only 3 moving part's,required only 1/40th of the power to drive it,and had no limit to the RPM at which it would operate--you could never get to a stage where you would encounter valve float--or valve bounce as some call it.
A local machine shop produced a prototype of my system,and the engine ran extremely well.
Over the next 6 month's,i(and my employer at the time) tried to find an interested motor manufacture to take on the design--but not one was interested.
The ICEs of today have many more moving part's--not less. Now we have 2 or 4 cam shafts. We have 4 valves per cylinder,which means more valve spring's,retainer collets,stem seals,clearance shim's-the list go's on. All these extra parts need more power to drive them.
It just seems to me,that we are going backwards in this area--the ICE.
I feel the same about many thing's,where as it seems that we are just not going any further forward--we are stuck with the same old stuff we had 30 years ago when it comes to power generation--of all types.
It is becoming more and more apparent each day that there are technologies out there that are being hidden from us,and if anyone comes up with something that the powers that be cannot control -or give us some sort of freedom,then they are quickly silenced one way or the other.
Brad
-
It just seems to me,that we are going backwards in this area--the ICE.
I feel the same about many thing's,where as it seems that we are just not going any further forward--we are stuck with the same old stuff we had 30 years ago when it comes to power generation--of all types.
It is becoming more and more apparent each day that there are technologies out there that are being hidden from us,and if anyone comes up with something that the powers that be cannot control -or give us some sort of freedom,then they are quickly silenced one way or the other.
Brad
The Uni's need money, so students are not anymore selected on there natural talents, most youngsters are graphing a study direction for status, MH on R&D is not working, but a Luc would be Perfect.
The book-keeper technicians are taking over, licking to above and kicking to below, or in there thinking what below is, like proven if you miss in grammar a pointy or comma.
The 2-stroke engine is killed, why?
Not because of CO2, below a pic of a 2-stroke patent, CO2 neutral like a 4-stroke, old and now open-source!?!?
Because of: Small factories with TALENT could beat Honda, Suzuki, Yamaha or ..................... , look: Kreidler, Jamathi, Piovattici, Derbi.
-
Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.
The biggest problem here,and by here i mean !world wide!,is that it seems most(if not all) have just settled for knowing what the magnetic field dose,and how we can use that magnetic field. It seems that no one is any longer interested in knowing -or trying to find out what the magnetic force is.
If we knew this,then we could then design devices based around that new found knowledge,and only then would we have machines that can be powered by PM's alone.
No one seems to even want to try and find out what the magnetic force is--but it is something,we know it is,as we can feel it.
Brad
@tinman
That's what I am working on. Exactly to find a new way. You will see soon man.
Example: In the JT circuit, the 1k resistor for me is the worst component to use. It is better to find a small transformer that has a primary with 1k resistance where the secondary can still put energy back into the battery.
I am about to post two effect diagrams of the circuit using my new STEP model of Spin Conveyance. This is new. I am just holding back because I do not really think guys are really ready for this. Anyways I will finish it and post it and we shall see how our present EE structure mentality will be able to cope with the premise. Premise maybe but it fits all our effect right down to a "T".
@picowatt
Thanks again for your response. I had prepared a post but it is too long. I would simply like to provide a practical description of using the scope.
You measure across a CVR, probe on one side and ground clip on the other side. You see the waveform on the scope. The waveform tells you something which is based on the difference in energy states of both the positive and negative side of the CVR (or high positive and lower positive, or, high negative and lower negative).
So while you see the waveform, you remove the ground clip and see on of the following;
1) The waveform shows the exact same waveform result.
2) The waveform shows a higher energy state.
3) The waveform shows a lower energy state.
What do each of these states tell you? I do not want to give you my input on this as I do not want to influence how your response may be.
Then,,,,,,,,,,,
The fact that a CVR is being injected into the circuit for measurement purposes automatically cancels the real effect of the circuit. We never know up to which level of effect the CVR will have on the circuit and as we measure and correlate those results, are we now actually following a slightly or widely warped functionality of the circuit and not the true intended circuit operation?
This is the problem. We can use CVRs for years and nothing will be truly known because the CVR could be creating bottlenecks in the circuit that we are totally unaware of during the measurements.
So then why has science not established a method of measurement requiring only the one scope probe where the ground potential is set to a universally accepted level in order for everyone to measure at a same method. Or why are we not using small current measurement inductors like a miniature clamp on ammeter. Imagine if this was created and used in all our benches, we could then measure the true functionality without modifying the real circuit.
I can give you examples like this to fill up pages and pages more. It seems to me that in these forums we have the EE side and the OU side. The EE side spends all its time setting the OU side straight. But I could tear down the EE side in a few pages and then what would we be left with?
It seems to me that if the EE side is to become a useful and pertinent part of the OU effort, then those EEers should unite their efforts to establish new accepted ways of non-intrusive measurements. If the EE side established this on their own, the outcome would be uncontested with new tools for the OUer to use and understand and explain circuit operations. Right now, if we take the JT thread as an example, all these measurements @tinman made amount to what? What have we really learned about the circuit? Such a simple circuit yet what have we learned any more then what we always learn as being the surface effect and not going any deeper. There has to be a way. There absolutely has to be a way to just put your scope probe anywhere on a circuit without the ground clip connected and see the actual energy states in that specific point of the circuit without modifying or influencing any deleterious effects to the circuit. How come EEers have not worked this out between themselves after how many countless decades on the bench? Don't know.
We will see this weekend when I post up my effect diagram, using @tinmans JT circuit, just how polyvalent our minds are. But most importantly just how objective we can be to understand something new.
wattsup
-
It is becoming more and more apparent each day that there are technologies out there that are being hidden from us,and if anyone comes up with something that the powers that be cannot control -or give us some sort of freedom,then they are quickly silenced one way or the other.
Brad
About the first 2-stroke resonance, read this:
http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/classic-japanese-motorcycles/suzuki-ernst-degner-ze0z1202zsch.aspx (http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/classic-japanese-motorcycles/suzuki-ernst-degner-ze0z1202zsch.aspx)
MZ, Jawa, en CZ, are in located in the Europe area of where Tesla is born, mostly named as Gipsy / Occult area, a name calling because of other knowledge, to difficult for the book-keepers.
Japan did steal it (2-stroke) from above with money, US was the not invited gast for the Werner VonBraun Fire-Cracker now Nasa technology, and using Churchill for there goal, so UK is used without that they know it by US!?
-
@picowatt
Thanks again for your response. I had prepared a post but it is too long. I would simply like to provide a practical description of using the scope.
You measure across a CVR, probe on one side and ground clip on the other side. You see the waveform on the scope. The waveform tells you something which is based on the difference in energy states of both the positive and negative side of the CVR (or high positive and lower positive, or, high negative and lower negative).
So while you see the waveform, you remove the ground clip and see on of the following;
1) The waveform shows the exact same waveform result.
2) The waveform shows a higher energy state.
3) The waveform shows a lower energy state.
What do each of these states tell you? I do not want to give you my input on this as I do not want to influence how your response may be.
There is nothing mystical about the operation of an oscilloscope. Regardless of what you do with the ground clip (scope reference), the 'scope will continue to measure between the probe tip and its ground reference (which may, depending upon what it is you are measuring, just be just capacitive or inductively coupled noise).
Your questions are no different than asking about the use of a voltmeter. If you connect the two probes of a voltmeter across a battery's terminals to measure its voltage, should I be perplexed when disconnecting one of the leads changes that measurement?
Do you have a particular measurement you wish to discuss?
Regarding the use of a CVR, there is no mystery there as well. The measurements across a CVR allow the current flow to be measured with a meter or visualized with a scope. Adding the typically small resistance of a CVR to a circuit and the effect that has on that circuit is also well understood. More often the use of a CVR is less desirable because of the need for a measurement isolated from another measurement than it is with regard to how that CVR affects the circuit.
When use of a CVR is deemed to invasive or impractical, a current probe can be used, which is isolated from the citrcuit.
You seem to be struggling with the idea that all measurements are made with regard to a point of reference. Forgive me if not, but was it you that stated AC proves electron's don't exist because the neutral in US AC distribution systems is "zero volts"?
Again, all measurements are relative...
PW
-
There is nothing mystical about the operation of an oscilloscope. Regardless of what you do with the ground clip (scope reference), the 'scope will continue to measure between the probe tip and its ground reference (which may, depending upon what it is you are measuring, just be just capacitive or inductively coupled noise).
Your questions are no different than asking about the use of a voltmeter. If you connect the two probes of a voltmeter across a battery's terminals to measure its voltage, should I be perplexed when disconnecting one of the leads changes that measurement?
Do you have a particular measurement you wish to discuss?
Regarding the use of a CVR, there is no mystery there as well. The measurements across a CVR allow the current flow to be measured with a meter or visualized with a scope. Adding the typically small resistance of a CVR to a circuit and the effect that has on that circuit is also well understood. More often the use of a CVR is less desirable because of the need for a measurement isolated from another measurement than it is with regard to how that CVR affects the circuit.
When use of a CVR is deemed to invasive or impractical, a current probe can be used, which is isolated from the citrcuit.
You seem to be struggling with the idea that all measurements are made with regard to a point of reference. Forgive me if not, but was it you that stated AC proves electron's don't exist because the neutral in US AC distribution systems is "zero volts"?
Again, all measurements are relative...
PW
Well i have found a problem here,and it involves the resistors.
The discovery came after the video below that i made in the search for junction capacitance.
Please pay careful attention to the diode test. This is a 1n4007 diode in the video. :o
After a couple of days thinking about this,i knew something was not right. There was just no way that diode could have enough junction capacitance to light that LED the way it was.
Tonight i ran some more test,and made a discovery that define's a major flaw in the JT circuits measurements by way of scope,and DMM's. What you see on your scope and DMMs ,is not what is there at all.
I will let you watch the video,and see if you can see where these errors lye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyvcMbSxAo0
Brad
-
Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
It took me about five seconds to come up with a thought experiment that does exactly that. Don't bother asking me, you "out of the box" brainiacs can ponder that one yourselves and answer it yourselves. If nobody can answer it, then you are back to the same old conundrum where "you guys only know what is in books" and yet you guys can't apply the knowledge that you are supposed to know to answer simple questions. Both EMJunkie and Wattsup could not answer the very same simple question that I posed to them about a coil. EMJunkie had a hard time with that and threw every "tech sounding" phrase that he associated with coils at the problem and nothing was correct. So after about 15 to 25 tries in vain by EMJunkie, MarkE answered the question. Then EMJunkie had the gall to come here and post that it never happened, which was an outright lie. And that's part of the reason I posted the two wine glass questions.
-
Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.
So I guess no one can think of an "anomalous effect" caused by resonance....
As to this different question that you raise, rather simplistically speaking, here is my take on it:
We are to believe that the magnetic field produced by a PM is due to the motion of electrons in atoms with unpaired outer shell electrons, parallel alignment of groups of those atoms into domains, alignment of those domains towards a given direction, and retention of those domain alignments due to the pinning forces created by the inclusion of different atoms positioned between the domains.
When current flows thru a conductor, we are to believe that electrons are flowing from one point to another within that conductor and that the motion of those electrons thru the conductor produces a magnetic field similar to that produced by the motion of the electrons in the atoms of the PM.
Placing a PM next to a conductor may cause the electrons of atoms within that conductor to align with the magnetic field of the PM and produce a temporary flow of electrons within that conductor, but once the motion of the PM ceases and any electron alignment with the PM is completed, there is no further flow of electrons due to the proximity of the now stationary PM, with only alignment remaining.
Moving the PM (or an EM) with respect to the conductor causes the area of electrons aligned with the PM (or EM) within the conductor to move or flow along the conductor (somewhat analogous to the flow of fluid in a peristaltic pump, or a roller moved across a wet sponge). This flow can be out of one end of the conductor, thru an external circuit, and back into the other end of the conductor (i.e., generator and load), or the flow can loop back into itself within the conductor (i.e., eddy current).
That explanation is rather macroscopic in nature. If we were to consider an individual ferromagnetic atom (i.e., iron) and a single free electron, we may find that the magnetic field inherent to that iron atom due to the motion (orbit) of an unpaired electron does indeed cause that free electron to move. This might be considered to be somewhat similar to a stationary PM producing current flow.
Only if we were to believe that the magnetic field of the PM has some sort of coherent or statistically significant flow relative to its field alignment would we expect that magnetic field to produce a current flow when the PM is stationary with respect to the conductor.
The biggest problem here,and by here i mean !world wide!,is that it seems most(if not all) have just settled for knowing what the magnetic field dose,and how we can use that magnetic field. It seems that no one is any longer interested in knowing -or trying to find out what the magnetic force is.
That's complete nonsense. Yes, engineers use what we know to develop technology, but there is a great deal of ongoing science related to just figuring out what everything "is". It is often the technological advances that allow the continued pursuit of those unanswered questions.
I think many, and by many I mean you, have become cynical towards scientists and science in general. Do scientists have all the answers? Of course not. But we only know what it is they do not know because of the investigations and discoveries made by those scientists!
For example, you point to the unexplained motion of the galaxies as proof that science does not have all the answers and therefore seemingly want to be cynical towards all scientists and the answers they have discovered. You fail to give them credit for advancing to the point to where they are able to point out the anomalous motion of those galaxies and the new questions those discoveries present. Sometimes it seems that laymen are just lying in wait for scientists to announce a new discovery that raise a bunch of unanswered questions just so those laymen can say "see, I told you they don't know it all", as if that were a bad thing. If science had all the answers, there would be no need for science.
Recently LIGO in the US reported detection of gravity waves as predicted by Einstein. In order to pull that off, they had to measure the length difference of the two arms of the interferometer to one part in 1021. As I mentioned previously, I read that was equivalent to measuring the width of the Milky Way galaxy changing by the width of a pencil erasure. This was no small feat. Most can only just begin to fathom the technical difficulties associated with that level of measurement precision. Even now, it is planned to further enhance the measurement accuracy of LIGO, and once additional detectors come on line throughout the world (bummer about Australia's), an entire new realm of scientific discovery will be at hand (similar to the advent of radiotelescopy). It is very likely that detection and study of gravity waves will answer some questions, but it is also very likely that many new questions will also arise.
Figuring out what is going on at the subatomic and cosmological scales are closely related. However, there is indeed some very leading edge, state of the art science working in those fields and related purely to what "everything is".
PW
-
Well i have found a problem here,and it involves the resistors.
I took a quick look at the video (very annoying ambient noise). I'll look at it further when I have the time.
Keep in mind that Fourier says that a fast edge contains some very high frequencies, so consider both junction capacitance and switching time with regard to your pulsed diode lighting an LED (I only briefly scanned thru the video, and that is the gist of what I believe you were discussing). Have you ever looked at a waveform using your scope's FFT function?
PW
-
Questions for all.
1-What wave form should be seen across the CVR.
2- Will the LED light?
Post an answer for q2,and a quick pic/sketch of the wave form across the CVR
Brad
-
I took a quick look at the video. I'll look at it further when I have the time.
Keep in mind that Fourier says that a fast edge contains some very high frequencies, so consider both junction capacitance and switching time with regard to your pulsed diode lighting an LED (I only briefly scanned thru the video, and that is the gist of what I believe you were discussing). Have you ever looked at a waveform using your scope's FFT function?
PW
(very annoying ambient noise)
Not much i can do about the fan in the power supply.
But it's not on during the whole video.
Brad
-
Questions for all.
1-What wave form should be seen across the CVR.
2- Will the LED light?
Post an answer for q2,and a quick pic/sketch of the wave form across the CVR
Brad
1. A sine wave
2. Yes, it will light.
I am just taking a stab at the questions and I am not 100% certain that I am correct.
Bill
-
Questions for all.
1-What wave form should be seen across the CVR.
2- Will the LED light?
Post an answer for q2,and a quick pic/sketch of the wave form across the CVR
Brad
The turn off time of the 1N4007 diodes are probably more significant than their 15pF junction capacitance (and with three in series, that's even lower). Depending on the LED (some are rather fast, others not so much) it too can have significant turn off time and junction capacitance.
If we are probing the CVR from left to right (scope ground on left side of CVR), my guess would be that during the negative portion of the waveform, there would be a somewhat corresponding negative waveform observed at the right side of the CVR. The diodes, turned on during the negative portion of the applied waveform, would remain on briefly during the rising positive going portion of the applied waveform and there would be a positive going spike observed at the CVR during and following that transition prior to diode turn off.
The LED would be turned off during the 97% negative portion of the applied waveform and may light briefly during the brief turn off time of the diodes during the positive portion/rising edge of the applied waveform (depending on the LED turn on time and junction capacitance).
So, in summary, a significant negative going something or other with a more narrow positive going spike.
That would be my guess...
PW
ADDED:
Also, regarding your previous video, you should keep in mind that the turn off time of a !N4007 is around 2 us (with some a bit more). Your positive going waveform appears to be around 5us or so (hard to tell at your scope's sweep rate).
You might try a 1N4148, 1N914 or similar diode, as their turn off time is much shorter than the 4000 series.
-
Ok, the circuit works with 3 turns. Had to try it before I put the scope pins in. But, when I first tried it it didnt work. Looked at it and had one of the windings connected backward. No biggy.
So Ill put the scope pins in and try to get core resonance.
Mags
-
No resonance that I can find so far. Will work on it more tomorrow. Gunna do some mechanical resonance work for a bit here and hit the sack
Mags
-
:o
(LED is a green superbright, Vf ~ 2.48V (fluke 87-iii))
-
:o
(LED is a green superbright, Vf ~ 2.48V (fluke 87-iii))
TK,
No fair! I thought we were just supposed to guess!!
A bit more vertical resolution of the CSR trace might have been handy (more gain or larger CSR). However, it looks like there is about 4ma flowing just prior to the rising edge. Correct?
As usual, your right on top of things...
Did your LED light up noticeably?
PW
-
:o
(LED is a green superbright, Vf ~ 2.48V (fluke 87-iii))
TK
Now remove the 1k resistor,and try again.
Brad
-
I don't really trust this scope on very small voltages near the channel baseline so I wouldn't bet the house on that 4mA but it does look like a little bit of current there. Yes, the LED appears well lit. I've already taken the circuit apart but it might be interesting to see the correlation between the LED's actual brightness and the input waveform, by using a photovoltaic cell or phototransistor.
-
TK
Now remove the 1k resistor,and try again.
Brad
Have to wait until tomorrow, I'm afraid, I've already shut the scope down and taken the circuit apart, sorry. Past my bedtime here....
-
I don't really trust this scope on very small voltages near the channel baseline so I wouldn't bet the house on that 4mA but it does look like a little bit of current there. Yes, the LED appears well lit. I've already taken the circuit apart but it might be interesting to see the correlation between the LED's actual brightness and the input waveform, by using a photovoltaic cell or phototransistor.
Having the channel labels immediately to the right of the zero reference marks on the left side of the scope's screen is not that handy either. It's hard for these old eyes to tell exactly where the zero line is... but you do appear to be lined up with a major division.
When the waveform is at -6 volts, the three diodes should turn on and conduct with a total of around 1.8-2.1 volts of drop thru all three.
I would think that the remaining 4 volts or so thru the 1K resistor should end up with around 4ma flowing during the negative portion of the applied waveform prior to the rising edge.
PW
-
@ TK
phototransistor is more accurate, if you can place it in a good spot.
I don't trust PV's for light measurements,
they are consistently inconsistent :)
luckily for us, both components can be found in many garden solar lights.
along side a superbright, and a charging circuit.
[note: some Chinese companies hide the charging circuit inside a small black dot of epoxy resin]
[ it is basically a two or four diode rectifier and sometimes a resistor, that feeds to the battery]
There recently began emerging some fancy cells, that have the sensing unit built into the cell, where you can't even see it, or remove it as a separate piece. From the same Chinese companies....
It seems they don't want us taking them apart and using it for other things....
-
:) Sorry, hit the wrong key...
-
@picowatt
Thanks again for your comments to my last post.
The AC question is a no brainer. Neutral in a home is connected to Earth ground and Earth ground will not permit any form of alternating current to occur since the hot line will never occur on that ground line otherwise all homes would be up in flames by now. There is no argument to have for this. It is categoric that AC cannot alternate as has been taught in our schools. I just don't understand why it takes 100 years to figure that out. The present Standard EE model went bankrupt with this one but as usual, it is easier to ignore stuff that does not line up with the parrot league. But my model explains it perfectly with out one single electron flowing or one single field apparition. We'll get deeper into that soon enough but in the meantime, if you want to work on countering this, please try. Even Tesla's own depiction of AC is wrong but who knew then?
Regarding the scoping I know about your comments so let me just answer the three questions I put up previously and this may give some ideas to @tinman and others.
So while you see the waveform, you remove the ground clip and see one of the following;
1) The waveform shows the exact same waveform result.
2) The waveform shows a higher energy state.
3) The waveform shows a lower energy state.
In the three questions above, it would seem this does not bring anything to mind so let's see.
1) This means the ground is really at zero potential.
2) This means the ground is really below zero potential.
3) This means the ground is really above zero potential.
Let's say @tinman has a resistor placed between the collector and the bottom of L1. He scopes across the resistor with the ground clip on the collector side and the probe on the L1 side. He sees a waveform. He then removes the ground clip and sees that the waveform did not change. This to me means there really is zero potential at the ground clip. This for me also means many other things like this is a good ground point reference for other positive probing points. I will let you contemplate others. But what if he sees the waveform go sky high when the ground clip is removed? You have to know these things if you are serious about playing with coils and knowing what's going on in your circuits and that will get you closer to the why of all this. The differential waveform is only one third of the story.
You have two reference points but you also have two reference points when one of them is removed and that we should be using to our advantage to understand more of the comparative results. If (probe+ground)/2 equals our regular differential waveform then by removing one of them and seeing if and/or how the waveform changes, this should be another great point of information that we need to use but that is presently ignored. Why, I don't know. Why haven't our universities tackled this question decades ago?
Maybe by placing one end of a widely available dummy load to the ground clip while leaving the other end open would provide a stable ground reference without being on the circuit itself and still permit others to replicate the effect and see the same waveforms.
The points I can make are endless but I am not here to "attack" because that would be to easy. I am here to help add a new construct that will help us work better and with more precision. This is the minimal precision we need to master in order to produce devices hitting OU. Otherwise another 100 years is ready to pass us by with nothing to show for it. I am not talking about our fancy little toys as @MH mentioned the EE Kool-Aid is what is running our toys. I don't care about these. I only care about OU. The "how" is indeed useful but the "why" is supreme.
@tinman
Good work man. I see you are starting to ask yourself some questions. I'll comment more on another post.
I am putting down a diagram of a potential test as I had explained in a previous post and you had requested I put up a diagram. This is the one I would like to see as it will say a lot of how this circuit works. You may need to start the circuit pulses with a 9v battery to base just to get it going then remove it. Something like the Kapanadze devices start with a 9volt battery. Some heads should be scratching by now as to why a 9volts battery may be required to start a system. hahaha
About diode choices, 1N5817, 1N5819, TTTE2, UF104. But the first two have always outperformed the others.
@TK
"FG isolated". Is this via a car battery and inverter running the FG or is the FG output simply going to an isolation transformer?
wattsup
-
I will give you an example of such,and this example is for an ICE--the 4 stroke,186ci holden 6 cylinder ICE valve train. It has 87 moving part's,and draws about 4HP from the engine. It has a limit of speed at which it can operate.
At the age of just 23,i designed a valve system for the same motor,that had only 3 moving part's,required only 1/40th of the power to drive it,and had no limit to the RPM at which it would operate--you could never get to a stage where you would encounter valve float--or valve bounce as some call it.
A local machine shop produced a prototype of my system,and the engine ran extremely well.
Over the next 6 month's,i(and my employer at the time) tried to find an interested motor manufacture to take on the design--but not one was interested.
It is difficult to imagine replacing all those valve train parts with just 3 moving parts. About all I can think of would be to use one long rotary valve which is a "been there done that" technology from the past that always had issues related to seal technology and durability.
There can be many reasons for an engine manufacturer to not want to change designs. The engineering costs involved in reliability/wear studies, patent rights issues, tooling costs, previous licensing issues are just a few.
That said, you are very far from being the first to "invent" something that no one would buy (or even had ripped off).
Current ICE technology has become as much or more to do with emissions control than efficiency.
PW
-
@picowatt
Thanks again for your comments to my last post.
The AC question is a no brainer. Neutral in a home is connected to Earth ground and Earth ground will not permit any form of alternating current to occur since the hot line will never occur on that ground line otherwise all homes would be up in flames by now.
You are correct, this IS a no brainer... You are absolutely wrong.
Check out how Earth can and is used as a return conductor in SWER systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-wire_earth_return
Using SWER systems does indeed require careful consideration regarding electrocution hazards, particularly with regard to live stock.
However, in most of the US a separate return conductor is used. As well, a separate neutral is used to carry L1-N or L2-N (120 loads) return current back to the pole transformer center tap from your service panel. That neutral is also connected to a ground rod driven into the Earth. This is related to safety (there is also a separate ground from all socket third prongs also connected to that ground rod).
Consider this:
Connect a light bulb across a battery so that the bulb lights. Now, also connect one end of the battery to an Earth ground. Did you suddenly prove there are no electrons flowing from the battery and thru the bulb just because you also connected one end of the battery to an Earth ground?
PW
-
PW
It is difficult to imagine replacing all those valve train parts with just 3 moving parts. About all I can think of would be to use one long rotary valve which is a "been there done that" technology from the past that always had issues related to seal technology and durability.
Nope. Mine was a slide valve setup--one rod,and two gears--thats it.
You make the slide and seats from the same material that the valves and seats are made from.
The counter weight fitted to the drive gear is the same weight as the slide rail,and so maintains balance.
Current ICE technology has become as much or more to do with emissions control than efficiency.
The more efficient your ICE is,the less emissions you have.
Take a more efficient valve train(such as mine),where it takes less energy to drive the valve train it self. That means less fuel used for the same amount of mechanical power going to the wheels.
Less fuel= less emissions to do the same job.
They may be improving in emissions output,but they are not to interested in efficiency--there all in cohorts with big oil,and regulated by the government.
I seen it happen first hand here in Western Australia with Ralphs orbital engine.Designed and built just 160km up the road from me. This ICE was 50% smaller than any other ICE for the same power output,and 35-50% more efficient. Ralphs biggest mistake was taking on BHP as a partner,who finally got Ralph to sell up to them,and then BHP shelved the project :D
Ralph is now into large realestate deals,and worth over 700 million.
He also still makes great amounts of cash from his fuel injection systems that are fitted to most 2 stroke outboard motors today.
Any car maker that waffles on about how fuel efficient there cars are--are full of shit.
Guys in there back yard workshops were killing todays fuel efficiency 50 years ago.
It's all about money,and there all filling each others pockets--not ours.
Brad
-
@picowatt
I understand very well the present beliefs. This explanation has been used so many times but under any logic base it does not correlate. It is very common and normal since you guys do not have any higher level of logic to base it on so of course this is all you have to go by. I respect that and appreciate you bringing it forth so it does not come from me. But deep down, you cannot really expect that hot current is coming in from every half cycle via the ground and neutral. This is what science is expecting you to believe because at the time, science was "stuck" with the popularizing of the "electron flow" (EF) model. So all new inventions, like AC had to absolutely tow the EF line. There was no other possible way to explain it and being stuck with the EF model, AC had to alternate in order to explain the effect even if the EF part is totally out of wack. hahaha
So I will have to produce an experiment that will show you guys once and for all about AC. But just realize that all these notions of energy were derived in times where there was not really any place for real debate. Communication took weeks even months to circulate and if there were any strong opposition to any such notions, they were hindered by the limitations of the times plus by those controlling higher learning. We cannot accept these just because they found their way into our present constructs. Things have to make sense first before they should be accepted as common knowledge but our history if chock full of these. But we will get around to this in time and please understand that I am not intending on causing any animosity towards you or anyone else in these matters. These go far beyond all of us.
wattsup
-
The more efficient your ICE is,the less emissions you have.
That statement is for the most part not true. Particularly with regard to NOx emissions.
Very often efficiency and emission reduction are at complete odds with each other.
PW
-
@picowatt
I understand very well the present beliefs. This explanation has been used so many times but under any logic base it does not correlate. It is very common and normal since you guys do not have any higher level of logic to base it on so of course this is all you have to go by. I respect that and appreciate you bringing it forth so it does not come from me. But deep down, you cannot really expect that hot current is coming in from every half cycle via the ground and neutral.
Throughout most of the USA it does not. The neutral is a separate wire all the way back to the pole transformer. The Earth is not used as a current conductor.
However, in countries that use SWER, AC current does actually flow thru the Earth, and does indeed reverse every half cycle. It is very easily measured with common instruments.
Turn your car's headlights on. Attach one side of your cars battery to Earth. Did anything change? Did that prove anything? The AC distribution system used in the US is no different, it just happens to be connected to Earth.
Perhaps you should consider that it is your logic that is flawed...
PW
-
Throughout most of the USA it does not. The neutral is a separate wire all the way back to the pole transformer. The Earth is not used as a current conductor.
However, in countries that use SWER, AC current does actually flow thru the Earth, and does indeed reverse every half cycle. It is very easily measured with common instruments.
Turn your car's headlights on. Attach one side of your cars battery to Earth. Did anything change? Did that prove anything? The AC distribution system used in the US is no different, it just happens to be connected to Earth.
Perhaps you should consider that it is your logic that is flawed...
PW
Here in the USA the neutral wires and ground wires of home wiring are all tied to the same bus inside the breaker box. So, effectively, they are wired together.
Bill
-
Nope. Mine was a slide valve setup--one rod,and two gears--thats it.
You make the slide and seats from the same material that the valves and seats are made from.
The counter weight fitted to the drive gear is the same weight as the slide rail,and so maintains balance.
The more efficient your ICE is,the less emissions you have.
Take a more efficient valve train(such as mine),where it takes less energy to drive the valve train it self. That means less fuel used for the same amount of mechanical power going to the wheels.
Less fuel= less emissions to do the same job.
They may be improving in emissions output,but they are not to interested in efficiency--there all in cohorts with big oil,and regulated by the government.
I seen it happen first hand here in Western Australia with Ralphs orbital engine.Designed and built just 160km up the road from me. This ICE was 50% smaller than any other ICE for the same power output,and 35-50% more efficient. Ralphs biggest mistake was taking on BHP as a partner,who finally got Ralph to sell up to them,and then BHP shelved the project :D
Ralph is now into large realestate deals,and worth over 700 million.
He also still makes great amounts of cash from his fuel injection systems that are fitted to most 2 stroke outboard motors today.
Any car maker that waffles on about how fuel efficient there cars are--are full of shit.
Guys in there back yard workshops were killing todays fuel efficiency 50 years ago.
It's all about money,and there all filling each others pockets--not ours.
Brad
My argument against all of these expensive "hybrid" cars is that they are bragging about getting only 40 mpg. Of course, you have to replace a $5,000 battery every 3 or 4 years which they never factor in.
Well, 3 of my friends owned 1980 Volkswagen Diesel Rabbits which easily got over 55 mpg. That was back in 1980 and no need for fancy battery exchanges or expensive super high tech components. Then, I learned that VW now makes newer versions of these that get over 70 mpg but, they are not allowed to be imported to the US. Total Crap that they do this shit and we let them.
Bill
-
Here in the USA the neutral wires and ground wires of home wiring are all tied to the same bus inside the breaker box. So, effectively, they are wired together.
Bill
Just as I have stated several times. However, the neutral returns to the transformer center tap via a dedicated wire, not thru the Earth.
SWER systems in other countries (and parts of Alaska) do use the Earth as a current carrying conductor.
Neither system disproves the existence of electrons...
PW
-
Just as I have stated several times. However, the neutral returns to the transformer center tap via a dedicated wire, not thru the Earth.
SWER systems in other countries (and parts of Alaska) do use the Earth as a current carrying conductor.
Neither system disproves the existence of electrons...
PW
Sorry, must have missed where you said that. Yes, of course it does return to the transformer via wire and not the earth.
However, I did read somewhere that the power companies laugh at us because the earth grounds send the energy back to the power plant where they can sell it to us again...being ac. This made no sense to me but, I am more familiar with dc than I am ac.
Bill
-
Having the channel labels immediately to the right of the zero reference marks on the left side of the scope's screen is not that handy either. It's hard for these old eyes to tell exactly where the zero line is... but you do appear to be lined up with a major division.
Yes, always (or at least whenever possible). You know I don't trust "numbers in boxes" much and prefer to interpret the traces, at least as a cross-check. However the Rigol DS1054z is rather notorious for having some offset on the traces. But comparing the trace value before, and after, the positive pulse seems to indicate the 4mA reading is at least close to accurate.
When the waveform is at -6 volts, the three diodes should turn on and conduct with a total of around 1.8-2.1 volts of drop thru all three.
I would think that the remaining 4 volts or so thru the 1K resistor should end up with around 4ma flowing during the negative portion of the applied waveform prior to the rising edge.
PW
-
@ TK
phototransistor is more accurate, if you can place it in a good spot.
I don't trust PV's for light measurements,
they are consistently inconsistent :)
I agree.
luckily for us, both components can be found in many garden solar lights.
along side a superbright, and a charging circuit.
[note: some Chinese companies hide the charging circuit inside a small black dot of epoxy resin]
[ it is basically a two or four diode rectifier and sometimes a resistor, that feeds to the battery]
Actually it's a bit more complicated than that, more of a boost regulator circuit. There are a couple of different 4-lead ICs that are used, as well as the "cob" (chip-on-board) black dot kind.
I have taken apart many of those solar-powered garden lights of many different kinds, and I have yet to find a phototransistor in one. They commonly use a CdS light-dependent resistor (aka LDR or photoresistor) when a separate sensor is used.
YMMV, of course...
There recently began emerging some fancy cells, that have the sensing unit built into the cell, where you can't even see it, or remove it as a separate piece. From the same Chinese companies....
It seems they don't want us taking them apart and using it for other things....
Actually the "sensorless" circuit just uses the light level falling on the photovoltaic cell itself, there is no separate or hidden sensor in those.
-
(snip)
@TK
"FG isolated". Is this via a car battery and inverter running the FG or is the FG output simply going to an isolation transformer?
wattsup
Neither. This FG (MingHo MHS200A) is powered by a wall-wart SMPS with two prongs, so it's not connected to the mains ground wire. Neither the Black (BNC shield) nor Red outputs are connected to the ground. So unless I establish a connection by patching the second channel to the scope or something like that, both outputs are floating. In the present case of course the Black FG lead is connected through the 1R0 current-sense resistor to the scope ground reference. The important point is that the 1R0 isn't shorted out by the connection, since the FG is floating.
-
TK
Now remove the 1k resistor,and try again.
Brad
Now we get into the meat of the matter. ;)
When the 1K resistor across the LED is removed, the LED goes out.
But when I replace the resistor with a 2.2 uH inductor (DC resistance about 0.8 ohm) , the LED comes back on.
-
That statement is for the most part not true. Particularly with regard to NOx emissions.
Very often efficiency and emission reduction are at complete odds with each other.
Oxidized Nitrogen by-products are the result of
very high temperature combustion. The techniques
for reducing combustion temperature while at the
same time increasing gaseous reaction volume are
well known. It is possible to eliminate NOx, reduce CO,
reduce fuel consumption and thereby enhance engine
power and efficiency quite easily. Aviation has been
doing it for decades. Savvy motorists have also been
doing it for decades.
-
Anyway....
Was looking into the battery oscillation more. With the new circuit a relatively fresh AA battery is ringing at about 15mhz. The voltage swings seem quite high, so I put a white led across the battery. Circuit is running without load leds. Only the led across the battery.
Mags
-
Oxidized Nitrogen by-products are the result of
very high temperature combustion. The techniques
for reducing combustion temperature while at the
same time increasing gaseous reaction volume are
well known. It is possible to eliminate NOx, reduce CO,
reduce fuel consumption and thereby enhance engine
power and efficiency quite easily. Aviation has been
doing it for decades. Savvy motorists have also been
doing it for decades.
I was with you up to "enhance engine power". There was a time when EGR was used for purposes not related to intentionally reducing emissions. However, replacing a lot of inlet air or air/fuel mix with EGR to reduce NOx is not going to "enhance power". As well, adding extra fuel to to keep the cats lit off or just having to deal with their added back pressure is not going to improve fuel economy.
Look at VW's recent diesel emissions debacle. They illegally chose performance over reduced NOx emissions when the vehicle's software detected no emissions test was underway (mostly by decreasing EGR).
It is quite easy to improve the fuel economy or performance of a modern auto engine. Lose the emissions related hardware and reprogram the ECM. There is an entire aftermarket devoted to doing just that. While it is illegal to do so in the US, many do it anyway (often under the guise of claiming off road use).
I would not want to own a modern diesel with a DPF. Another consumable (DEF), additional exhaust back pressure, and even more fuel needed to burn off captured particulates during the DPF purge. Talk about reduced performance and economy for the sake of reduced emissions. Aftermarket DPF and EGR delete kits abound... (and of course are installed and used illegally)
Some of the emissions related gear has gotten better (for example, modern cats need less fuel (EGT) to keep them "lit"). But for the most part my statement stands. Reducing the emissions produced by an ICE almost always means having to reduce performance, efficiency, or more to the point, fuel economy.
PW
-
Now we get into the meat of the matter. ;)
When the 1K resistor across the LED is removed, the LED goes out.
But when I replace the resistor with a 2.2 uH inductor (DC resistance about 0.8 ohm) , the LED comes back on.
Without the 1K resistor there is no path for current to flow when the applied waveform is a negative voltage. Without that current flow, the 1N4007 diodes never turn on. Because they never turn on, there is no turn off delay to power the LED when the waveform transitions to a positive voltage.
This supports 1N4007 turn off delay time as being the reason the LED lit (as opposed to junction capacitance).
PW
-
...
Some of the emissions related gear has gotten better (for example, modern cats need less fuel (EGT) to keep them "lit"). But for the most part my statement stands. Reducing the emissions produced by an ICE almost always means having to reduce performance, efficiency, or more to the point, fuel economy.
Your thinking is too recent and too modern.
The techniques I hinted at go back a long
way and are completely "legal." In fact,
they are still in use today by many. The
aviation industry uses a variant to boost
aircraft power when it is most needed.
Rudolf Gunnerman (http://lemelson.mit.edu/resources/rudolf-gunnerman) has devoted many years
to his project of maximizing engine efficiency
while minimizing harmful emissions.
It is very unfortunate that Corporate Love of
Money (and individual Love of Money as well)
have proven to be a nearly insurmountable
obstacle to the manufacture of clean and efficient
engines for the masses.
-
Now we get into the meat of the matter. ;)
When the 1K resistor across the LED is removed, the LED goes out.
Yes indeed.
Now,below is the next test.
Start off including just one diode in the circuit-D1.
Check current flow reverse peak(when LED is lit by the 3% reverse spike.
then move your FG red lead to include the next diode,so as you now have two diodes included in the circuit. You should see a higher value reverse current spike during the LED on time.
Then include the 3rd diode in the circuit. Once again,you should see an increase in the reverse current spike value.
So as you include another diode into the circuit,the reverse current spike should go up-not down.
This would seem to be the reverse of what we should see,as we decrease the capacitance value as we place more diodes in series.
The second thing that says we should see a decrease in reverse current flow through the LED and 1k resistor,is because we also increase the voltage drop across the diodes as we add more of them into the circuit.
It is also odd that if we reduce the V/in by way of the FG,the LED gets duller,and the reverse current spike becomes less. But if we decrease the voltage by way of diode voltage drop,the LED gets brighter,and the reverse current spike increases.
But when I replace the resistor with a 2.2 uH inductor (DC resistance about 0.8 ohm) , the LED comes back on.
I did exactly this,and first thought that maybe the resistor was also inductive. But further test have shown that not to be the case,nor can i read any sort of inductive value of the resistor with the meter.
Brad
-
Anyway....
Was looking into the battery oscillation more. With the new circuit a relatively fresh AA battery is ringing at about 15mhz. The voltage swings seem quite high, so I put a white led across the battery. Circuit is running without load leds. Only the led across the battery.
Mags
What polarity is the LED in relation to the battery Mag's ?.
At 15 mhz,and being a new battery,i would think the LED is lit due to skin effect.
Brad
-
How about them apples:
When I replace the 3 x 1n4007 diodes with 3 x 1n4148 diodes, and have the 1k resistor across the LED, the LED does _not_ light.
Now if I replace the 1k resistor with the 2.2 uH inductor the LED _does_ light (rather dimly). And as I increase the frequency from 10 kHz, the LED gets brighter and brighter, until brightness peaks at around 1.2 MHz and then begins to decrease.
With just the resistor, or nothing, across the LED, the LED stays off as I increase frequency from 10 kHz.
:P
-
Your thinking is too recent and too modern.
I've been around a while...
All emissions control is "modern" (as is the whole ecology awareness movement). You do realize that prior to the early 1970's, and most definitely prior to the 1960's, nobody considered or worried about auto emissions or fuel economy. With 22 cents a gallon gasoline, nobody cared.
Some techniques used for emissions control do have their beginnings with non-emission control related uses (as I inferred regarding EGR). Some of the methods used for WWII aircraft being a good case in point. But used as they are today for emission control, with the fuels used today, I'll stand by my previous statements.
If you want to talk different fuels (or believe 1987 is ancient history as per Gunnerman) that is a completely different subject.
Given the fuel available at the pump, and the methods used to control emissions in modern ICE engines, emission control comes at the cost of performance or fuel economy reduction.
But this is likely more than enough off topic discussion on this JT thread...
PW
-
Yes indeed.
Now,below is the next test.
Start off including just one diode in the circuit-D1.
Check current flow reverse peak(when LED is lit by the 3% reverse spike.
then move your FG red lead to include the next diode,so as you now have two diodes included in the circuit. You should see a higher value reverse current spike during the LED on time.
Then include the 3rd diode in the circuit. Once again,you should see an increase in the reverse current spike value.
So as you include another diode into the circuit,the reverse current spike should go up-not down.
This would seem to be the reverse of what we should see,as we decrease the capacitance value as we place more diodes in series.
You are dealing more with turn off time than junction capacitance. I suspect the 4007's are turning off one after another. Is you positive going current pulse/spike also wider with all 3 diodes in the circuit as compared to just one?
-
How about them apples:
When I replace the 3 x 1n4007 diodes with 3 x 1n4148 diodes, and have the 1k resistor across the LED, the LED does _not_ light.
Now if I replace the 1k resistor with the 2.2 uH inductor the LED _does_ light (rather dimly). And as I increase the frequency from 10 kHz, the LED gets brighter and brighter, until brightness peaks at around 1.2 MHz and then begins to decrease.
With just the resistor, or nothing, across the LED, the LED stays off as I increase frequency from 10 kHz.
:P
The 4148 switching diodes turn off much faster than the 4007's.
When using the inductor, the AC impedance across the LED is increased and there is less reverse current during the high frequencies of the rising edge to turn off the diodes, so there is likely a very narrow current spike that makes it thru as they turn off...
PW
-
What polarity is the LED in relation to the battery Mag's ?.
At 15 mhz,and being a new battery,i would think the LED is lit due to skin effect.
Brad
Its the cathode to the - of the battery.
Mags
-
Anyway....
Was looking into the battery oscillation more. With the new circuit a relatively fresh AA battery is ringing at about 15mhz. The voltage swings seem quite high, so I put a white led across the battery. Circuit is running without load leds. Only the led across the battery.
Mags
You have a significant amount of inductance in your battery lead wires...
What does the waveform look like if you scope directly across the battery?
PW
-
...With 22 cents a gallon gasoline, nobody cared.
In today's money that 22 cents becomes $4.40 -
many of us cared.
-
Now if I replace the 1k resistor with the 2.2 uH inductor the LED _does_ light (rather dimly). And as I increase the frequency from 10 kHz, the LED gets brighter and brighter, until brightness peaks at around 1.2 MHz and then begins to decrease.
Seems you've constructed some sort of "resonant"
circuit there TK. Evaluating this performance to
arrive at an explanation should be a most beneficial
exercise. So far, well done!
-
You have a significant amount of inductance in your battery lead wires...
What does the waveform look like if you scope directly across the battery?
PW
The blue trace is across the battery, in proper polarity. Could it be that the sec winding is causing it through the off transistor? If so it would seem that the coils initial discharge is in the wrong direction to increase the voltage across the batt. Or the trigger winding through the transistor base? The resistors is very low at the time, not 0ohm as the circuit stops oscillation, in this config anyway. But we see the wave in the yel trace also. Thats why Im questioning it myself. But if I put disk caps across the batt the oscillating freq drops.
I will shorten the leads and see if there is a change in freq. The shot of the single wave would show the freq of 15mhz on the blue trace if I lower the v/div 1 step, but i wanted to have the yel trace to be the same and lowering both, yel peaked above the screen and the measurements would be off. But it was a steady 15.14 mhz or so. Seems to change a bit as the battery gets used.
Mags
-
Seems you've constructed some sort of "resonant"
circuit there TK. Evaluating this performance to
arrive at an explanation should be a most beneficial
exercise. So far, well done!
Yes, in the real world we would call that a filter. You have an excitation that passes through some kind of filter which is based on your circuit, and then you get a response in the load.
-
You are dealing more with turn off time than junction capacitance. Is you positive going current pulse/spike also wider with all 3 diodes in the circuit as compared to just one?
By reverse current spike across the CVR,i guess i mean the same as what you call the positive going current pulse--the 3% duty cycle part that go's against the diodes,but through the LED?.
I suspect the 4007's are turning off one after another.
How can one turn off after another,as once one has turned off,then no current will be flowing through the others.
Brad
-
By reverse current spike across the CVR,i guess i mean the same as what you call the positive going current pulse--the 3% duty cycle part that go's against the diodes,but through the LED?.
How can one turn off after another,as once one has turned off,then no current will be flowing through the others.
Brad
Good point... possible brain fade...
So does the 4007 reverse current spike (the LED forward current) get wider as you include all three diodes or just increase in amplitude?
PW
-
Good point... possible brain fade...
So does the 4007 reverse current spike (the LED forward current) get wider as you include all three diodes or just increase in amplitude?
PW
As far as i can tell,it only increases in amplitude.
Tried some uf4007 diodes,and result's are as TK's-to a point. If i drop the 1k resistor down to a 100 ohm resistor,i get the reverse current spike back across the CVR,but not enough to light the LED.
I tried a few of those little inductors that look like resistor's(what are they called ???),and even with the fast diode's in there,by raising the frequency,the LED will light brightly-different inductor of course =different frequency.
So we have learned something here ;)
But i am a little confused about this turn off time,as the 1n4007 data sheet's all show a test frequency of 1MHz,while here i was using only 10KHz. If it is suited to frequencies of 1MHz,then how can it not switch off fast enough for 10KHz ?.
Anyway,i think maybe you missed my post to you some time back PW,in regards to the cool joule.
I have now built the circuit using larger primary coils from transformers. This has now allowed me to place my scope anywhere over the circuit without it shutting down--it has made the circuit a lot more stable. The early CJ circuits used small high turn,high resistance air core coil's,and even toughing the base with your finger would shut it down. But with these larger coil's,i can now scope all over the circuit,and so,would like to see if it is just the miller capacitance effect at work here,or !im suspecting! has more to do with coil capacitance.
Below is the circuit (modified version,that excludes the charge battery),and scope shot from points depicted in circuit diagrams.-->Please note in the second,i have no channel offset,and have switched channels around--i do this often to make sure one channel is not playing funny buggers.
1-So how has L1 and 1.5v battery(collector/emitter junction) got around 4.7 volts across it before the transistor has switched off?.
2- How is there below 0v across L1 and battery(collector/emitter junction) before transistor has switched on?.<--This one could be explained by some sort of overshoot of L1,and where i think coil capacitance may come into it?.
Brad
-
As far as i can tell,it only increases in amplitude.
Tried some uf4007 diodes,and result's are as TK's-to a point. If i drop the 1k resistor down to a 100 ohm resistor,i get the reverse current spike back across the CVR,but not enough to light the LED.
I tried a few of those little inductors that look like resistor's(what are they called ???),and even with the fast diode's in there,by raising the frequency,the LED will light brightly-different inductor of course =different frequency.
So we have learned something here ;)
But i am a little confused about this turn off time,as the 1n4007 data sheet's all show a test frequency of 1MHz,while here i was using only 10KHz. If it is suited to frequencies of 1MHz,then how can it not switch off fast enough for 10KHz ?.
The test frequency you mention is for testing junction capacitance which is done with the diode maintained in a reverse biased (off) condition (it never turns on while that 1MHz is applied). Note that junction capacitance varies as the reverse voltage varies (a phenomenon exploited in varicap diodes). The data sheet often has a graph showing Cj versus reverse voltage.
You will have to look at a lot of data sheets from different manufacturers before you will find one even willing to state the reverse recovery time of a 4000 series diode. They are generally intended for line frequency use or a tad faster, but their speed is rarely bragged about. I think I had to look at 6 or more data sheets before I found one stating 2us, and that was probably because that manufacturer was proud of that speed (as likely compared to other slower units).
With regard to your "10KHz" waveform, I'll try one more time:
Unless the waveform is a pure sine wave, the repetition rate of a waveform has only a little to do with its actual frequency content. Every waveform such as a square wave, triangle wave, nasty looking pulse, or any other arbitrary waveform, consists of pure sine waves of various frequencies summed together at various amplitudes. A decent looking square wave with a relatively slow rise/fall time and a bit of ripple seen on its top and bottom "flat" surfaces will contain a fundamental and at least 4 or 5 harmonics. A sharp looking square wave can have many more harmonics. Decreasing the duty cycle requires the addition of even more harmonics to produce the narrow portion of the duty cycle.
A fast edge/rise time transitioning in 1us is going to need at least a 500KHz component, as a half wave at that frequency is 1us. If that edge is even faster, an even higher frequency component is required. So, even though you may be looking at a 1KHz square wave, it is the rise and fall time (as well as over/undershoot, ringing) that determine its actual frequency content. A 1KHz square wave with a 30ns rise/fall time can have significant frequency content into the tens of megacycles. Slew rate limiting (rise/fall time limiting) is often used with digital data to reduce unwanted higher frequency harmonics which may cause RF interference or unnecessary power consumption.
I suggest at least looking at the images and gifs in this Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series
I also suggest that you connect your FG to your scope, set the scope to display an FFT and then play around with different waveforms, duty cycles, and frequencies as you watch the FFT on the scope. This will allow you to visualize the changes to a waveform's frequency content as you modify rise/fall time, duty cycle, waveshape and frequency using the FG's controls.
This gif from the Wiki provides a really great visualization of what the FFT display on your scope is showing you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series#/media/File:Fourier_series_and_transform.gif
Below is the circuit (modified version,that excludes the charge battery),and scope shot from points depicted in circuit diagrams.-->Please note in the second,i have no channel offset,and have switched channels around--i do this often to make sure one channel is not playing funny buggers.
1-So how has L1 and 1.5v battery(collector/emitter junction) got around 4.7 volts across it before the transistor has switched off?.
2- How is there below 0v across L1 and battery(collector/emitter junction) before transistor has switched on?.<--This one could be explained by some sort of overshoot of L1,and where i think coil capacitance may come into it?.
Brad
I think you are going to have to look at current waveforms (at least base current) to perform a proper analysis of this circuit.
I assume you are probing directly at the transistor...
Rather than use any of these JT circuits, I would look into the several energy harvesting IC's available from various manufacturers. Some can charge a lithium ion battery from a 45mv source (TE gen, electrosmog, etc).
Perhaps I am missing the point...
PW
-
In today's money that 22 cents becomes $4.40 -
many of us cared.
I must have missed the point in time when they let us exchange our 22 cents for $4.40
my money is still the same,
only difference is gas costs more...
If "today's" money is 20x more, why aren't we all making $50-60 an hour as min wage?
-
I would look into the several energy harvesting IC's available from various manufacturers. Some can charge a lithium ion battery from a 45mv source (TE gen, electrosmog, etc).
PW
yes, many of these are functionally similar to what we do with the JT.
rather than using an inductor to step up the voltages,
they use transistors with a low-threshold, or "zero"-threshold.
basically, they can turn on with ANY voltage, and as small as a couple hundred nano-Amps of current.
Most of them work with AC or DC inputs, or a combination of both.
and a single unit can use multiple inputs.
This is usually stored in some sort of supercap/ultracap, and a resistive circuit to deliver 3-6v
for small-scale electronics, or transferred to batteries for larger storage.
There are a lot of experiments going on with these recently,
involving areal wires, for atmospheric harvesting.
-
Why not just use a J/FET,and have a high winding ration between the primary and secondary,where the(high turn) secondary would turn the J/FET off.
Brad
-
Why not just use a J/FET,and have a high winding ration between the primary and secondary,where the(high turn) secondary would turn the J/FET off.
Brad
Actually, some of the Linear Technology harvesters do use a 1:100 xfmr on the front end to get down to 20mv. Most others just use a simple inductor in a boost converter arrangement.
If all you want to do is light an LED to extinction using a "dead" battery, a JT may suit your needs.
However, if you are wanting to harvest ambient energy for wireless remote sensing, remote control, the "internet of things"(will it ever end...), etc, an energy harvester IC may be more suitable. With a commercial harvester IC you often get guaranteed start-up, battery/reservoir over/under voltage protection, charge control, MPPT, output voltage regulation, UPC flags/control, improved efficiency, etc, that may simplify production of an actual product (and you get to take advantage of thousands of man hours of engineering and application testing for next to nothing).
Linear Technologies, Texas Instruments, Maxim IC, ST Microelectronics and others all produce IC's dedicated to energy harvesting (amazing).
Although it would likely not be suitable for my EDC (I use it too often), an "at the ready" emergency use flashlight that at least trickle charges itself from ambient sources could be made using these harvester IC's.
For further reading:
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/bq25504.pdf
http://cds.linear.com/docs/en/design-note/DN483.pdf
http://www.linear.com/parametric/energy_harvesting
https://datasheets.maximintegrated.com/en/ds/MAX17710.pdf
PW
-
Well, how about that? I didn't even know that there was a whole series of chips for energy harvesting. I stopped reading Electronic Engineering Times "magazine" and EDN about 1991. Just from a quick glance it looks to me like you could use one of those chips at the heart of a design to suck the juice out of an AA battery that will suck juice beyond any possible Joule-Thief-style circuit you could ever imagine or design on your bench. Those chips make the Joule Thief look like it is something right out of the Stone Age.
But we can't forget that the bench research done around here is bleeding and weeping edge, and conventional EE'rs are stuck in the past and only know what is in books.
http://www.eetimes.com/
http://www.edn.com/
-
I must have missed the point in time when they let us exchange our 22 cents for $4.40
Sorry, INFLATION doesn't work that way. ???
my money is still the same,
only difference is gas costs more...
That is precisely the desired illusory effect of the
process of INFLATION. Your money is worth a tiny
fraction of what it once was but you're content
because you believe you're making more. :o ???
If "today's" money is 20x more, why aren't we all making $50-60 an hour as min wage?
Again, because that is the desired illusion of
INFLATION - more inflated dollars with an actual
purchasing power much less than before. :(
Your question is a good one. You need to ask it of
your congressional representatives. I bet you'll
get a spiffy answer from them. ;) ;D
Waking Up to the deceptions which have become
SOP for our World is a big step. 8)
Minimum Wage in 1960 was $1.00/Hr. To achieve
the equivalent purchasing power today's minimum
should be $20.00/Hr. Is it?
-
Well, how about that? I didn't even know that there was a whole series of chips for energy harvesting. I stopped reading Electronic Engineering Times "magazine" and EDN about 1991. Just from a quick glance it looks to me like you could use one of those chips at the heart of a design to suck the juice out of an AA battery that will suck juice beyond any possible Joule-Thief-style circuit you could ever imagine or design on your bench. Those chips make the Joule Thief look like it is something right out of the Stone Age.
But we can't forget that the bench research done around here is bleeding and weeping edge, and conventional EE'rs are stuck in the past and only know what is in books.
http://www.eetimes.com/
http://www.edn.com/
Energy harvesting smart tags running off a store's fluorescent lighting offering a nearby customer's smartphone a deal on the item he/she is standing in front of... "Hey buddy, down here, I'm on sale, you should buy me" ( how did we ever live without that?).
Sarcasm aside, there are some more "useful" applications...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7G7TyNL01Q
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=energy+harvester
PW
-
Well, how about that? I didn't even know that there was a whole series of chips for energy harvesting. I stopped reading Electronic Engineering Times "magazine" and EDN about 1991. Just from a quick glance it looks to me like you could use one of those chips at the heart of a design to suck the juice out of an AA battery that will suck juice beyond any possible Joule-Thief-style circuit you could ever imagine or design on your bench. Those chips make the Joule Thief look like it is something right out of the Stone Age.
But we can't forget that the bench research done around here is bleeding and weeping edge, and conventional EE'rs are stuck in the past and only know what is in books.
http://www.eetimes.com/
http://www.edn.com/
Yes,and my idea using a J/FET never came from any book.
Common sense say's that if there is not enough voltage to switch on a transistor or mosfet,then you use one that is already in an on state,and boost the voltage via a step up transformer to switch the fet off.
Just the same as having a large engine with lot's of torque,but not enough RPM to do the job that needs doing--you simply gear it up until the desired RPM is obtained.
New things are never found in book's first. They are discovered,and then go into books.
Lol-self charging flash light anybody? ;)
Brad
-
Common sense say's that if there is not enough voltage to switch on a transistor or mosfet,then you use one that is already in an on state,and boost the voltage via a step up transformer to switch the fet off.
Yeah well I would have to say that that doesn't make any sense at all. But don't let that stop you since this whole thread is filled with nonsensical statements by you and just about nobody says anything about it.
-
Why not just use a J/FET,and have a high winding ration between the primary and secondary,where the(high turn) secondary would turn the J/FET off.
Brad
In my box of JTs I have one which was designed, IIRC, by conradelectro, that uses a 2sk170 JFET and a 5:80 (or maybe even 5:100) winding ratio on a small ferrite bead. Its _maximum_ input voltage is 0.7 V, above that it stops working, and it works down to under 0.3 V.
Ah... here's his schematic. In my build I used a random ferrite bead instead of the specified Ferroxcube part, and only a single JFET instead of 4 in parallel, so mine doesn't work to quite as low voltage as his.
-
A couple of demos of the above circuit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35IMWNp2akg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35IMWNp2akg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgndINJHnd0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgndINJHnd0)
-
Common sense say's that if there is not enough voltage to switch on a transistor or mosfet,then you use one that is already in an on state,and boost the voltage via a step up transformer to switch the fet off.
Yeah well I would have to say that that doesn't make any sense at all. But don't let that stop you since this whole thread is filled with nonsensical statements by you and just about nobody says anything about it.
Miles, you may wish to examine the attached document. ;)
Edit:
Ah, good to see that TK responded with his usual most
excellent recollection of a prior project which stimulated
lively discussion and experimenter participation. :)
"Normally On" devices do come in handy from time to time. 8)
-
Miles, you may wish to examine the attached document. ;)
Edit:
Ah, good to see that TK responded with his usual most
excellent recollection of a prior project which stimulated
lively discussion and experimenter participation. :)
"Normally On" devices do come in handy from time to time. 8)
How about you enlighten all of us and say exactly what it is in the patent that's germane to the discussion?
Incidentally, I don't think I have ever seen any "experimenter participation" from you. So I suppose that we are both in the "same boat" for that. 8) 8)
-
How about you enlighten all of us and say exactly what it is in the patent that's germane to the discussion?
As you wish: :)
A circuit which is able to boost ultra low voltage to a
level sufficient to switch a MOSFET which permits
efficient boosting of millivolt level source voltage
to several volts as desired.
The initiating oscillator for priming boost is a
JFET switch.
Another paper with interesting analysis attached.
Incidentally, I don't think I have ever seen any "experimenter participation" from you. So I suppose that we are both in the "same boat" for that. 8) 8)
Quite true for the time being. My "laboratory" and all of
my equipment is in storage until a family emergency is
resolved. The present project with limited effort capability
(until my workbench is once again functional) is a lead-acid
battery desulfation rejuvenation system. I'm modifying two
Harbor Freight battery chargers to include additional circuitry
to desulfate/rejuvenate batteries. I have a bunch of lead-acids
which need TLC to bring them back to life. ;D
-
As you wish: :)
A circuit which is able to boost ultra low voltage to a
level sufficient to switch a MOSFET which permits
efficient boosting of millivolt level source voltage
to several volts as desired.
The initiating oscillator for priming boost is a
JFET switch.
Thanks, and I made a mistake an assumed that a JFET required some Gate-Source voltage to be ON, when that is not the case. So I retract my statement to Brad in post #1450 about it "not making any sense at all" because clearly I was wrong.
MileHigh
-
Yeah well I would have to say that that doesn't make any sense at all. But don't let that stop you since this whole thread is filled with nonsensical statements by you and just about nobody says anything about it.
Again MH?
You are saying !once again! that my statement is nonsensical--and once again you are wrong.
You need to stop MH,and do some research of your own before accusing me of making nonsensical statement's-->which are not.
Brad
-
Again MH?
You are saying !once again! that my statement is nonsensical--and once again you are wrong.
You need to stop MH,and do some research of your own before accusing me of making nonsensical statement's-->which are not.
Brad
I was wrong about this one, but it still doesn't belie the fact that you have made tons of statements that are nonsensical. Meanwhile PW discussed how in many cases the frequency setting on your function generator is not relevant when looking at how a circuit responds, it's the frequency content in the waveform that counts. You didn't acknowledge that and I wonder if you might be ignoring that because you "can't see it on your bench." I have to have discussed this same issue with you in the past but obviously it didn't stick. If you were wise and you are indeed ignoring what PW said, then you should go back and try to understand what he is saying because it is extremely important.
-
MileHigh,
the Wiki thingy on Fourier is very good, I can remember that the Junkie
chose to ignore it too!
John.
-
I was wrong about this one, but it still doesn't belie the fact that you have made tons of statements that are nonsensical. Meanwhile PW discussed how in many cases the frequency setting on your function generator is not relevant when looking at how a circuit responds, it's the frequency content in the waveform that counts. You didn't acknowledge that and I wonder if you might be ignoring that because you "can't see it on your bench." I have to have discussed this same issue with you in the past but obviously it didn't stick. If you were wise and you are indeed ignoring what PW said, then you should go back and try to understand what he is saying because it is extremely important.
Lets get something straight MH.
So far,you have been the one that has been incorrect,and i have been the one that has proven that you have been incorrect--resonant systems in and around ICE's,whether good or bad,they are there.
As far as frequency content (noise) go's,it has nothing to do with the frequency the circuit is running at,and to introduce such,is only adding to confusion that need not be there.
When we are talking about frequency,it is the frequency that the device is running at,or the signal it receives from the FG. If we rectify the output,then the frequency of the output will match that of the running or provided frequency--not the noise that exist within that frequency.
If my scope read's the same frequency as what is supplied by the FG,then that is the operating frequency of the device,and when we use these force switching method's in stead of running at a resonant frequency,then once again,noise that ride's on the back of this frequency has little to nothing to do with the way the circuit operates.
I chose to ignor it,because it has little to no impact to what we are doing here,and if you claim it dose-along with PW,then please feel free to show it.
Brad
-
As far as frequency content (noise) go's,it has nothing to do with the frequency the circuit is running at,and to introduce such,is only adding to confusion that need not be there.
When we are talking about frequency,it is the frequency that the device is running at,or the signal it receives from the FG. If we rectify the output,then the frequency of the output will match that of the running or provided frequency--not the noise that exist within that frequency.
If my scope read's the same frequency as what is supplied by the FG,then that is the operating frequency of the device,and when we use these force switching method's in stead of running at a resonant frequency,then once again,noise that ride's on the back of this frequency has little to nothing to do with the way the circuit operates.
I chose to ignor it,because it has little to no impact to what we are doing here,and if you claim it dose-along with PW,then please feel free to show it.
Brad
Everything stated above could not be further from the truth. It is very obvious that you do not get "it', and "it" is a very important and fundamental concept. We are not discussing "noise"...
Your digital scope has a FFT mode to allow you to see the frequency content of a waveform (frequency domain), yet you apparently have not bothered to use it even as a learning tool (as I have suggested many times).
When you are looking at your FG's output on your scope and you have the FG set to produce a 1KHz sine wave, both the FG and scope tell you it is 1KHz. If you switch to a square wave, your FG and scope continue to say you are dealing with a 1Khz waveform. But, it is obvious there is something very different because the sine wave now looks like a square wave. The difference is that the square wave has had many harmonic frequencies (additional sine waves) added to the 1KHz sine wave (fundamental) to produce the waveshape you see as a square wave.
Read my previous post again, look at the Wiki reference (particularly the animated gif link) and try using your scope in its frequency domain mode (FFT).
PW
-
You Blokes will still be arguing in a 100 Years...
PW is correct and Tinman is Correct, each from their own points of View...
PW is talking Total Wave Content, Tinman is not. Tinman is talking Fundamental Wave.
If memory serves, Sine is all Even Harmonics, Square Wave is Odd Harmonics and Triangle is all Harmonics. All Waves have a tone of real wave content that is either side Fundamental.
#59: Basics of a Square Wave signal's harmonic content (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC36AqL5mw8)
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
P.S: You guys should really be working toward a common goal and not bickering over such thigns. After all, its just each others point of view. why not agree to dissagree?
-
Chris:
You are just "injecting noise" into the discussion and your posting should be completely ignored. PW is dead-on 100% correct and Brad should undertake to learn and understand this fundamental concept.
MileHigh
-
But i am a little confused about this turn off time,as the 1n4007 data sheet's all show a test frequency of 1MHz,
Indeed, but for what test is this 1MHz used for? The other test condition is a reverse voltage of 4V. Why would they do that? Why, to test CT of course.
while here i was using only 10KHz. If it is suited to frequencies of 1MHz,then how can it not switch off fast enough for 10KHz ?.
Brad
Any assumption that the 1N4007 is suited for use at 1MHz is incorrect. It is a line frequency device. If you want a faster version, try the UF4007. It has only a slightly lower capacitance under the same test conditions, but its Trr is much faster.
As PW is saying, the frequency has little to do with how fast a device can switch. The real question is how fast can the device switch at the transition points? A 1N4007 with a 10Hz square wave (but with 10ns rise and fall times) is still not going to switch very fast from ON to OFF and back to ON, because it is limited by its own finite switching speed. Relative to the period of a 10Hz square wave, yes the 1N4007 will switch pretty fast, but relative to the rise and fall times at the transition points of this same 10Hz square wave, its switching time is comparatively slow.
The frequency will eventually catch up and become the limiting factor for all switching devices. If for eg, a diode requires 2us to recover (Trr), then the maximum frequency one should expect for it to fully switch would be about 250kHz (50% duty), but you are not going to see a nice square wave on its output; it will be somewhat sinusoidal.
The again, what do I know, and why am I posting? :-X
-
Tinman was not correct...
His LED was being driven by the higher frequencies contained in his waveform well in excess of the 10KHz indicated on his scope.
A pure "sine wave" contains no harmonics. If it contains harmonics (as in distortion, THD, etc) then it is no longer just a sine wave and its shape will deviate (distort) from that of a pure sine.
A triangle wave, like a square wave, contains ODD harmonics, just as is indicated by the frequency domain plot EMJ posted (note there are no even harmonics displayed). The difference being that the amplitude of the higher frequency harmonics are rolled off in the triangle wave.
PW
-
Chris:
You are just "injecting noise" into the discussion and your posting should be completely ignored. PW is dead-on 100% correct and Brad should undertake to learn and understand this fundamental concept.
MileHigh
The only Noise around here is you MileHigh - Looks like you can not read as well?
Most everyone here has learnt fo filter your non-sense out however. Its a new type of filter, called a MilleHehehehe Filter!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Just a bit more on the subject:
Let's say we build a very narrow bandpass filter circuit that only passes 900Hz with very steep rejection of frequencies that are above or below that 900Hz. Using our function generator (FG), we input a 100Hz sine wave to that filter and note that there is little if any signal passing thru to the output (it is, afterall, a very narrow 900Hz bandpass filter).
Without changing the frequency setting on the FG, we switch to a triangle wave like in EMJ's post above (still at 100Hz). Now when we look at the filter's output, we see a significant amount of signal passing thru the narrow 900Hz bandpass filter.
How can that be, the FG (and the scope) continue to say 100Hz? The answer is that we have changed the frequency content of the waveform by adding a bunch of odd harmonics, just as is indicated by the frequency domain display EMJ posted above.
These are very real harmonics, not just abstract concepts or "noise"...
PW
-
Tinman was not correct...
His LED was being driven by the higher frequencies contained in his waveform well in excess of the 10KHz indicated on his scope.
A pure "sine wave" contains no harmonics. If it contains harmonics (as in distortion, THD, etc) then it is no longer just a sine wave and its shape will deviate (distort) from that of a pure sine.
A triangle wave, like a square wave, contains ODD harmonics, just as is indicated by the frequency domain plot EMJ posted (note there are no even harmonics displayed). The difference being that the amplitude of the higher frequency harmonics are rolled off in the triangle wave.
PW
PW - Thanks for correcting me!
...sine waves are representations of a single frequency with no harmonics
I must have had the Triangle and Square mixed with the Square and Sine.
Like you say, Sine waves do have Harmonics, but result in a distortion:
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Like you say, Sine waves do have Harmonics, but result in a distortion:
No, read PW's posting again. Sine waves do not have harmonics. A slightly distorted sine wave is by definition a fundamental sine wave plus some added harmonics.
You can go from the time domain to the frequency domain and then back to the time domain. It's a very important concept. I am pretty sure that's how they developed the algorithm for mp3 audio compression. They take the audio time domain waveform and convert it into the frequency domain. This is a much more efficient way of representing a waveform. Then they compress the data associated with the frequency domain to give you a very efficient compression scheme. Then when an mp3 is played back, the reverse is done. The compressed frequency domain information is decompressed and then converted back to the time domain.
It's also the basis for a lot of image compression algorithms also. That's why sometimes in a heavily compressed image you see "ripples" around small objects that are high-contrast relative to the background. The "ripples" are waves - compression artifacts from a heavily compressed image where the compression algorithm primarily operates in the frequency domain.
-
No, read PW's posting again, sine waves do not have harmonics. A slightly distorted sine wave is by definition a fundamental sine wave plus some added harmonics.
Millehehehehe - Old Mate...
I think Reading is not one of your strong points? I quote again:
A pure "sine wave" contains no harmonics. If it contains harmonics (as in distortion, THD, etc) then it is no longer just a sine wave and its shape will deviate (distort) from that of a pure sine.
I really dont see this as hard to understand, it is certianly not any deviation from what I have already said in my posts and already clearly quoted!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Be a sad clown if you want.
-
Be a sad clown if you want.
Certainly not!!!
Like PW bought up and I also said, Waves have a ton or Real Wave content. All starting from the Fundamental. But from the other angle, with "No Fundamental" there is also no Wave Content.
You’re poking sticks at an imaginary Snake!!! Really not contributing anything of any value and generally trying to be a pest, is this your intent?
Maybe you are out of your depth here? Again!
This may help some: Significance of Time domain and Frequency domain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmLm7g4KrDg)
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TC_CBnqDIU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TC_CBnqDIU)
The best wave I have ever seen.
Seriously, this guy is nuts.
Bill
Really, at least watch the first 30 seconds or until the camera pulls back out. Almost a perfect sine wave.
-
Maybe you are out of your depth here? Again!
Stop the stupid shtick that you are copying from Brad. Remember when you had a meltdown when you were asked a ridiculously simple question about a coil that you could not answer and MarkE stepped in and answered it for you? After months of blabbing all about coils? You are the one that is out of your depth and the best you have been able to do for the past few months is to keep on bumping up your long-dead thread. You have a long way to go if you are truly interested in electronics. You quote serious EM stuff and then try to apply it to your nonsensical "partnered output coils." You revealed your "big demo experiment" of the "partnered coils secret sauce" and it was an under-unity joke showing that you had no clue how to make measurements. Again, you clearly have a long way to go.
So stop playing games like a clown. You make an incorrect statement and I corrected you because this stuff is important so I advised you to go back and read what PW said again.
Now be a man and review the material that PW posted and master it so that you can do better experiments. You need to understand when and where to consider looking at the frequency domain when you want to understand and analyze what a circuit is doing and how it works. I don't believe you have that skill set right now and John even mentioned way back when that you chose to ignore this important subject matter.
MileHigh
-
Stop the stupid shtick that you are copying from Brad. Remember when you had a meltdown when you were asked a ridiculously simple question about a coil that you could not answer and MarkE stepped in and answered it for you? After months of blabbing all about coils? You are the one that is out of your depth and the best you have been able to do for the past few months is to keep on bumping up your long-dead thread. You have a long way to go if you are truly interested in electronics. You quote serious EM stuff and then try to apply it to your nonsensical "partnered output coils." You revealed your "big demo experiment" of the "partnered coils secret sauce" and it was an under-unity joke showing that you had no clue how to make measurements. Again, you clearly have a long way to go.
So stop playing games like a clown. You make an incorrect statement and I corrected you because this stuff is important so I advised you to go back and read what PW said again.
Now be a man and review the material that PW posted and master it so that you can do better experiments. You need to understand when and where to consider looking at the frequency domain when you want to understand and analyze what a circuit is doing and how it works. I don't believe you have that skill set right now and John even mentioned way back when that you chose to ignore this important subject matter.
MileHigh
@MilleHehehehe:
Whos the Sad Clown NOW!!!
You keep making up lies Millehehehehe. He who did not even know why a Coax Cable Signal is 62% of Light... and MarkE stepped in and answered it for you!!! Didnt he MilleHehehehe - I posted the Stan Meyer Circuit, with not a single measurement, No-one investigated it properly! You are judging someone elses work, nothing to do with my work!!! Period!!!
Actually, looking at TinselKoala's Channel, the Circuit I posted, that TK built, still remains the best Input to Neon Light experiment he has ever done! Infact, it kept producing light, with more Neon's being added, untill the Enamel burnt off the Coils... This alone speaks volumes to a sane mind MilleHehehehe
So youre are full of it!!! Dont talk crap!!!!
@Bill - Nice video!!! Thats a Thumbs Up from me!
@MilleHehehehe - Again.
OU.com has seen more OU successes since I came back here than ever before! People are understanding "How" to invoke Electricity on the terminals of their coils now. Its still something you have light years of study to understand, even after I have done all the hard work for you!
I never proclaimed to know everything like you do MilleHehehehe!!! In-fact, I openly admit that I learn new things all the time, not to admit it is just arrogant isnt it?
Old mate, youre out of your depth as soon as you get up in the morning, thats the sad thing!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Hehehehe my ass. You are as fake as a three-dollar bill.
-
Hehehehe my ass. You are as fake as a three-dollar bill.
Hahaha - MilleHehehe - Joke is on you old mate.
Always is and always will be!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Actually, looking at TinselKoala's Channel, the Circuit I posted, that TK built, still remains the best Input to Neon Light experiment he has ever done! Infact, it kept producing light, with more Neon's being added, untill the Enamel burnt off the Coils... This alone speaks volumes to a sane mind MilleHehehehe
Lie about your own "work" all you like, but DO NOT misrepresent what I've done. Leave me out of your delusions.
-
Lie about your own "work" all you like, but DO NOT misrepresent what I've done. Leave me out of your delusions.
It’s no lie TK, still to this day, for the input to the output, the Circuit I gave you, is by far the best Neon Light Show you have done - That’s no lie at all!
I even provide your channel link for others to see for themselves: https://www.youtube.com/user/TinselKoala/videos
Should we compare, around 3 times better that your magical: Extreme High Voltage: TinselKoil 8: Bipolar Slayer Success ! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ-iF9Go0iI)
Let’s talk about Miss-Interpret shall we, seems this is what you do best. The QEG is one example, your videos show a very poor maturity, for a person of the stature you try to proclaim, especially when you clearly do not understand what it is that you’re talking about!
Then when given the opportunity to build with help, you turn it down? Scared of something TK?
In-fact, the very Electrical Energy you use in the expert work you self-proclaim, you have no idea at all how and where it comes from! This is the biggest joke, professionals that have no idea, at all, how and where the very thing they are professionals at, comes from...
I know that the word "Succeed" is not in your nature, its "give-up" and "explain away" at all costs!!! Nothing to see here, just "Swamp Gas", or another good one is "Weather Balloon", isn’t it TK.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
TK you still to this day can not explain where and how the 3.3KV Spikes came from?
Misc. Circuits: EMJ-Meyer Circuit Demo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smocfnCxwKM)
I quote: "Gee, when I did this before it was Chattering and Buzzing...there was quite a bit of change in the noise"
Misc. Circuits: TKs EMJ-Meyer Build Demo 2 -- HV Adverse Event! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLsYULBKvXA)
Most all Inductive collapse will be around the region of 200 - 1000V.
Again, it was not properly investigated. Imagine the result if the wave was not Square like I did bring up at the time!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg479582#msg479582 date=1459915220]
MileHigh
Stop the stupid shtick that you are copying from Brad.
Cut your shit out MH.
I called a truce,and you continue to belittle me--even though you are the one that is continually wrong,and i am the one continually correcting you on your mistakes-time after time. The only time you are right,is when you are riding on the back of those like PW--you have no spine of your own.
Quote me: Why not just use a J/FET,and have a high winding ration between the primary and secondary,where the(high turn) secondary would turn the J/FET off.
Your response : Yeah well I would have to say that that doesn't make any sense at all. But don't let that stop you since this whole thread is filled with nonsensical statements by you and just about nobody says anything about it.
SeaMonkey's response : Miles, you may wish to examine the attached document.
Your response :Incidentally, I don't think I have ever seen any "experimenter participation" from you. So I suppose that we are both in the "same boat" for that.
but there is a big difference between you and SeaMonkey-->he knows what he is talking about,and dose not engage his mouth before his mine-like you do,and have done on several occasions now in this thread.
Remember when you had a meltdown when you were asked a ridiculously simple question about a coil that you could not answer and MarkE stepped in and answered it for you? After months of blabbing all about coils?
This coming from you is comical,as you never answer your own question's.
You are the one that is out of your depth and the best you have been able to do for the past few months is to keep on bumping up your long-dead thread.
Your full bottles on something you have not even tried your self. Oh we all know--the answers are all in the book's-right :D. Who needs to experiment ::).
You have a long way to go if you are truly interested in electronics. You quote serious EM stuff and then try to apply it to your nonsensical "partnered output coils." You revealed your "big demo experiment" of the "partnered coils secret sauce" and it was an under-unity joke showing that you had no clue how to make measurements. Again, you clearly have a long way to go.
Once again-comical coming from some one that has no idea as to where resonant systems exist.
You say that EMJ has a long way to go in electronic's?,well i think we all do,but you have to stop and ask your self MH--how far do you have to go?. One would think that some one that dose not know that a J/FET needs no gate voltage to conduct,indeed has a long way to go. How is it that i knew the working's of a J/FET,and he who wishes to judge(that be you MH) others guru status in electronics ,has no idea him self.
So stop playing games like a clown. You make an incorrect statement and I corrected you because this stuff is important so I advised you to go back and read what PW said again.
You love to correct people on there mistakes MH,but you hate being corrected on your's.
The truth is,that this thread has shown how little you really know,and how !in no way,shape or form! are you fit to judge or correct anyone here.
Now be a man and review the material that PW posted and master it so that you can do better experiments.
And there is the pot calling the kettle black ::)
You need to understand when and where to consider looking at the frequency domain when you want to understand and analyze what a circuit is doing and how it works. I don't believe you have that skill set right now and John even mentioned way back when that you chose to ignore this important subject matter.
You are truly full of shit MH,as you have no idea on the subject matter your self. Never a mention until PW mentioned it,and then you just jump on the band wagon--trying to make your self look good.
You made claims that no resonant systems existed in or around the ICE-I, and many others proved you wrong.
Then your second attempt-there is no resonance with the piston it self-Once again,i proved you wrong.
Then your quick smart ass comment about my statement of using a J/FET--a clear indication and admittance by your self that you did not know the simple operation of a very commonly used electronic component. You were just itching to have another go at me,and once again you had to eat a big mouthful of humble pie.
The fact is MH,you do not have the right,status,or smarts to be judging anyone here on this thread.
Dont worry about posting your new found theory on resonance,as the question has been answered many time correctly here on this thread,and no one is going to take some one that dose not know what a J/FET is- seriously.
Best you go stick your face back into those books of yesty year--oh and look up J/FET while your at it.
You keep going at me MH,and i will keep burying you in your own rubbish,bullshit, and mistakes.
Brad
-
Hey that’s the way I see it too!!!
MH time to hang up those Holey Trolly Shoes, and MilleHehehehehehehehehe all the way to town!!! Get a real job - Hahahahaha
I would suggest maybe Sewage Maintenance Technician might best fit your personality!!!
Eewh, how much maintenance can there be in Sewage??? Let us know MH!!! Wont you?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
P.S: more than an hour later I am still ROFLMAO!!!
-
Indeed, but for what test is this 1MHz used for? The other test condition is a reverse voltage of 4V. Why would they do that? Why, to test CT of course.
Any assumption that the 1N4007 is suited for use at 1MHz is incorrect. It is a line frequency device. If you want a faster version, try the UF4007. It has only a slightly lower capacitance under the same test conditions, but its Trr is much faster.
As PW is saying, the frequency has little to do with how fast a device can switch. The real question is how fast can the device switch at the transition points? A 1N4007 with a 10Hz square wave (but with 10ns rise and fall times) is still not going to switch very fast from ON to OFF and back to ON, because it is limited by its own finite switching speed. Relative to the period of a 10Hz square wave, yes the 1N4007 will switch pretty fast, but relative to the rise and fall times at the transition points of this same 10Hz square wave, its switching time is comparatively slow.
The frequency will eventually catch up and become the limiting factor for all switching devices. If for eg, a diode requires 2us to recover (Trr), then the maximum frequency one should expect for it to fully switch would be about 250kHz (50% duty), but you are not going to see a nice square wave on its output; it will be somewhat sinusoidal.
:-X
Thank you Poynt for clearing that up.
The again, what do I know, and why am I posting?
Do not confuse a sincere question with something some one believes in,and standing firm on that belief. Just because we may not agree on some thing's,dose not mean that i do not appreciate your input or help.
I know we did not see eye to eye on the thread involving the effects the rotor with PM's in it,had on the efficiency of the fixed frequency coil--with and without the rotor,but maybe you might like to take a look over at the mechanical resonance thread. In the next couple of day's,i will show you what was happening within that rotor/coil setup,and maybe we can see what really was taking place in that other system. Maybe nothing new to you,and maybe you could shed some light on it. But i found it most interesting,and a clear difference between having an oscillating magnetic field,and not having one. Im not quite sure what to make of it,but you may know straight up.
Brad
-
Brad:
You have been treated normally by me and called out on your misconceptions, mistakes, and wonky beliefs and for once you are not being given a "special pass." Naturally you are upset, welcome to the real world. Your attack strategy against me is to just go on and on about my mistakes to the point of absurdity. I am willing to admit when I make a mistake. You can't do that, you can't actually admit when you have made a mistake, and that is completely absurd. You can sit in the frying pan as long as you want.
The only time you are right,is when you are riding on the back of those like PW--you have no spine of your own.
That's an example of you taking your attack to the point of complete absurdity. And EMJunkie decided that he would copy you. You are being given the straight goods by me, because I have a spine.
The most recent example is you milking the JFet business. I admitted that I was wrong. A JFET is NOT a common component like you stated. You will do anything and say anything in a vain attempt to try to make a point to the point of absurdity.
This coming from you is comical,as you never answer your own question's.
I answer my questions and the wine glass questions that you can't answer will be answered next week. And there is no fucking apostrophe in "questions." Demonstrate that you can learn something.
How is it that i knew the working's of a J/FET,and he who wishes to judge(that be you MH) others guru status in electronics ,has no idea him self.
The answer is simple. You looked up a JFET recently and I haven't thought about one for 35 years since I last sat through that material in an electronics class.
You love to correct people on there mistakes MH,but you hate being corrected on your's.
Bullshit, I don't mind being corrected at all. You are the one that has that problem because you can't admit that you are wrong. You have a mental block. And there is no fucking apostrophe in "yours." Demonstrate that you can learn something.
You are truly full of shit MH,as you have no idea on the subject matter your self. Never a mention until PW mentioned it,and then you just jump on the band wagon--trying to make your self look good.
You can kiss my ass with your bullshit statement about me not knowing about the frequency domain. You are such a pathetic liar sometimes, it's totally grotesque to read your stupid-ass trash. I have been discussing issues related to the frequency domain ever since I have been around here and just about everybody knows that - and you damn well know it's true. You make yourself look horrible, like some sleazy low-life spin doctor.
You made claims that no resonant systems existed in or around the ICE-I, and many others proved you wrong.
The main operation on an ICE is a synchronous machine and has nothing whatsoever to do with resonance. The fact that the air intake and outlets make use of Helmholtz resonators is a distant secondary consideration and I admitted that I was ignorant of that fact. Spin doctor away.
Then your second attempt-there is no resonance with the piston it self-Once again,i proved you wrong.
Bullshit you proved me wrong. Screw you with your Brad's Bizarro World of anti-logic. You linked to a book that said resonance in the combustion chamber is undesirable and bad for the engine. Your link backfired on you. You said you would find a link to back up your claim and you have not delivered on that.
The fact is MH,you do not have the right,status,or smarts to be judging anyone here on this thread.
Kiss my ass Brad with your stupid-ass gratuitous nonsense. For the past five years you have been claiming that I am one of the "big guns" and you are clearly demonstrating how low you can go and how deeply you can compromise your integrity.
The fact is that you have no problems turning bad and going completely morally bankrupt and making a spectacle of yourself.
You keep going at me MH,and i will keep burying you in your own rubbish,bullshit, and mistakes.
You have buried yourself into your own deep dark chasm, you are one creepy dude that can't handle things and you lose your composure and throw away all of your personal integrity.
The wine glass questions about resonance that you can't answer will be answered next week.
MileHigh
-
OK TINMAN AND MICROmLOW CAN WE MOVE AWAY FROM THE meckano and lego toys now please , move forward to discover FREE ENERGY PLEASE,,,,,, ;)
-
TINMAN AND MICROMLOW YOU BOTH INVITED TO PRASLIN SEYCHELLES ,JUST TO CHILL OUT AND GO FISHING , I SUPPLY FREE BEER AND ACCOMMODATION, BECAUSE YOU GUYS NEEDS IT..
-
Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.
The biggest problem here,and by here i mean !world wide!,is that it seems most(if not all) have just settled for knowing what the magnetic field dose,and how we can use that magnetic field. It seems that no one is any longer interested in knowing -or trying to find out what the magnetic force is.
If we knew this,then we could then design devices based around that new found knowledge,and only then would we have machines that can be powered by PM's alone.
No one seems to even want to try and find out what the magnetic force is--but it is something,we know it is,as we can feel it.
Brad
Oh dear tinman, you really do need to study basic induction,
John.
-
Brad:
You have been treated normally by me and called out on your misconceptions, mistakes, and wonky beliefs and for once you are not being given a "special pass." Naturally you are upset, welcome to the real world. Your attack strategy against me is to just go on and on about my mistakes to the point of absurdity. I am willing to admit when I make a mistake. You can't do that, you can't actually admit when you have made a mistake, and that is completely absurd. You can sit in the frying pan as long as you want.
That's an example of you taking your attack to the point of complete absurdity. And EMJunkie decided that he would copy you. You are being given the straight goods by me, because I have a spine.
The most recent example is you milking the JFet business. I admitted that I was wrong. A JFET is NOT a common component like you stated. You will do anything and say anything in a vain attempt to try to make a point to the point of absurdity.
I answer my questions and the wine glass questions that you can't answer will be answered next week. And there is no fucking apostrophe in "questions." Demonstrate that you can learn something.
The answer is simple. You looked up a JFET recently and I haven't thought about one for 35 years since I last sat through that material in an electronics class.
Bullshit, I don't mind being corrected at all. You are the one that has that problem because you can't admit that you are wrong. You have a mental block. And there is no fucking apostrophe in "yours." Demonstrate that you can learn something.
You can kiss my ass with your bullshit statement about me not knowing about the frequency domain. You are such a pathetic liar sometimes, it's totally grotesque to read your stupid-ass trash. I have been discussing issues related to the frequency domain ever since I have been around here and just about everybody knows that - and you damn well know it's true. You make yourself look horrible, like some sleazy low-life spin doctor.
The main operation on an ICE is a synchronous machine and has nothing whatsoever to do with resonance. The fact that the air intake and outlets make use of Helmholtz resonators is a distant secondary consideration and I admitted that I was ignorant of that fact. Spin doctor away.
Bullshit you proved me wrong. Screw you with your Brad's Bizarro World of anti-logic. You linked to a book that said resonance in the combustion chamber is undesirable and bad for the engine. Your link backfired on you. You said you would find a link to back up your claim and you have not delivered on that.
Kiss my ass Brad with your stupid-ass gratuitous nonsense. For the past five years you have been claiming that I am one of the "big guns" and you are clearly demonstrating how low you can go and how deeply you can compromise your integrity.
The fact is that you have no problems turning bad and going completely morally bankrupt and making a spectacle of yourself.
You have buried yourself into your own deep dark chasm, you are one creepy dude that can't handle things and you lose your composure and throw away all of your personal integrity.
The wine glass questions about resonance that you can't answer will be answered next week.
MileHigh
Very poor form MilleHehehehe
All Lies and mis-nomers again! Fair bit of bad language also!!! Captian America would not be impressed!!!
You think youre right all the time, there is a term for this, its a God Complex!!!
Even when youre dead wrong, in your eyes youre right!
Good luck with that, youre going to need it!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.
The biggest problem here,and by here i mean !world wide!,is that it seems most(if not all) have just settled for knowing what the magnetic field dose,and how we can use that magnetic field. It seems that no one is any longer interested in knowing -or trying to find out what the magnetic force is.
If we knew this,then we could then design devices based around that new found knowledge,and only then would we have machines that can be powered by PM's alone.
No one seems to even want to try and find out what the magnetic force is--but it is something,we know it is,as we can feel it.
Brad
Hear, hear!!!
Golden observations! The most prominent is the observations about Lazy, Arrogant Human Mind!!!
We really do have so much to still learn, but the Arrogance gets in the way!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad
Oh dear tinman, you really do need to study basic induction,
John.
John, your critique here has totally mised the point of the statements made by Brad.
I think youre being a bit rough, when you do not fully unerstand what Brad is actually saying between the lines! Although prrinciples of Induction were bought up, it is not the primary topic of discussion, at least not the way you invision it.
Perhaps an appology would be order?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.
The biggest problem here,and by here i mean !world wide!,is that it seems most(if not all) have just settled for knowing what the magnetic field dose,and how we can use that magnetic field. It seems that no one is any longer interested in knowing -or trying to find out what the magnetic force is.
If we knew this,then we could then design devices based around that new found knowledge,and only then would we have machines that can be powered by PM's alone.
No one seems to even want to try and find out what the magnetic force is--but it is something,we know it is,as we can feel it.
Brad
Brad,
If I said here on this forum, that the Magnetic Field is not the field that is responsible for Electromagnetic Induction - All here would laught at me. Weather it was true or not true!
Electrons, the fundamental outer Atom attribute, are freed by a Force. This force can direct these "Free" Electrons in a specific direction that we can determine only via experimental observation!!! The term for this Freeing is called Electron Orbital Hopping (http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.085114)
Many here will laugh at me now, hahaha "Orbital Hopping" what a bunch of BS - Well old fellows, jokes on you!
Once an Electron leaves its Orbital, it leaves a "Hole" this is called "Hole Theory", something that's called the Dirac Sea - by Paul Dirac (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voulu2kksXU) - So many novices see this and fly off into oblivion, OOOoh Negative Energy, Its a trap...
We already have exactly the same fundamental concepts occuring in every single Electrical "Generator" that Humans have ever used to power their Computers and Lights!!!
However, this process is amazing none the less. Now comes the total blind side, we "Think" we know this much! What if it were the case that this was all wrong? 99.9999% of all the electrical Engineers out ther would have no idea what we are even talking about! 98.99999% of all physicists would have no idea how to even go about proving or diss-proving this. Most all of the current theory is from a very smart man sitting in his chair all day for many years with a pen and paper, mathmatically attempting to prove his theory...
Mathmatical Fudging is not new!
One last thing, what would be required to make Water flow Up hill?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.
The biggest problem here,and by here i mean !world wide!,is that it seems most(if not all) have just settled for knowing what the magnetic field dose,and how we can use that magnetic field. It seems that no one is any longer interested in knowing -or trying to find out what the magnetic force is.
If we knew this,then we could then design devices based around that new found knowledge,and only then would we have machines that can be powered by PM's alone.
No one seems to even want to try and find out what the magnetic force is--but it is something,we know it is,as we can feel it.
Brad
Yeah, the dc coil thing seems like a cunundrum. Was reading a book on electric motors by Irving Gotleib. May not have spelled that right. But one thing he said was with motors and gens, there are 3 requirements. Electricity, AC and ;) or DC, magnetic fields, and the third is motion. Missing any of the 3 and its not a motor or a gen. Could get into static electric field motors, and the mag fields are there, whether they play a magnetic push and pull could be the reason there is attraction and repulsion between HV charged leafs and other plates and things, like Lasersabers electric field motors, is something that may be a miss. ???
So if we look at the field of a coil with dc on it, other than producing the 'stationary' field, it is doing no work, unless say it were to be picking up things or clamping something to a wall, but thats totally something else. We are talking motor/gen action. Also the reverse, if a magnet is stationary near a coil, and no motion, then no current.
I know you know all this stuff, but it helps for readers that dont have that understanding. ;) Ive thought the same things as you on that subject. Weird stuff when you try to think deep into it. :o ;D
Mags
-
It’s no lie TK, still to this day, for the input to the output, the Circuit I gave you, is by far the best Neon Light Show you have done - That’s no lie at all!
I even provide your channel link for others to see for themselves: https://www.youtube.com/user/TinselKoala/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/TinselKoala/videos)
Should we compare, around 3 times better that your magical: Extreme High Voltage: TinselKoil 8: Bipolar Slayer Success ! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ-iF9Go0iI)
Let’s talk about Miss-Interpret shall we, seems this is what you do best. The QEG is one example, your videos show a very poor maturity, for a person of the stature you try to proclaim, especially when you clearly do not understand what it is that you’re talking about!
Then when given the opportunity to build with help, you turn it down? Scared of something TK?
In-fact, the very Electrical Energy you use in the expert work you self-proclaim, you have no idea at all how and where it comes from! This is the biggest joke, professionals that have no idea, at all, how and where the very thing they are professionals at, comes from...
I know that the word "Succeed" is not in your nature, its "give-up" and "explain away" at all costs!!! Nothing to see here, just "Swamp Gas", or another good one is "Weather Balloon", isn’t it TK.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
You are again MISREPRESENTING my work. You apparently did not notice, or are deliberately ignoring, the actual points of my demonstrations, as usual.
1. You misrepresented the measurements on that circuit-- it is the circuit where you took current and voltage measurements on different branches and multiplied them together and claimed "overunity". For which you were soundly criticised and refuted many times over. You still haven't learned your lesson, clearly.
2. I lit up 30 neons in series-- wired together in series -- with that circuit. This indicates a voltage of around 2700 volts. I can light up a lot more neons than that --- WIRELESSLY-- should I care to do so. You are simply lying, and trying to aggrandize yourself, when you claim that that is my "best" . It's not even close. Lighting neons with high voltage is trivial, especially when they are _wired_ into a circuit. If 2700 volts can light up 30 neons, imagine how many could be lit up with 10,000 volts, or 30,000 volts, or the 300,000 volts that I've shown in some other demonstrations. Your claims that the 30 are the "best" I can do is just laughable. That circuit is rather feeble, and can't hold a candle to my hybrid SS-SGTC, for just one example. Furthermore, you yourself have NEVER demonstrated anything even close to that, because you are stuck in your non-functional fantasies.
3. The coils in my 30 neon demonstration are connected in _aiding_ configuration, not your "partnered" bucking configuration which produces nearly no output when the coils are actually matched. The whole demonstration is a solid REFUTATION of your silly claims.
4. Why should I want you to "help" me? You have done nothing but demonstrate how you can't even make proper measurements with your own equipment, and even in this thread you have demonstrated such ignorance that it's not even funny. You can't even help yourself!
5. LEAVE ME OUT of your fantasy delusions. You've been banned before for your insulting, non-helpful and non-cooperative posts, are you trying for that again? You've done nothing in this thread but try to hijack it with nonsense. At least MileHigh and Brad and PW and the others are having some kind of constructive discussion, even if the tone is a bit antagonistic. YOU, however, are contributing nothing but nonsense and diversion, and I see that you have once again descended into your insulting, vile and gross posting of meaningless insulting images. You need to be spanked, or sent to bed without supper, as appropriate for childish minds like yours.
-
Also the reverse, if a magnet is stationary near a coil, and no motion, then no current.
A truly golden and yet obvious observation. What does Motion introduce? Or a better way to ask the question, How does Motion change the situation where, now Electromagnetic Induction can occur?
The Consequences... Oh the Consequences...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Yeah, the dc coil thing seems like a cunundrum. Was reading a book on electric motors by Irving Gotleib. May not have spelled that right. But one thing he said was with motors and gens, there are 3 requirements. Electricity, AC and ;) or DC, magnetic fields, and the third is motion. Missing any of the 3 and its not a motor or a gen. Could get into static electric field motors, and the mag fields are there, whether they play a magnetic push and pull could be the reason there is attraction and repulsion between HV charged leafs and other plates and things, like Lasersabers electric field motors, is something that may be a miss. ???
So if we look at the field of a coil with dc on it, other than producing the 'stationary' field, it is doing no work, unless say it were to be picking up things or clamping something to a wall, but thats totally something else. We are talking motor/gen action. Also the reverse, if a magnet is stationary near a coil, and no motion, then no current.
I know you know all this stuff, but it helps for readers that dont have that understanding. ;) Ive thought the same things as you on that subject. Weird stuff when you try to think deep into it. :o ;D
Mags
Now you are getting it. In the DC case, the magnetic field is set up while the current is changing during the "switch on" time of the current. Once the current is flowing at a steady rate, it "costs" nothing more to maintain the magnetic field, and the field itself doesn't dissipate power. This is how superconducting magnets work. The situation is perfectly symmetrical. You get no current produced from a stationary magnet sitting next to a coil, because there is nothing changing. Move the magnet (or the coil), so that the coil experiences a changing magnetic field, and you get current. Remember Faraday's Law of Induction (and pay no attention to the confused ravings of EMJunkie): The induced EMF is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the linked magnetic field. You can take this algebraic equation and re-arrange it according to ordinary algebra, and see that the two situations are indeed symmetrical. The "conundrum" comes from mis-stating the problem or situation in the first place.
-
Perhaps I'm totally wrong, anyone put me on the right track??
The thing that satisfied me in my quest to understand induction
came from Einstein and special relativity,then it all seemed to make
sense.
if I was "the creator", I believe I couldn't much improve on what
already exists, I think nature is fantastic as is!
John
-
You are again MISREPRESENTING my work. You apparently did not notice, or are deliberately ignoring, the actual points of my demonstrations, as usual.
1. You misrepresented the measurements on that circuit-- it is the circuit where you took current and voltage measurements on different branches and multiplied them together and claimed "overunity". For which you were soundly criticised and refuted many times over. You still haven't learned your lesson, clearly.
2. I lit up 30 neons in series-- wired together in series -- with that circuit. This indicates a voltage of around 2700 volts. I can light up a lot more neons than that --- WIRELESSLY-- should I care to do so. You are simply lying, and trying to aggrandize yourself, when you claim that that is my "best" . It's not even close. Lighting neons with high voltage is trivial, especially when they are _wired_ into a circuit. If 2700 volts can light up 30 neons, imagine how many could be lit up with 10,000 volts, or 30,000 volts, or the 300,000 volts that I've shown in some other demonstrations. Your claims that the 30 are the "best" I can do is just laughable. That circuit is rather feeble, and can't hold a candle to my hybrid SS-SGTC, for just one example. Furthermore, you yourself have NEVER demonstrated anything even close to that, because you are stuck in your non-functional fantasies.
3. The coils in my 30 neon demonstration are connected in _aiding_ configuration, not your "partnered" bucking configuration which produces nearly no output when the coils are actually matched. The whole demonstration is a solid REFUTATION of your silly claims.
4. Why should I want you to "help" me? You have done nothing but demonstrate how you can't even make proper measurements with your own equipment, and even in this thread you have demonstrated such ignorance that it's not even funny. You can't even help yourself!
5. LEAVE ME OUT of your fantasy delusions. You've been banned before for your insulting, non-helpful and non-cooperative posts, are you trying for that again? You've done nothing in this thread but try to hijack it with nonsense. At least MileHigh and Brad and PW and the others are having some kind of constructive discussion, even if the tone is a bit antagonistic. YOU, however, are contributing nothing but nonsense and diversion, and I see that you have once again descended into your insulting, vile and gross posting of meaningless insulting images. You need to be spanked, or sent to bed without supper, as appropriate for childish minds like yours.
Hahahahaha - Classically pathetic - Again. True to form!!!
A shame, you have the potential to be so much more, yet you blow it all away for Arrogance? I fail to understand these tendency’s...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Now you are getting it. In the DC case, the magnetic field is set up while the current is changing during the "switch on" time of the current. Once the current is flowing at a steady rate, it "costs" nothing more to maintain the magnetic field, and the field itself doesn't dissipate power. This is how superconducting magnets work. The situation is perfectly symmetrical. You get no current produced from a stationary magnet sitting next to a coil, because there is nothing changing. Move the magnet (or the coil), so that the coil experiences a changing magnetic field, and you get current. Remember Faraday's Law of Induction (and pay no attention to the confused ravings of EMJunkie): The induced EMF is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the linked magnetic field. You can take this algebraic equation and re-arrange it according to ordinary algebra, and see that the two situations are indeed symmetrical. The "conundrum" comes from mis-stating the problem or situation in the first place.
OMG - Foolishness like I have never seen before!!!
When I push my Toy Car around the Room I get no Induction? No Sparks arching out across anything...
You dammed Fool!!! What does Motion introduce?
Now I know I was wrong, you do not have the potential to be better, you’re completely lost if the tangle of confusion you’re happy to sit in - You have no idea what so ever on Magnetics at all!!! Period!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Good Koala,
super conductivity is a nice proof of what you're saying,
John.
-
Now you are getting it. In the DC case, the magnetic field is set up while the current is changing during the "switch on" time of the current. Once the current is flowing at a steady rate, it "costs" nothing more to maintain the magnetic field, and the field itself doesn't dissipate power. This is how superconducting magnets work. The situation is perfectly symmetrical. You get no current produced from a stationary magnet sitting next to a coil, because there is nothing changing. Move the magnet (or the coil), so that the coil experiences a changing magnetic field, and you get current. Remember Faraday's Law of Induction (and pay no attention to the confused ravings of EMJunkie): The induced EMF is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the linked magnetic field. You can take this algebraic equation and re-arrange it according to ordinary algebra, and see that the two situations are indeed symmetrical. The "conundrum" comes from mis-stating the problem or situation in the first place.
Truly - you are ignorant to facts! Or is it a chosen response, then that would make it arrogance!
Truly you have no idea, what does motion introduce?
This being the primary and most important concept in Electromagnetic Induction – and You, All Mighty Guru, have no idea!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Good Koala,
super conductivity is a nice proof of what you're saying,
John.
Truly - Now I know what you dufuses are on!!!
Superconductors do what exactly to prove TK's Foolishness?
Oh thats right, nothing at all!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Ok.
-
Good Koala,
super-conductivity,nice proof of your point.
John.
John, what is a Room Temprature Super Conductor?
Show us that you know what youre talking about, go on. Show us that TK is really and truely a Dummy!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
I don't think the 2G HTS is quite the real McCoy.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg479628#msg479628 date=1459957459]
MileHigh
I am willing to admit when I make a mistake.
No your not.
In fact,you dont even know the difference between your own truth and lies now MH.
You have been treated normally by me and called out on your misconceptions, mistakes, and wonky beliefs
There is one of those lies now,as it is you that has been caught out !on many occasions! on your lack of knowledge on the subject matter-that being resonance.
Your attack strategy against me is to just go on and on about my mistakes to the point of absurdity. You can't do that, you can't actually admit when you have made a mistake, and that is completely absurd.
More lies--your getting good at this MH.
You are being given the straight goods by me, because I have a spine.
You have no spine,nor do you know anything about !!the goods!!
That's an example of you taking your attack to the point of complete absurdity.
And more lie's.
I left it alone MH,and you continued to drag my name down into the mud,and now you will be getting some of your own medicine ;)
And EMJunkie decided that he would copy you.
EMJ just knows who you are,and what your about.
The most recent example is you milking the JFet business. I admitted that I was wrong. A JFET is NOT a common component like you stated. You will do anything and say anything in a vain attempt to try to make a point to the point of absurdity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFET
The junction gate field-effect transistor (JFET or JUGFET) is the simplest type of field-effect transistor. They are three-terminal semiconductor devices that can be used as electronically-controlled switches, amplifiers, or voltage-controlled resistors.
You fell in your own hole MH. I called a truce,and you continued on with your insult's,only to find that you screwed up!once again! through way of your lack of knowledge on the simplest of thing's.
You were out to bad mouth me one way or another,but fell flat on your face-->again.
I answer my questions and the wine glass questions that you can't answer will be answered next week. And there is no fucking apostrophe in "questions." Demonstrate that you can learn something.
You dont even know what a J/FET is,but you feel good enough to correct me on an apostrophe lol.
It would seem that you were able to read it without to much trouble MH ;)
The answer is simple. You looked up a JFET recently and I haven't thought about one for 35 years since I last sat through that material in an electronics class.
Seems that there are a few more thing's other than a J/FET you have forgotten about in the last 35 years MH.
Bullshit, I don't mind being corrected at all. You are the one that has that problem because you can't admit that you are wrong.
Lol-you hate it MH--You hate being corrected by those that you think are beneath you.
You have a mental block.
And you have mental problem's--your starting to believe your own lies. :o
And there is no fucking apostrophe in "yours." Demonstrate that you can learn something.
Ah'h--sorr'y M'H,i wil'l try a little harde'r to get the apostrophe's in the correct place's when makin'g post's,as it is most importan't in the outcom'e of the research we do here.
You can kiss my ass with your bullshit statement about me not knowing about the frequency domain.
Good luck with that.
It is a good thing you have PW here to help you out on that one ;)
it's totally grotesque to read your stupid-ass trash. I have been discussing issues related to the frequency domain ever since I have been around here and just about everybody knows that - and you damn well know it's true.
Sure you have :D
The main operation on an ICE is a synchronous machine and has nothing whatsoever to do with resonance.
Opp's--here we go again ;D
The fact that the air intake and outlets make use of Helmholtz resonators is a distant secondary consideration and I admitted that I was ignorant of that fact.
The fact is-you are lost when it come's to ICE's.
Bullshit you proved me wrong. Screw you with your Brad's Bizarro World of anti-logic. You linked to a book that said resonance in the combustion chamber is undesirable and bad for the engine. Your link backfired on you. You said you would find a link to back up your claim and you have not delivered on that.
No,i provided a link to show !once again!,that you have no idea what you are talking about. You said there was no resonance associated with the internal parts of an ICE--E.G the piston. It took me all of two minutes to prove you wrong-once again ;)
I did not say that it was a good thing,but feel free to go and try and find where i said otherwise. What i did,was show that you have no knowledge at all when it come's to ICE's,and the research being done on resonant systems that exist within them.
Kiss my ass Brad with your stupid-ass gratuitous nonsense. For the past five years you have been claiming that I am one of the "big guns" and you are clearly demonstrating how low you can go and how deeply you can compromise your integrity.
Firstly,i would not go anywhere near you ass--unless it was with a cattle prod.
And i think it is your integrity that has been severely damaged here--and you did it all by your self MH.
The fact is that you have no problems turning bad and going completely morally bankrupt and making a spectacle of yourself.
The fact is MH,there come's a time when your bullshit must stop.
Nearly everyone here is done with it ;)
You have buried yourself into your own deep dark chasm, you are one creepy dude that can't handle things and you lose your composure and throw away all of your personal integrity.
The facts are MH,we will simply not be told right from wrong by some one that dose not even own a JT,nor dose any experimenting of his own.
Why are you here?,as we have seen that you know far less than you have made out over the year's.
Where are all these great discoveries being made by those who !!go by the book!! ?.
Perhaps you should dust of them old book's,and give yourself a refresher course ,and then come back and join in. ;)
The wine glass questions about resonance that you can't answer will be answered next week.
Not in the least bit interested in your almighty resonance theory. Spend your time on that book review,as it would be more helpful if you knew the workings of simple electronic components--like the J/FET. I mean,it isnt that hard MH--even i have learned a bit more about the simple diode in the past week ;)
Brad
-
I don't think the 2G HTS is quite the real McCoy.
There is that word again, you blokes use it all the time: "think"
A very different definition to fact!!!
I "think" TK could not think his way out of a Paper Bag, or fact: TK could not think his way out of a Paper Bag!!!
Two very different meanings!!!
FYI: Lithium ‘doping’ turns graphene into a superconductor (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/213816-lithium-doping-turns-graphene-into-a-superconductor) - Just one article of many hundreds of thousands now, Graphene (Doped) can become a Room Temprature Super conductor! Very well known through out Real Science with Real Facts.
Oh Dear, look another one: Graphene made superconductive by doping with lithium atoms (http://phys.org/news/2015-09-graphene-superconductive-doping-lithium-atoms.html)
Now if memory serves, this completely contradicts the All Mighty BS Artist himself?
Oh yes, to save you time, its simply Pencil Lead, thats what Graphene is...
There is no hope for you blokes at all!!! 30 Years ago you might have been smart, today you are relics riding on the backs of relics!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad:
That posting is nothing more than useless trash talk one more time. How many times have you seen people do stuff with JFETs around here? Your argument about resonance in the combustion chamber is completely ridiculous, just like arguing that you have to factor in whether or not a car is on a slope to determine its top speed is totally and absolutely ridiculous. Just like arguing that you have to have specifics to answer something and you can't answer something on a conceptual level is ridiculous. These are arguments of another dimension - the Brad dimension. You are your own strange reality and it has been totally bizarre arguing about things like that with you when with a sensible person they would not even be on the table.
You did not find a link stating that resonance in the combustion chamber was a benefit like you said you would. The only thing you could do was try to rewrite history.
Here is what you said in post #1360:
I will dig up some more info for you ASAP.
Like I said, there is truth in what you say about unwanted resonance. But that truth also dismisses your claim about there being no resonancs what so ever within the internals of the ICE ir self.
They use information gathered around these resonant effect to increase the efficiency of the ICE.
You never came back with anything to show beneficial effects with respect to efficiency for acoustic resonance inside a combustion chamber.
Beyond that, your argument that you "proved there is resonance" in an ICE is so absolutely ridiculous that you have to wonder what planet you are on. Okay, so there is disruptive acoustic resonance in the combustion chamber of a cylinder and that is a bad thing. Well, hundreds or thousands of other parts in an engine or the car itself will also resonate, and most of them are sufficiently damped to not cause any problems. It all depends on how sensitive you want to make your measurements. At a very sensitive measurement level, just about every single damn piece of the car can resonate and does resonate when the engine is on. As long as there is a ping somewhere then things will resonate. Hell, you slam your car door shut and the whole bloody car will resonate. It's just another stupid-ass morally bankrupt absolutely ridiculous argument from you.
After six years you are still struggling to understand basic stuff and that's why you are still convinced that "energy comes from magnets" when you add magnets to a spinny pulse motor made from a dishwasher motor and see it spin faster.
I told you, I am not going to discuss your next disassembled appliance pulse motor. You can go off into your zone and completely zone out. But I will close the loop on the resonating wine glass. And no, when you say (to paraphrase), "the mechanism for resonance in a wine glass is that when you hit it at its resonant frequency and it starts to resonate" is a pathetic attempt at an answer. It's so bad that it's "not even wrong." It doesn't even address the bloody question it's so bad.
You can go back to your deluded fake-ass dream world of electronics after this thread is over. You should hook up with EMJunkie and you two can stroke each other up and reinforce each other's delusions.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
That posting is nothing more than useless trash talk one more time. How many times have you seen people do stuff with JFETs around here? Your argument about resonance in the combustion chamber is completely ridiculous, just like arguing that you have to factor in whether or not a car is on a slope to determine its top speed is totally and absolutely ridiculous. Just like arguing that you have to have specifics to answer something and you can't answer something on a conceptual level is ridiculous. These are arguments of another dimension - the Brad dimension. You are your own strange reality and it has been totally bizarre arguing about things like that with you when with a sensible person they would not even be on the table.
You did not find a link stating that resonance in the combustion chamber was a benefit like you said you would. The only thing you could do was try to rewrite history.
After six years you are still struggling to understand basic stuff and that's why you are still convinced that "energy comes from magnets" when you add magnets to a spinny pulse motor made from a dishwasher motor and see it spin faster.
I told you, I am not going to discuss your next disassembled appliance pulse motor. You can go off into your zone and completely zone out. But I will close the loop on the resonating wine glass. And no, when you say (to paraphrase), "the mechanism for resonance in a wine glass is that when you hit it at it's resonant frequency and it starts to resonate" is a pathetic attempt at an answer. It's so bad that it's "not even wrong." It doesn't even address the bloody question it's so bad.
You can go back to your deluded fake-ass dream world of electronics after this thread is over. You should hook up with EMJunkie and you two can stroke each other up and reinforce each other's delusions.
MileHigh
Oh dear, what a bunch of Cow Poking...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad:
That posting is nothing more than useless trash talk one more time. How many times have you seen people do stuff with JFETs around here? Your argument about resonance in the combustion chamber is completely ridiculous, just like arguing that you have to factor in whether or not a car is on a slope to determine its top speed is totally and absolutely ridiculous. Just like arguing that you have to have specifics to answer something and you can't answer something on a conceptual level is ridiculous. These are arguments of another dimension - the Brad dimension. You are your own strange reality and it has been totally bizarre arguing about things like that with you when with a sensible person they would not even be on the table.
You did not find a link stating that resonance in the combustion chamber was a benefit like you said you would. The only thing you could do was try to rewrite history.
Here is what you said in post #1360:
You never came back with anything to show beneficial effects with respect to efficiency for acoustic resonance inside a combustion chamber.
Beyond that, your argument that you "proved there is resonance" in an ICE is so absolutely ridiculous that you have to wonder what planet you are on. Okay, so there is disruptive acoustic resonance in the combustion chamber of a cylinder and that is a bad thing. Well, hundreds or thousands of other parts in an engine or the car itself will also resonate, and most of them are sufficiently damped to not cause any problems. It all depends on how sensitive you want to make your measurements. At a very sensitive measurement level, just about every single damn piece of the car can resonate and does resonate when the engine is on. As long as there is a ping somewhere then things will resonate. Hell, you slam your car door shut and the whole bloody car will resonate. It's just another stupid-ass morally bankrupt absolutely ridiculous argument from you.
After six years you are still struggling to understand basic stuff and that's why you are still convinced that "energy comes from magnets" when you add magnets to a spinny pulse motor made from a dishwasher motor and see it spin faster.
I told you, I am not going to discuss your next disassembled appliance pulse motor. You can go off into your zone and completely zone out. But I will close the loop on the resonating wine glass. And no, when you say (to paraphrase), "the mechanism for resonance in a wine glass is that when you hit it at its resonant frequency and it starts to resonate" is a pathetic attempt at an answer. It's so bad that it's "not even wrong." It doesn't even address the bloody question it's so bad.
You can go back to your deluded fake-ass dream world of electronics after this thread is over. You should hook up with EMJunkie and you two can stroke each other up and reinforce each other's delusions.
MileHigh
You really have lost the plot MH.
You dont even understand your own post. You prove me correct in your own writings, and yet you dont see it lol.
Then you waffle on about how much you know about magnets, and you dont even know what the magnetic force is. But still you think you are the be all and end all in the field of magnetics. You think the electromagnetic field and PM field are the same-but nothing could be further from the truth.
One minute you say there is no resonance in an ICE what so ever, then in the next breath, yousay everything resonates lol.
Your all over the show, and it is painfully clear you are a couple of cows short in the top ppaddock.
There are many videos and pages of information about J/FETs and there uses.
You tell us all to go do some research, and learn, while you are happy to take a stab at me, get it all wrong-and why?--because you did not follow your own suggestion, and go do a bit of research your self--you dont follow your own guidlines or recommendations.
So far in this thread, you have been wrong more times than right.
Resonance is clearly not your strong point.
Brad
-
One minute you say there is no resonance in an ICE what so ever, then in the next breath, yousay everything resonates lol.
Your all over the show, and it is painfully clear you are a couple of cows short in the top ppaddock.
I don't know if the quote above is due to your complete and total lack of critical thinking skills and total blindness to any kind of context, or, if it is just more completely useless trash talk.
Either way, it is a total fail.
-
Now you are getting it. In the DC case, the magnetic field is set up while the current is changing during the "switch on" time of the current. Once the current is flowing at a steady rate, it "costs" nothing more to maintain the magnetic field, and the field itself doesn't dissipate power. This is how superconducting magnets work. The situation is perfectly symmetrical. You get no current produced from a stationary magnet sitting next to a coil, because there is nothing changing. Move the magnet (or the coil), so that the coil experiences a changing magnetic field, and you get current. Remember Faraday's Law of Induction (and pay no attention to the confused ravings of EMJunkie): The induced EMF is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the linked magnetic field. You can take this algebraic equation and re-arrange it according to ordinary algebra, and see that the two situations are indeed symmetrical. The "conundrum" comes from mis-stating the problem or situation in the first place.
TK - Because I used to have some respect for you, I will let you know here, another Member of this forum, and other members, that do not ever post because of people like you, (as a Team), have replicated my work successfully!
These people have done exactly all the right things, ticked all the boxes in a thorough research experiment that verifies exactly what I have been showing the world for some 5 years now.
That’s one more experiment that you couldn’t do properly, that someone else has!!! I have been in contact with these people over the last few days and they just spent most of the night up in their excitement, not able to sleep!
Very soon, you will be the last person on the planet after MH Dies of dementia, forgetting to feed himself to death, that has not achieved the simplest task ever set forth...
Three Coils, or four Coils, the right Connections, the right turns and one can very easily achieve what you fail to grasp - An Excess in Charge Separation, or to some: Over-Unity!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
P.S: I will have to say, using foresight, the hardest part for you will be having to admit you were wrong after everyone else has succeded!!! Ouch thats going to sting like nothing else isnt it! How to shatter a God Complex 101...
-
I was going to get myself an osillyscope, but virtually no one on here knows
how to use one- perhaps this is a more suitable toy.
Junkie,you sure live up to your name....Junk.
-
author=minnie link=topic=8341.msg479640#msg479640 date=1459963875]
Oh dear tinman, you really do need to study basic induction,
We'll see how your basic induction skills go in the not to distant future.
As you are the one claiming that i need to study basic induction,then i expect you to be the first to answer what is happening in my up and coming experiment.
I will expect you to explain as to how voltage(that normally leads current) can be shifted to be in phase with current. You will explain as to how the two can become in phase with each other in a transformer,then we will see how your induction skills are.
Brad
-
Brad,
One last thing, what would be required to make Water flow Up hill?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Water already flow's up hill-daily. ;)
Brad
-
tinman,
would you agree with Koala's point about a super-conductor?
John.
-
Yeah, the dc coil thing seems like a cunundrum. Was reading a book on electric motors by Irving Gotleib. May not have spelled that right. But one thing he said was with motors and gens, there are 3 requirements. Electricity, AC and ;) or DC, magnetic fields, and the third is motion. Missing any of the 3 and its not a motor or a gen. Could get into static electric field motors, and the mag fields are there, whether they play a magnetic push and pull could be the reason there is attraction and repulsion between HV charged leafs and other plates and things, like Lasersabers electric field motors, is something that may be a miss. ???
So if we look at the field of a coil with dc on it, other than producing the 'stationary' field, it is doing no work, unless say it were to be picking up things or clamping something to a wall, but thats totally something else. We are talking motor/gen action. Also the reverse, if a magnet is stationary near a coil, and no motion, then no current.
I know you know all this stuff, but it helps for readers that dont have that understanding. ;) Ive thought the same things as you on that subject. Weird stuff when you try to think deep into it. :o ;D
Mags
The biggest mixup comes when some use AC and DC to describe voltage,and not current. Then there are those that think a direct current means a continuous current without amplitude change.
They see a current wave form in the shape of a sine wave,and think the current is AC,when in fact,the direction of current remains the same,but where only the amplitude of that current changes.
Brad
-
I don't know if the quote above is due to your complete and total lack of critical thinking skills and total blindness to any kind of context, or, if it is just more completely useless trash talk.
Either way, it is a total fail.
Lol
No fail on my behalf MH.
Do you even read what you post?.
You did not find a link stating that resonance in the combustion chamber was a benefit like you said you would.
And here is what i said--what you quoted me as saying
I will dig up some more info for you ASAP.
Like I said, there is truth in what you say about unwanted resonance. But that truth also dismisses your claim about there being no resonance what so ever within the internals of the ICE ir self.
They use information gathered around these resonant effect to increase the efficiency of the ICE.
Where exactly did i state that resonance in a combustion chamber would be beneficial ?.
That's right--nowhere.
Like i said,you need to read a little better.
Here is what my statement said- there is truth in what you say about unwanted resonance
They use information gathered around these resonant effect to increase the efficiency of the ICE
Is it that hard to understand MH?. If they find an unwanted resonance,they reshape the internal's(in this case ,the piston) to remove that unwanted resonance,and increase the efficiency of the engine.
So,once again you failed to catch me out-as you continually do.
It is clear that i said nothing about this internal resonance increasing the engines efficiency--like you have tried to claim.
So another fail on your behalf MH.
You tried once again to say i said things i did not,and you once again got caught out.
This is becoming a habit with you.
Brad
-
tinman,
what do you think of Einstein?
An Einstein Cross must have some merit?
John.
-
tinman,
would you agree with Koala's point about a super-conductor?
John.
To which point are you referring to?.
Brad
-
Now you are getting it. In the DC case, the magnetic field is set up while the current is changing during the "switch on" time of the current. Once the current is flowing at a steady rate, it "costs" nothing more to maintain the magnetic field, and the field itself doesn't dissipate power. This is how superconducting magnets work. The situation is perfectly symmetrical. You get no current produced from a stationary magnet sitting next to a coil, because there is nothing changing. Move the magnet (or the coil), so that the coil experiences a changing magnetic field, and you get current. Remember Faraday's Law of Induction (and pay no attention to the confused ravings of EMJunkie): The induced EMF is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the linked magnetic field. You can take this algebraic equation and re-arrange it according to ordinary algebra, and see that the two situations are indeed symmetrical. The "conundrum" comes from mis-stating the problem or situation in the first place.
-
author=minnie link=topic=8341.msg479726#msg479726 date=1460027031]
Once the current is flowing at a steady rate, it "costs" nothing more to maintain the magnetic field, and the field itself doesn't dissipate power.
The cost of maintaining the magnetic field,is the flow of current through the coil--no current flow,no magnetic field.
So we have a steady flow of current,and that gives rise to a stable magnetic field--nothing is changing,nor needs to change in order to maintain the magnetic field. But if we have a stable magnetic field around a coil,that dose not create a steady current flow. Current needs no change in time to create the magnetic field,but the magnetic field needs to change in time to create current--or dose it?.
We could also say that the hot air in a balloon creates lift,but lift dose not create hot air :D
This is how superconducting magnets work.
Superconducting magnets also require outside energy to exist,and this outside energy is in the form of super cooling the conductor. As the conductor draws in energy from the environment(heat),then it slowly looses it's superconductivity.
So energy was needed to create the superconductive state,as energy is needed to create a steady magnetic field around a coil.
No one has been able to prove that the magnetic field takes no energy to maintain,as you cannot have a current flow through a conductor without an associated magnetic field.
The situation is perfectly symmetrical. You get no current produced from a stationary magnet sitting next to a coil, because there is nothing changing.
The same could be said for the current flowing through the coil-as stated above. What is changing in time within that coil that gives rise to a stable magnetic field?.
A magnetic field changing in time is not what creates current flow. Current flow is created by the motion of the Electrons, Ions,or photons. We can prove this by looking at the simple homopolar generator,where current flows due to motion of the electrons in the conductor,as the magnetic field dose not change in time in regards to the conductor. If the conductor has no motion,then there is no current flow. We also know that reversing the direction of motion,also reverses the direction of current flow. We can have the magnets fixed to the conductor,so as they rotate with the conductor,or have them fixed to the carrier(frame),so as they do not move with the conductor,and nothing changes.
If the flow of current is needed to create a magnetic field around a coil,then current must be flowing within a permanent magnet. Energy is dissipated by the electromagnet's coil due to this current flow,and so energy must be dissipated by the permanent magnet.
Most just say--well the magnetic domains are now aligned,and so we have a PM. But hardly no one ask's- what is the energy that is maintaining that alignment-what is actually going on with each electron within the atoms of that magnetic material ?.
The biggest problem here ,is that most have just settled for the good old !Faradays law of induction-a theory pieced together as the result of confusion--why one,and not the other?
Well,as they dont yet know what the magnetic force is,then Faraday's law of induction will do for the time being--as we have no other answer.
This is what people have settled on. We now know how to create and use the magnetic field,so why bother finding out what it actually is? :D
Move the magnet (or the coil), so that the coil experiences a changing magnetic field, and you get current. Remember Faraday's Law of Induction (and pay no attention to the confused ravings of EMJunkie):
Like i stated above-neither the magnetic field or the conductor have to move in relation to each other for there to be current flow-there only has to be motion and a fixed reference point,but the magnetic field and the conductor may travel together where there is no change in time between the two-the homopolar generator ;)
The holy grail is finding out what the magnetic force is--what is that magnetic field?.
The very same happened when we figured out what light was-like sun light. We then learned how to use these photons to knock electrons out of the park,and create a current flow-the solar panel.
Now,can you imagine what will happen when we find out what is flowing in this field that surrounds a permanent magnet,and then we find our magnetic field !solar panel!.
We know there is a magnetic force-we use it all the time.
We also know that force is -Quote: strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement.
So something is in motion in the magnetic field of the permanent magnet--we just have to work out what it is.
Brad
-
As an addendum to post 1517 on resonance in an ICE being mostly a negative issue
Johan has posted this before regarding the Resonant secrets of 2 stroke normally aspirated engines
in 1961 the resonant 2 stroke secrets were taken from the German team in motorcycle racing and traded to Japan's Suzuki for freedom
[from behind the iron curtain]
prior to that time the 200 HP per liter barrier for normally aspirated engines had not yet been reached .
todays 2 stroke normally aspirated resonant engine builders are over 1HP for every 2CC's of displacement ..
and climbing.
the power band on 2 strokes has been small ...but there is something very special that goes on when you create a HUGE
STANDING WAVE between the tip of the inlet and out the back of the exhaust [yes the wave reaches past the exhaust]
Johan Quote
A high Tuned 2-stroke, is Resonant in every single Cavity, and on the 'Power-band' or 'On the Pipe' it Resonate's between the serie fluide Resonant cavity's, this last also like I described in my first explanation.
The Reed / I-disc, is a Fet, the Crankshaft case and Cylinder is a ................ ?
Why is a 4-stroke far over 100 degrees Celsius, and a optimum 2-stroke only 55-60 degrees Celsius with a exhaust over 250 degrees Celsius?
end quote
this Huge standing Wave has an effect which defies change in some way ,I have heard others refer to things happening in the circuit which don't make sense once the wave manifests
like self tuning and maintaining the standing wave regardless of input or output [or load]
member Chesnyt mentioned this recently in his water cell discovery and another builder has alluded to this "anomaly"
in his unique electric motor builds .. for years now.
there is only one way to maintain a standing wave.
resonance
@Miles when it comes to "all things resonant"
never assume you know it all....
or insult others due to your own ignorance on the topic!
you have a Propensity towards this and assume all to often "You Know it all" and correct and embarrass others when you should not .
-
Chet:
Miles when it comes to "all things resonant"
never assume you know it all....
Don't put words in my mouth that I never said.
Put up a mechanical schematic and timing diagram and explain the "huge standing wave" because without it it appears to just be talk. I am willing to learn but with just talk it could just be your resonance fetish bias rendering you all dreamy eyed.
MileHigh
-
Miles
AS Johan has said
The breast is no longer available to you .....
-
Brad:
If the flow of current is needed to create a magnetic field around a coil,then current must be flowing within a permanent magnet. Energy is dissipated by the electromagnet's coil due to this current flow,and so energy must be dissipated by the permanent magnet.
You are just proudly demonstrating your ignorance and willingness to invent your own Bizarro logic. Energy is not being dissipated by a permanent magnet. But don't let that fact stop you. You are the infallible Dr. Brainfry and what Brainfry says goes.
MileHigh
-
Chet you are not even at the table, you are calling some new fake-ass nutcase that wants to suck money from gullible people.
-
@ MH
As requested.
The invention relates to a piston for a cylinder of a two-stroke internal combustion engine.The air within the cavity is caused to resonate at high frequency, thereby enhancing the combustion process
https://www.google.ch/patents/US4969425
-
Miles
#We are going to discuss your Libel of me in great detail elsewhere .[and you will take that to the Bank]
here however we stick to yet another ignorant remark of yours regarding magnets and what they are truly capable of.
see the 11 minute mark and beyond
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PS2v1kN1U8
you place yourself here as the Urim and Thummim of all that your purvey.
Shame on you....
-
Chet:
Don't put words in my mouth that I never said.
Put up a mechanical schematic and timing diagram and explain the "huge standing wave" because without it it appears to just be talk. I am willing to learn but with just talk it could just be your resonance fetish bias rendering you all dreamy eyed.
MileHigh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_efficiency
http://www.amrca.com/tech/tuners.pdf
http://3cyl.com/mraxl/manuals/chamberdesign/2003exhaust.pdf
http://www.xplorer.co.za/articles/exhaust.htm
http://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/imarusic/proceedings/6/JonesBrown.pdf
http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/Intake_exhaust.html
And the list go's on and on and on.
If you cant learn from this MH,then there is no hope for you.
Brad
-
Brad:
You are just proudly demonstrating your ignorance and willingness to invent your own Bizarro logic. Energy is not being dissipated by a permanent magnet. But don't let that fact stop you. You are the infallible Dr. Brainfry and what Brainfry says goes.
MileHigh
Shows how stupid you are.
Here you are,trying to justify your claim,and yet you have no idea as to what it is you are dealing with--you dont know what the magnetic force is,and so you cannot make the judgement you just tried to make.
You walk up your own garden path blindly,making claims you cannot back up.
But this is nothing new from you,as you do it all the time--so many claim's,and not an experiment to be seen from you on this entire forum of thread's.
You are a phony -pure and simple,and you do not belong here,as this is a place for experimenters-not procrastinators.
Brad.
-
@ minnie-or anyone else that cares to have a stab at it.
OK,lets see how your laws of induction skills go.
Below is a schematic and scope shot to go with the schematic.
L1 is wound on the former first-this is our primary coil.
L2 is wound over the top of L1.
The CVR is showing the current flowing through L1(the blue trace on the scope shot),and so this should be also indicating the rise of the magnetic field around L1. The current and voltage through and across L1 are extremely close to being in phase at these low frequencies
The yellow trace is showing the open voltage across L2.
Should L2s voltage trace be in phase with L1s current trace,of should it be 90* out of phase as shown in the scope shot?.
Please note the very low frequency being used,and the reason for that will become clearer later on.
Brad
-
Miles
#We are going to discuss your Libel of me in great detail elsewhere .[and you will take that to the Bank]
here however we stick to yet another ignorant remark of yours regarding magnets and what they are truly capable of.
see the 11 minute mark and beyond
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PS2v1kN1U8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PS2v1kN1U8)
you place yourself here as the Urim and Thummim of all that your purvey.
Shame on you....
Brian Ahern was just pitching a "magic box" to try to raise money. The clip is two years old and nothing has happened. Somebody drove an electric car and the battery charged. Sure. Vibronic Energy Technologies Corp has no footprint at all online. The CEO Curtis Firestone has no online footprint. The only address I could find was for a house in MA. So I don't see anything there at all except for a pitch from a two-person kitchen-table company.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_efficiency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_efficiency)
http://www.amrca.com/tech/tuners.pdf (http://www.amrca.com/tech/tuners.pdf)
http://3cyl.com/mraxl/manuals/chamberdesign/2003exhaust.pdf (http://3cyl.com/mraxl/manuals/chamberdesign/2003exhaust.pdf)
http://www.xplorer.co.za/articles/exhaust.htm (http://www.xplorer.co.za/articles/exhaust.htm)
http://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/imarusic/proceedings/6/JonesBrown.pdf (http://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/imarusic/proceedings/6/JonesBrown.pdf)
http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/Intake_exhaust.html (http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/Intake_exhaust.html)
And the list go's on and on and on.
If you cant learn from this MH,then there is no hope for you.
Brad
Throwing a bunch of links against a wall is useless.
-
@ MH
As requested.
https://www.google.ch/patents/US4969425 (https://www.google.ch/patents/US4969425)
Good, so that patent shows a resonant cavity in the combustion chamber can be used to improve the performance of a two-stroke engine. And you also put up a link showing how resonance in the cylinder of a typical four-stroke automobile engine reduces performance. So there is no simple one-size-fits all answer and things have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So that one is a draw.
-
Shows how stupid you are.
No actually, it shows how stupid and ignorant you are. A magnet does not dissipate energy. Yet you state that a magnet does dissipate energy even though all evidence is to the contrary and just a simple level of understanding is all that is needed to see what is taking place and to arrive at the proper conclusion.
So you are the very definition of stupidity in this case.
And to parrot you, you have no idea what it is you are dealing with - you don't know what the magnetic force is, and so you cannot make the statement that you just tried to make.
You don't know what the "magnetic force" is Brad, you don't know what it is.
-
Thank you MH,
a magnet does not dissipate energy.
-
Thank you MH,
a magnet does not dissipate energy.
Well, take a neomag. It takes a lot of energy to magnetize it right? Then, over a period of time (I have heard 100-200 years) it loses its magnetic strength...so... if it is not dissipating that original energy...where is it? Where did it go? Or, what did that energy transform/convert into?
Bill
-
Well, take a neomag. It takes a lot of energy to magnetize it right? Then, over a period of time (I have heard 100-200 years) it loses its magnetic strength...so... if it is not dissipating that original energy...where is it? Where did it go? Or, what did that energy transform/convert into?
Bill
Everything should be considered with reasonableness and common sense and balance, don't you think?
When some of the magnetic alignments in a magnet spontaneously decay (increasing entropy) and the total magnetic energy stored in the magnet decreases then that lost energy is converted into heat. Now of course that's Brad's cue to jump in and say, "See MileHigh is wrong again!" But we are going to be reasonable and state that for all practical intents and purposes, a magnet does not "dissipate energy" as heat because in the real world it is not measurable. It's just as crazy as claiming that your flashlight works by drawing energy from the Earth's magnetic field or that when you determine the top speed of a car you have to do it on a slope. That kind of ridiculous nonsense is just what it is - ridiculous nonsense.
If we split hairs every single time we state something we end up going crazy. I am not going to live in a nuthouse like that.
MileHigh
-
I can recall the tinman going hammer and tongs for the old marquee!
-
I was going to get myself an osillyscope, but virtually no one on here knows
how to use one- perhaps this is a more suitable toy.
Junkie,you sure live up to your name....Junk.
Good Job John, 70+ years to learn that a Tractor of this type can do in 5 minutes what takes a single man all day - That’s Progress!!!
If you decide to get a Scope, TK wont be able to help you, he busted his and blamed in on the OEM, MilleHehehehe, he simply forgot about them all together is his fits of Dementia, not many others will be able to help as they all follow OEM Spec on how to use their scopes...
So no hope unless you need one as a Book End?
Keep up the good work old mate - You know, there is a saying:
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Thank you MH,
a magnet does not dissipate energy.
You OU Pimpin Trolls do not, can not, and never can make an assumption like this!!!!
Making such assumptions is just a display of your total Arrogance in the eyes of all here!!!
You have no idea what so ever how a Magnet works, at all, period!!!
Lets see you prove this Arrogant Assumption!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Thank you MH,
a magnet does not dissipate energy.
Science is Real!!! Men/Women, hand shaking on something they do not know anything about, does NOT make it make it REAL!!! This is a Postulate! An assumption, simply, Fools that cant be bothered to get to the bottom of this Scientific Problem.
This Postulate came about to insure other Science Laws were upheld!
The Arrogance of you blokes is awesome to see!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Well, take a neomag. It takes a lot of energy to magnetize it right? Then, over a period of time (I have heard 100-200 years) it loses its magnetic strength...so... if it is not dissipating that original energy...where is it? Where did it go? Or, what did that energy transform/convert into?
Bill
No, it actually takes relatively little energy to magnetize a NdBFe magnet. And several magnet manufacturers have demonstrations where they place 2 strong magnets in opposition in a transparent tube and monitor the distance apart... and no change in that distance has happened over the years of the observation.
The energy put into magnetizing a magnet goes into aligning the tiny domains of the material. Over long periods of time, in a magnetically _soft_ material, some domains may re-randomize. This is not what is commonly referred to when we talk about "magnets dissipating energy".
But then I think you already know that, Bill.
-
No, it actually takes relatively little energy to magnetize a NdBFe magnet. And several magnet manufacturers have demonstrations where they place 2 strong magnets in opposition in a transparent tube and monitor the distance apart... and no change in that distance has happened over the years of the observation.
The energy put into magnetizing a magnet goes into aligning the tiny domains of the material. Over long periods of time, in a magnetically _soft_ material, some domains may re-randomize. This is not what is commonly referred to when we talk about "magnets dissipating energy".
But then I think you already know that, Bill.
Sounds like youre implying that Magnets and Atoms are Perpetual Motion Machines!!!
I hope not! You know what this means!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Good Job John, 70+ years to learn that a Tractor of this type can do in 5 minutes what takes a single man all day - That’s Progress!!!
If you decide to get a Scope, TK wont be able to help you, he busted his and blamed in on the OEM, MilleHehehehe, he simply forgot about them all together is his fits of Dementia, not many others will be able to help as they all follow OEM Spec on how to use their scopes...
So no hope unless you need one as a Book End?
Keep up the good work old mate - You know, there is a saying:
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
You're lying like the troll you are, Chris Sykes. And everyone here knows it.
STOP MISREPRESENTING MY WORK, stop lying, LEAVE ME OUT OF YOUR DEMENTED FANTASIES AND RIDICULOUS CLAIMS.
As far as the friend-funded Rigol DS1054z oscilloscope goes, and as anyone following my work knows, the First unit I received _definitely_ had a hardware fault from the factory and was replaced within days of my notifying Rigol and TEquipment. The Second unit I received worked fine, and I identified several SOFTWARE BUGS that were acknowledged by Rigol during the six months or so that I used it daily in my work. That scope had an early version of the Boot Loader software on it that caused the bugs. RIGOL THEMSELVES asked me if I wanted to trade out that scope for one with the _current_ Boot Loader, and I agreed to do so. They sent me the replacement completely free of charge, and sent it to me _before_ I sent the obsolete unit back, so I could test them side-by-side for several days, which I did, and which tests I reported to Rigol and on another forum where I sometimes post. So I am now using DAILY in my work the "Third" actual scope from Rigol. I've found a few bugs in the software of this scope as well, and have reported them to the appropriate places. The "average" user would never encounter most of these bugs in their daily basic scope use. For sure, EMJunkie would never see them, or even be able to tell when they hit.
It is a baldfaced and transparent lie that I "busted and blamed on the OEM" anything to do with my DS1054z. I have identified software faults in this complex and low-cost instrument, that are indeed due to oversights and poor programming on the part of the OEM. They are definitely NOT due to my "busting" anything, and my bug identification and reports are helping Rigol to improve their quality and service. The Rigol DS1054z remains the best oscilloscope value for the money (although the new Siglent scopes come close), and the few remaining bugs are not likely to be encountered by any but the most advanced scope users and can easily be worked around if they do crop up. Hopefully they will be fixed in the next firmware update and will no longer cause anyone any difficulty.
As always, I am happy to help (almost) anyone with understanding their instrumentation, with recommendations, and interpretation of what they see. The lying fool EMJunkie, however, can go spit.
-
@ minnie-or anyone else that cares to have a stab at it.
OK,lets see how your laws of induction skills go.
Below is a schematic and scope shot to go with the schematic.
L1 is wound on the former first-this is our primary coil.
L2 is wound over the top of L1.
The CVR is showing the current flowing through L1(the blue trace on the scope shot),and so this should be also indicating the rise of the magnetic field around L1. The current and voltage through and across L1 are extremely close to being in phase at these low frequencies
The yellow trace is showing the open voltage across L2.
Should L2s voltage trace be in phase with L1s current trace,of should it be 90* out of phase as shown in the scope shot?.
Please note the very low frequency being used,and the reason for that will become clearer later on.
Brad
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.
The first coil's magnetic field follows, to first order, the current shown on the scope trace. At the peaks of this current, the time rate of change is zero (instantaneous slope is horizontal) -- and so the induced EMF as shown in the second coil's trace is zero (the induced current trace crosses the zero volt baseline at the same time the inducing current peaks.) When the inducing current (magnetic field) is changing at its maximum rate (the place where the instantaneous slope is steepest or most vertical: the zero crossing) the induced current is at its maximum (the peaks).
As you raise the frequency of your test, stray inductances (wire connections) become increasingly important and the observed phase difference on the scope will change.
-
You're lying like the troll you are, Chris Sykes. And everyone here knows it.
STOP MISREPRESENTING MY WORK, stop lying, LEAVE ME OUT OF YOUR DEMENTED FANTASIES AND RIDICULOUS CLAIMS.
As far as the friend-funded Rigol DS1054z oscilloscope goes, and as anyone following my work knows, the First unit I received _definitely_ had a hardware fault from the factory and was replaced within days of my notifying Rigol and TEquipment. The Second unit I received worked fine, and I identified several SOFTWARE BUGS that were acknowledged by Rigol during the six months or so that I used it daily in my work. That scope had an early version of the Boot Loader software on it that caused the bugs. RIGOL THEMSELVES asked me if I wanted to trade out that scope for one with the _current_ Boot Loader, and I agreed to do so. They sent me the replacement completely free of charge, and sent it to me _before_ I sent the obsolete unit back, so I could test them side-by-side for several days, which I did, and which tests I reported to Rigol and on another forum where I sometimes post. So I am now using DAILY in my work the "Third" actual scope from Rigol. I've found a few bugs in the software of this scope as well, and have reported them to the appropriate places. The "average" user would never encounter most of these bugs in their daily basic scope use. For sure, EMJunkie would never see them, or even be able to tell when they hit.
It is a baldfaced and transparent lie that I "busted and blamed on the OEM" anything to do with my DS1054z. I have identified software faults in this complex and low-cost instrument, that are indeed due to oversights and poor programming on the part of the OEM. They are definitely NOT due to my "busting" anything, and my bug identification and reports are helping Rigol to improve their quality and service. The Rigol DS1054z remains the best oscilloscope value for the money (although the new Siglent scopes come close), and the few remaining bugs are not likely to be encountered by any but the most advanced scope users and can easily be worked around if they do crop up. Hopefully they will be fixed in the next firmware update and will no longer cause anyone any difficulty.
As always, I am happy to help (almost) anyone with understanding their instrumentation, with recommendations, and interpretation of what they see. The lying fool EMJunkie, however, can go spit.
But it is OK for you to Miss-Represent EVERYONE Else’s work - Are you Special are you TK???
Old mate, you are just funny!
Look, I was winding you up a little bit, for reasons I won’t go into here.
Yes, you have helped many with the understanding of some things, but at the same time, you have also held many back with your Biased advice that have no real fact or value in Science.
Common, lets put the pieces together!
The Magnetic Field’s, when the Rotor in on Approach to Stator and the Stator Coils are carrying a Current, Do What: ____ _____ ____ _____, _____ ___!
Why dont you, use your expertese to actually get the ball rolling? Is it that Belief's are getting in the way?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Sounds like youre implying that Magnets and Atoms are Perpetual Motion Machines!!!
I hope not! You know what this means!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Sounds like you, as usual, have no idea what you are talking about.
Let me know when you observe a proton decaying. Until then.... you can STFU.
-
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.
The first coil's magnetic field follows, to first order, the current shown on the scope trace. At the peaks of this current, the time rate of change is zero (instantaneous slope is horizontal) -- and so the induced EMF as shown in the second coil's trace is zero (the induced current trace crosses the zero volt baseline at the same time the inducing current peaks.) When the inducing current (magnetic field) is changing at its maximum rate (the place where the instantaneous slope is steepest or most vertical: the zero crossing) the induced current is at its maximum (the peaks).
As you raise the frequency of your test, stray inductances (wire connections) become increasingly important and the observed phase difference on the scope will change.
WRONG!!!
180 Degrees is the angle you will see!!! Faradays Law does not predict this, its actually Heinrich Lenz and Lenz's Law!!! Written as a (-) sign in the Equations of Faradays Law of Induction.
Which is Equal and Opposite.
See TK, if you had a handle on this, you could see and do so much more!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
No actually, it shows how stupid and ignorant you are. A magnet does not dissipate energy. Yet you state that a magnet does dissipate energy even though all evidence is to the contrary and just a simple level of understanding is all that is needed to see what is taking place and to arrive at the proper conclusion.
So you are the very definition of stupidity in this case.
And to parrot you, you have no idea what it is you are dealing with - you don't know what the magnetic force is, and so you cannot make the statement that you just tried to make.
You don't know what the "magnetic force" is Brad, you don't know what it is.
Well im afraid that (once again) you and minnie are wrong-as usual.
Without even knowing what the magnetic field or force is,we know that a PM dose dissipate energy.
Your lack of understanding MH,is very obvious in this thread,and now your mate minnie is following your path.
I will give you 2 days to prove that a magnet dose not dissipate energy,and i will show you proof that it dose in under a minute.
You have no idea what so ever what the magnetic force is,but you sit there and gloat about how a magnet dose not dissipate energy. A simple 1 minute experiment can show a magnet dissipating energy,but your short sightedness just dose not allow you to grasp such a concept.
You have no vision at all MH--that much is clear.
Brad
-
But it is OK for you to Miss-Represent EVERYONE Else’s work - Are you Special are you TK???
Old mate, you are just funny!
Look, I was winding you up a little bit, for reasons I won’t go into here.
Yes, you have helped many with the understanding of some things, but at the same time, you have also held many back with your Biased advice that have no real fact or value in Science.
You cannot refute anything I've said, by reference to any legitimate source, experiment or even demonstrations of your own. You continue to lie about me and my work and my statements.
Common, lets put the pieces together!
The Magnetic Field’s, when the Rotor in on Approach to Stator and the Stator Coils are carrying a Current, Do What: ____ _____ ____ _____, _____ ___!
Why dont you, use your expertese to actually get the ball rolling? Is it that Belief's are getting in the way?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
You are, as usual, incoherently babbling.
-
Throwing a bunch of links against a wall is useless.
Only useless to you,because it proves you wrong-once again.
I have never seen anyone here get it wrong as many times as you have in one thread MH.
Brad
-
Good, so that patent shows a resonant cavity in the combustion chamber can be used to improve the performance of a two-stroke engine. And you also put up a link showing how resonance in the cylinder of a typical four-stroke automobile engine reduces performance. So there is no simple one-size-fits all answer and things have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So that one is a draw.
No,that is another win for me.
There is two opposite examples of existent resonance in the combustion chamber that you said never existed ;)
Another fail by you MH.
Brad
-
Well, take a neomag. It takes a lot of energy to magnetize it right? Then, over a period of time (I have heard 100-200 years) it loses its magnetic strength...so... if it is not dissipating that original energy...where is it? Where did it go? Or, what did that energy transform/convert into?
Bill
Thank you Bill.
But i do think this go's beyond MH comprehension,and lack of understanding.
There are also many other ways to show a PM dissipating energy--we will see how MH go's with it> ::)
Brad
-
WRONG!!!
180 Degrees is the angle you will see!!! Faradays Law does not predict this, its actually Heinrich Lenz and Lenz's Law!!! Written as a (-) sign in the Equations of Faradays Law of Induction.
Which is Equal and Opposite.
See TK, if you had a handle on this, you could see and do so much more!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
You are truly idiotic! Did you fail calculus in school, perhaps? Or maybe never even took it? You can see for yourself that Brad's scope traces _perfectly_ describe what is predicted by Faraday's Law of Induction !
Or maybe you can't. Do you not understand what "time rate of change" actually means? d/dt? Apparently you do not. At the peaks of the waveform the time rate of change goes to ZERO-- the instantaneous slope is horizontal. Faraday's Law tells us that the induced EMF at that point is ZERO. At the zero-crossing of the waveform, the time rate of change is MAXIMUM -- the instantaneous slope is as steep as it ever gets. Faraday's law tells us that the induced emf (with negative sign) is MAXIMUM at that point--- as is clearly shown on Brad's scopetraces !
Do you even know what the magnitude of the phase shift introduced by your cheap current clamp actually is? Have you ever done the simple test I asked you to do long ago, comparing the current clamp reading with a simultaneous reading from an in line CVR?
-
Everything should be considered with reasonableness and common sense and balance, don't you think?
When some of the magnetic alignments in a magnet spontaneously decay (increasing entropy) and the total magnetic energy stored in the magnet decreases then that lost energy is converted into heat. Now of course that's Brad's cue to jump in and say, "See MileHigh is wrong again!" But we are going to be reasonable and state that for all practical intents and purposes, a magnet does not "dissipate energy" as heat because in the real world it is not measurable. It's just as crazy as claiming that your flashlight works by drawing energy from the Earth's magnetic field or that when you determine the top speed of a car you have to do it on a slope. That kind of ridiculous nonsense is just what it is - ridiculous nonsense.
If we split hairs every single time we state something we end up going crazy. I am not going to live in a nuthouse like that.
MileHigh
Blah blah blah
Trying for the big bailout already.
Changing the terms and conditions to suit your own need to be right.
But you have just found out that you are wrong again<--yes,again MH.
Brad
-
Sounds like youre implying that Magnets and Atoms are Perpetual Motion Machines!!!
I hope not! You know what this means!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Exactly as i said,,no one bothers to take note of what the electron within the atoms of the magnetic material are doing. In fact,i dont think anyone here know's--or most should i say.
People are just happy with what there told,without trying to make sense of it them self.
Brad.
-
OOOppp's
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.
The first coil's magnetic field follows, to first order, the current shown on the scope trace. At the peaks of this current, the time rate of change is zero (instantaneous slope is horizontal) -- and so the induced EMF as shown in the second coil's trace is zero (the induced current trace crosses the zero volt baseline at the same time the inducing current peaks.) When the inducing current (magnetic field) is changing at its maximum rate (the place where the instantaneous slope is steepest or most vertical: the zero crossing) the induced current is at its maximum (the peaks).
As you raise the frequency of your test, stray inductances (wire connections) become increasingly important and the observed phase difference on the scope will change.
Now back pedling:
You are truly idiotic! Did you fail calculus in school, perhaps? Or maybe never even took it? You can see for yourself that Brad's scope traces _perfectly_ describe what is predicted by Faraday's Law of Induction !
Or maybe you can't. Do you not understand what "time rate of change" actually means? d/dt? Apparently you do not. At the peaks of the waveform the time rate of change goes to ZERO-- the instantaneous slope is horizontal. Faraday's Law tells us that the induced EMF at that point is ZERO. At the zero-crossing of the waveform, the time rate of change is MAXIMUM -- the instantaneous slope is as steep as it ever gets. Faraday's law tells us that the induced emf (with negative sign) is MAXIMUM at that point--- as is clearly shown on Brad's scopetraces !
Do you even know what the magnitude of the phase shift introduced by your cheap current clamp actually is? Have you ever done the simple test I asked you to do long ago, comparing the current clamp reading with a simultaneous reading from an in line CVR?
This is in-concieveable TK!!!
I caught you out on the biggest mistake you have ever made and you wont admit it and correct it? This shows clearly that you truly do NOT understand basic magnetics!!!
This is Gold!!!
Keep going this is classically Funny!!! Please everyone pay attention to these mistakes! Try to learn form the assumptions that these people make!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
As far as the friend-funded Rigol DS1054z oscilloscope goes, and as anyone following my work knows, the First unit I received _definitely_ had a hardware fault from the factory and was replaced within days of my notifying Rigol and TEquipment. The Second unit I received worked fine, and I identified several SOFTWARE BUGS that were acknowledged by Rigol during the six months or so that I used it daily in my work. That scope had an early version of the Boot Loader software on it that caused the bugs. RIGOL THEMSELVES asked me if I wanted to trade out that scope for one with the _current_ Boot Loader, and I agreed to do so. They sent me the replacement completely free of charge, and sent it to me _before_ I sent the obsolete unit back, so I could test them side-by-side for several days, which I did, and which tests I reported to Rigol and on another forum where I sometimes post. So I am now using DAILY in my work the "Third" actual scope from Rigol. I've found a few bugs in the software of this scope as well, and have reported them to the appropriate places. The "average" user would never encounter most of these bugs in their daily basic scope use. For sure, EMJunkie would never see them, or even be able to tell when they hit.
It is a baldfaced and transparent lie that I "busted and blamed on the OEM" anything to do with my DS1054z. I have identified software faults in this complex and low-cost instrument, that are indeed due to oversights and poor programming on the part of the OEM. They are definitely NOT due to my "busting" anything, and my bug identification and reports are helping Rigol to improve their quality and service. The Rigol DS1054z remains the best oscilloscope value for the money (although the new Siglent scopes come close), and the few remaining bugs are not likely to be encountered by any but the most advanced scope users and can easily be worked around if they do crop up. Hopefully they will be fixed in the next firmware update and will no longer cause anyone any difficulty.
As always, I am happy to help (almost) anyone with understanding their instrumentation, with recommendations, and interpretation of what they see. The lying fool EMJunkie, however, can go spit.
I will vouch for all stated above.
Brad.
-
Exactly as i said,,no one bothers to take note of what the electron within the atoms of the magnetic material are doing. In fact,i dont think anyone here know's--or most should i say.
People are just happy with what there told,without trying to make sense of it them self.
Brad.
Hahaha Brad, I was being vicious, I was Cow Poking TK again!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Sounds like you, as usual, have no idea what you are talking about.
Let me know when you observe a proton decaying. Until then.... you can STFU.
Clearly, an interesting observation, something that you either know something about or do not... What happens to the fundamental particles when they decay?
Lets take your Proton... Beta decay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay)
How is it that, a Proton is transformed into a Neutron, this decay emits an Electron and a Neutrino, or if it’s a Beta Minus Decay, a Antineutrino and Electron?
Yet you dufuses agree to hand shake and Postulate (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/postulate) that Magnets do not Dissipate Energy.
In all the universe, energy is being exchanged all day every day!!!
Hasnt it been a bad day for you TK?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
@All - This is an excellent example of someone in stature, steering others wrong because of an incomplete understanding!
I urge you all to cross reference all information you come accross all the time. Even the Information I share, not to be bias!
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.
This statement is completely wrong!!!
Which means that TK may not have interpreted Tinmans Scopeshots correctly!
The angle of phase shift is 180 degrees. It was Heinrich Lenz that discovered this Phase Angle difference and thus it is now called: Lenz's Law. Today very well known! Lenz's Law is incorporated into Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction by adding a (-) Negative sign in the equations:
The Magnetic Fields are equal and opposite.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.
The first coil's magnetic field follows, to first order, the current shown on the scope trace. At the peaks of this current, the time rate of change is zero (instantaneous slope is horizontal) -- and so the induced EMF as shown in the second coil's trace is zero (the induced current trace crosses the zero volt baseline at the same time the inducing current peaks.) When the inducing current (magnetic field) is changing at its maximum rate (the place where the instantaneous slope is steepest or most vertical: the zero crossing) the induced current is at its maximum (the peaks).
As you raise the frequency of your test, stray inductances (wire connections) become increasingly important and the observed phase difference on the scope will change.
Well i was hoping for minnie to answer,as it was he who said i needed to brush up on my induction skill's. Although he seem'd happy to make further comments !after my post!,on other subject matter,it would seem he avoided answering the question :o--another MH perhaps?.
Anyway,more to come soon enough.
Brad.
-
I will give you 2 days to prove that a magnet dose not dissipate energy,and i will show you proof that it dose in under a minute.
A simple 1 minute experiment can show a magnet dissipating energy,but your short sightedness just dose not allow you to grasp such a concept.
You have no vision at all MH--that much is clear.
Brad
I will wait the two days and we will see what your vision has to offer.
-
Well i was hoping for minnie to answer,as it was he who said i needed to brush up on my induction skill's. Although he seem'd happy to make further comments !after my post!,on other subject matter,it would seem he avoided answering the question :o--another MH perhaps?.
Anyway,more to come soon enough.
Brad.
Hmmm, I think John has gone out for a drive, in his Minnie, maybe to consult with his Physics Professor friend...
Yes, what a terrible day for the Gurus!!! Completely and utterly wrong in all areas!!!
I got the STFU from TK, I am extremely insulted - Hahahaha Just kidding! ;)
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
I will wait the two days and we will see what your vision has to offer.
Hahahaha - Why - Will the Universes Physical Laws change in two days?
Hahahaha - MilleHehehehehe the Dementia Patient!!!
At last you get to meet someone new every 10 Seconds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk7WuvNKe_g)!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
@All - This is an excellent example of someone in stature, steering others wrong because of an incomplete understanding!
I urge you all to cross reference all information you come accross all the time. Even the Information I share, not to be bias!
This statement is completely wrong!!!
Which means that TK may not have interpreted Tinmans Scopeshots correctly!
The angle of phase shift is 180 degrees. It was Heinrich Lenz that discovered this Phase Angle difference and thus it is now called: Lenz's Law. Today very well known! Lenz's Law is incorporated into Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction by adding a (-) Negative sign in the equations:
The Magnetic Fields are equal and opposite.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
So are you saying for the below circuit,that the wave form should look like the attached scope shot?.
Brad
-
I will wait the two days and we will see what your vision has to offer.
Thought as much.
Not even willing to take another look at your own claims,claims made from others assumptions,and not from one's own experiments--oh that's right,you dont experiment ::)
Brad
-
Only useless to you,because it proves you wrong-once again.
I have never seen anyone here get it wrong as many times as you have in one thread MH.
Brad
No, we are back in "crippled communication skills" territory again. If you want to make a point then make a point, don't throw a handful of 30-page pdfs at me. That is w..ww...www...wrong.
Yes, good old Tinman says I am wrong all the time to the point of ridiculousness. His brain started frying at the beginning of the thread because he was in shock when someone actually started telling him that he was wrong. Now he has turned himself into The Infallible Doctor Brainfry like some character right out of a comic book. The only thing he knows is to say that I am wrong! Wrong infinity! Think wrong! So wrong that it out-wronged the wrong wrong. I have gone from a Big Gun and become wrong all the time! Let's say it again, Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Your "strategy" of always saying that I am wrong has turned you into a comic book character. You will say anything. In the next issue.... You will say I am wrong!
-
Thought as much.
Not even willing to take another look at your own claims,claims made from others assumptions,and not from one's own experiments--oh that's right,you dont experiment ::)
Brad
The funny and ironic thing is that in the vast majority of cases you don't really experiment either.
-
So are you saying for the below circuit,that the wave form should look like the attached scope shot?.
Brad
Hey Brad,
Yes Sir, equal and opposite, but, there is a small catch here, reactive power can change the phase angle some! Which has nothing to do at all with Faradays Law or Lenz's Law.
This is Ping Pong Power, if an Ideal Inductor were considered, the power you put in, is the power you get out again. So properly interpreting your scope shots, you need to take into account the Phase angle on your Input.
If youre getting 90 Degrees, then the Power you put In, you get all that back out again. This is a Lossless Inductor!
To Calculate this, its: V * A * Cos(ϕ)
Where:
ϕ = Phase angle from Volts to Current, or sometimes Current to Volts.
V = Volts
A = Amps
A little bit of reference material here: Transformer: primary side & secondary side current 180 degree out of phase (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70696/transformer-primary-side-secondary-side-current-180-degree-out-of-phase)
It is very standard knowledge in Electronics/Transformer Theory. I am super surprised TK got this so terribly wrong!
I have built a small App if you want to use it, it calculates the Params you put in. Need to know the Phase angle of Current to Voltage, if its Voltage leading.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Hahahaha - Why - Will the Universes Physical Laws change in two days?
Hahahaha - MilleHehehehehe the Dementia Patient!!!
At last you get to meet someone new every 10 Seconds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk7WuvNKe_g)!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
When it comes to electronics Chris you have proven yourself to be a hapless clown. Then on top of that you are acting like a clown on this thread. Nobody replicated your experiment, chances are it was just another hapless beginner duping himself by listening to your nonsense. I really can't take you seriously, you come off as a paper-cutout version of a real person.
-
To elaborate a little more:
Apparent Power is Volts * Amps - This is not always the power consumed by the System if Inductors/Capacitors are present.
Below, we see 1 Amp, 1 Volt, normally this would be seen to be 1 Watt of power Consumed. But with a 90 degree phase angle, all your input power is being returned to the Source. No Power at all is consumed by your System.
A very interesting subject to learn about.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
No,that is another win for me.
There is two opposite examples of existent resonance in the combustion chamber that you said never existed ;)
Another fail by you MH.
Brad
No way, it's a tie. You were supposed to show how resonance improved the combustion process to give you better performance, not "prove that resonance exists." Blow across the top of a beer bottle and you get resonance, BFD. You cited one example that decreases performance and an other example that increases performance - it's a tie.
-
When it comes to electronics Chris you have proven yourself to be a hapless clown. Then on top of that you are acting like a clown on this thread. Nobody replicated your experiment, chances are it was just another hapless beginner duping himself by listening to your nonsense. I really can't take you seriously, you come off as a paper-cutout version of a real person.
Confused again MilleHehehehe - Wow are you wrong pal, then you Lie and Back Pedal to try to get yourself out of your lies!!!
You’ve gone downhill since I came back here, its just been too much for you old mate, hasn’t it!!!
The pressure of being proven wrong so many times by others here, much smarter than you, is just too much!!!
Its obvious that your decline from your self-proclaimed pedestal is accelerating!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
@ Minnie & MH
Well minnie/MH,it seems we have a problem.
As i need to brush up on my induction skills,i am awaiting your input.
Which is the correct wave form(scope shot) for the below circuit ?.
Maybe MH might even like to have a go at this one.
Which is correct MH--surly you are full bottles on plain old induction ;)
Is it the first scope shot/schematic that is correct,or is it the second scope shot with same attached schematic that is correct?.
Either of you two dare to answer>? :D
Brad
-
Blah blah blah
Trying for the big bailout already.
Changing the terms and conditions to suit your own need to be right.
But you have just found out that you are wrong again<--yes,again MH.
Brad
Bla bla my ass Dr. Brainfry. Do your big reveal in two days showing how a magnet "dissipates energy."
Here is my definition of a magnet "dissipating energy:" There is a continuous flow of heat power or electrical power due to the presence of the magnet and there are no external mechanisms that are adding power to the magnet itself. In other words, no moving of the magnet, no aiming heat lamps at the magnet, no nothing.
What you seem to be saying is that a magnet just sitting there on a table is "dissipating energy" and for me "dissipating energy" means that somehow the magnet is allegedly a continuous source of some form of power. I am stating this because with your serious language and communication issues, you could find some way to "weasel" your way into "being right."
No monkeyshines, no Bizarro World anti-logic. No twisted obtuse spaghetti English that could be interpreted five different ways. Make sentences that are properly constructed and comprehensible and not ambiguous. No requirement for a secret decoder ring to understand what you are saying. You have to be real.
-
Bla bla my ass Dr. Brainfry.
The response of a true Genius! Well done!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg479834#msg479834 date=1460077518]
Oh-more terms and conditions to suit your needs MH ::)
My English is just fine -thank you. But what has become outstanding in this thread,is your lack of knowledge in the simplest of thing's,and how much you have actually got wrong in this thread.
Then you do the old twisty turny thingy to try and weasel your way out of your own mistakes lol--but with epic fails all over the place.
Post 1340- Quote: But the actual engine itself, the pistons, the valves, the camshaft, the crankcase, the ignition, etc, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with resonance.
Lol.
Post 1534 Quote: Good, so that patent shows a resonant cavity in the combustion chamber can be used to improve the performance of a two-stroke engine. And you also put up a link showing how resonance in the cylinder of a typical four-stroke automobile engine reduces performance. So there is no simple one-size-fits all answer and things have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So that one is a draw.
No MH-thats not a draw. Another attempt at avoiding the fact that you were once again wrong lol.
What that is,is showing you that you have no idea what you are talking about ;)
Your claim once again- But the actual engine itself, the pistons, the valves, the camshaft, the crankcase, the ignition, etc, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with resonance.
So i post the very thing you say dose not exist-both good and bad,and you try and call it a draw lol.
No no no-it was another loss on your behalf--another false load of crap from you.
I show where resonance exist throughout an ICE,and how that resonance increases both efficiency and power,while you waffle on about how it dose not even exist lol.
Another epic fail on your behalf MH.
Here is my definition of a magnet "dissipating energy:"
Lucky for us,you do not get to make the definition of energy dissipation.
Energy is dissipated when work is being done. Work must be done to align the magnetic domains of a magnetic material<-- dont forget that one MH.
There is a continuous flow of heat power or electrical power due to the presence of the magnet
What a lot of crap. Since when dose a continuous flow of anything needed to show that work was done. If we switch on a light,and then switch it back of,so as the flow was not continuous,was work done?
Like i said,it is a good thing we dont go by your demented rules of work being done,or what dissipated energy is.
What you seem to be saying is that a magnet just sitting there on a table is "dissipating energy"
Thats not what i said at all. Dose a battery dissipate energy just sitting there with no interaction with anything else?.
and for me "dissipating energy" means that somehow the magnet is allegedly a continuous source of some form of power. I am stating this because with your serious language and communication issues, you could find some way to "weasel" your way into "being right."
You need to go brush up on your energy dissipation example's.
You are going to fall into another of your holes you dug MH.
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg479834#msg479834 date=1460077518]
Bla bla my ass Dr. Brainfry.
So whats it going to be MH--Scope shot 1,or scope shot 2 for the attached schematic?
Are you going to side with TK,because he is your mate,and you dislike EMJ?
Or are you going to think for your self for once,and answer with what you think is correct.
!OR! are you not going to answer,as you have no idea your self how induction actually work's.
My guess is that you will say nothing--will not answer the question,as you just do not know,and do not want to make your self look any worse than you already do.
And where is that mate of yours-minnie,who said i need to brush up on my induction skill's ::)
Brad
-
No MH-thats not a draw. Another attempt at avoiding the fact that you were once again wrong lol.
What that is,is showing you that you have no idea what you are talking about (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Go ahead Brad and say that until you are blue in the face. You have been wrong so many times over the years but you always got kid gloves and many times you were spoon fed the answers so you could understand what you were observing. At least on this thread you will get the truth from me. Go on any other thread and say any whackadoo thing you want, I don't care.
Yes, I was unaware that there are ways to take advantage of resonance in a cylinder during combustion, and also for getting better air flow into and out of the cylinders. I never claimed to be an expert in engines. So what are you going to do? Jump up and down in a victory jig? Have your jig and eat it too.
-
Confused again MilleHehehehe - Wow are you wrong pal, then you Lie and Back Pedal to try to get yourself out of your lies!!!
You’ve gone downhill since I came back here, its just been too much for you old mate, hasn’t it!!!
The pressure of being proven wrong so many times by others here, much smarter than you, is just too much!!!
Its obvious that your decline from your self-proclaimed pedestal is accelerating!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
You're a whack job.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg479834#msg479834 date=1460077518]
So whats it going to be MH--Scope shot 1,or scope shot 2 for the attached schematic?
Are you going to side with TK,because he is your mate,and you dislike EMJ?
Or are you going to think for your self for once,and answer with what you think is correct.
!OR! are you not going to answer,as you have no idea your self how induction actually work's.
My guess is that you will say nothing--will not answer the question,as you just do not know,and do not want to make your self look any worse than you already do.
And where is that mate of yours-minnie,who said i need to brush up on my induction skill's ::)
Brad
You show a transformer and you are too dense and too lazy to use the dot convention. You have been reminded of that several times before.
-
What a lot of crap. Since when dose a continuous flow of anything needed to show that work was done.
Just make your little presentation and we will see.
Why don't you try to master the difference between "dose" and "does" and also master the use of the apostrophe?
-
Hey Brad,
Yes Sir, equal and opposite, but, there is a small catch here, reactive power can change the phase angle some! Which has nothing to do at all with Faradays Law or Lenz's Law.
This is Ping Pong Power, if an Ideal Inductor were considered, the power you put in, is the power you get out again. So properly interpreting your scope shots, you need to take into account the Phase angle on your Input.
To be correct and propper, I should correct my self some.
The phase angle difference, between Volts and Amps on the Input, actually is affected by Faradays Law or Lenz's Law!
Taking the concept of an Ideal Inductor, where all the Input Power (V * I * COS(ϕ)) is stored in the Magnetic Field (1/2 LI2), and then the Magnetic Field returnes all the Power again, is Electromagnetic Induction in its own right. So here I was not entirely correct in saying what I said.
In saying this, my meaning was from Source (Primary) Magnetic Field, to destination (Secondary) Magnetic Field. Which was the topic:
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.
Which is totally WRONG, but I think I have said that about 4 or 5 times now...
As seen in the below Transformer Diagram, as stated, Input Current, to Output Current, resulting from Electromagnetic Induction, is 180 Degrees Out of Phase unless there is another source of Electromagnetic Induction that pushes the Phase Angle out.
Appologies for my bad wording here.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
You show a transformer and you are too dense and too lazy to use the dot convention. You have been reminded of that several times before.
What a pathetic Excuse to avoid the questions asked!!!
Shame!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Yes, I was unaware that there are ways to take advantage of resonance in a cylinder during combustion, and also for getting better air flow into and out of the cylinders. I never claimed to be an expert in engines. So what are you going to do? Jump up and down in a victory jig? Have your jig and eat it too.
What i am going to do-and what i have done,is show people the truth,and not believe everything they are told. You just happened to be the example-a position you placed your self in.
You also continue with your insult's,and claim that i am always wrong-even though you admit your self that it is you that has been wrong so far on this thread in regards to resonant system's,and how those resonant systems increase the efficiency of the systems they are working in.
For many years now,you thought of your self as being above me--better than me,and yet here in this thread,we see that that is not the case. But still you continue to belittle me,and insult me as you see fit,and all based around the fact that i know some things you do not in the area you consider yourself to be so great at.
I have asked you and minnie twice now to answer a simple question,in an area yourself and minnie think i need to work on,and learn a bit more toward--that being induction.
But so far,neither of you have stepped up to the plate,and answered this simple question about induction--which scope trace is correct for the circuit schematic.
There is only one of two reason's neither of you will answer-
1-you do not know the correct answer yourselves-a simple question on induction-
2-you do not want to agree with what EMJ says about Lenz's law in relation to faraday's law of induction-simply because EMJ is saying it. This is just the cowards way out ,if that is the case.
So here it is once again-for you and minnie--the two that claim i need to brush up on my understanding of induction.
Is the first scope shot with the associated schematic correct?
Or is the second scope shot with associated scope shot correct.
1 is correct,one is not--which is it?.
I will add a little something for you to think about.
Both scope shot's are from the same circuit.
1 scope shot is the result of a PM (that can do no useful work :D)placed next to the transformer,and oscillating at the resonant frequency of that transformer,but where the field alignment dose not change.
Brad
-
In this thread you are being told the truth by me, no kid gloves and no spoon feeding. If you are right then you are right and if you are wrong then you are wrong. It's a shocking dose of reality for you. Notice that is "dose" and not "does."
Am I perfect? The answer is no. Have I turned into a borderline psycho person because of this thread? The answer is no. Have you turned into a borderline psycho person because of this thread? The answer is yes.
Keep on repeating I am wrong until you are blue in the face and your brain sizzles and smoke starts rising. Go for it.
-
In this thread you are being told the truth by me, no kid gloves and no spoon feeding. If you are right then you are right and if you are wrong then you are wrong. It's a shocking dose of reality for you. Notice that is "dose" and not "does."
Am I perfect? The answer is no. Have I turned into a borderline psycho person because of this thread? The answer is no. Have you turned into a borderline psycho person because of this thread? The answer is yes.
Keep on repeating I am wrong until you are blue in the face and your brain sizzles and smoke starts rising. Go for it.
WOW, are you secretly a Politician?
Lies and Aviodances seems to be your primary area of expertese!!!
Certianly Electronics/Magnetics is not!!!
and still none of the Questions have been answered!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Hey Brad,
Yes Sir, equal and opposite, but, there is a small catch here, reactive power can change the phase angle some! Which has nothing to do at all with Faradays Law or Lenz's Law.
This is Ping Pong Power, if an Ideal Inductor were considered, the power you put in, is the power you get out again. So properly interpreting your scope shots, you need to take into account the Phase angle on your Input.
If youre getting 90 Degrees, then the Power you put In, you get all that back out again. This is a Lossless Inductor!
To Calculate this, its: V * A * Cos(ϕ)
Where:
ϕ = Phase angle from Volts to Current, or sometimes Current to Volts.
V = Volts
A = Amps
What is cosine of 90 degrees, O Great Sykes? It is ZERO.
A little bit of reference material here: Transformer: primary side & secondary side (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70696/transformer-primary-side-secondary-side-current-180-degree-out-of-phase)current (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70696/transformer-primary-side-secondary-side-current-180-degree-out-of-phase) 180 degree out of phase (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70696/transformer-primary-side-secondary-side-current-180-degree-out-of-phase)
It is very standard knowledge in Electronics/Transformer Theory. I am super surprised TK got this so terribly wrong!
I have built a small App if you want to use it, it calculates the Params you put in. Need to know the Phase angle of Current to Voltage, if its Voltage leading.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Current is not voltage (EMF). When a _Voltage_ is applied to an inductor, the _current_ takes some time to rise up to its final value. In Brad's schematic he is measuring _current_ through a resistor on one coil, and _voltage_ across the second coil.
-
What i am going to do-and what i have done,is show people the truth,and not believe everything they are told. You just happened to be the example-a position you placed your self in.
You also continue with your insult's,and claim that i am always wrong-even though you admit your self that it is you that has been wrong so far on this thread in regards to resonant system's,and how those resonant systems increase the efficiency of the systems they are working in.
For many years now,you thought of your self as being above me--better than me,and yet here in this thread,we see that that is not the case. But still you continue to belittle me,and insult me as you see fit,and all based around the fact that i know some things you do not in the area you consider yourself to be so great at.
I have asked you and minnie twice now to answer a simple question,in an area yourself and minnie think i need to work on,and learn a bit more toward--that being induction.
But so far,neither of you have stepped up to the plate,and answered this simple question about induction--which scope trace is correct for the circuit schematic.
There is only one of two reason's neither of you will answer-
1-you do not know the correct answer yourselves-a simple question on induction-
2-you do not want to agree with what EMJ says about Lenz's law in relation to faraday's law of induction-simply because EMJ is saying it. This is just the cowards way out ,if that is the case.
So here it is once again-for you and minnie--the two that claim i need to brush up on my understanding of induction.
Is the first scope shot with the associated schematic correct?
Or is the second scope shot with associated scope shot correct.
1 is correct,one is not--which is it?.
I will add a little something for you to think about.
Both scope shot's are from the same circuit.
1 scope shot is the result of a PM (that can do no useful work :D )placed next to the transformer,and oscillating at the resonant frequency of that transformer,but where the field alignment dose not change.
Brad
You may find this video of interest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GOMqlamVHk
-
What is cosine of 90 degrees, O Great Sykes? It is ZERO.
Current is not voltage (EMF). When a _Voltage_ is applied to an inductor, the _current_ takes some time to rise up to its final value. In Brad's schematic he is measuring _current_ through a resistor on one coil, and _voltage_ across the second coil.
We used to have an insurance company over here, it went broke, their Moto was "State the Obvious"!
TK, youre back pedling and it doesnt look good at all!
Ole Mate, admit it, you were terribly wrong! I am right, The EMF, Electromagnetic Induction, is 180 degrees out of phase to its source unless another Source of induction enters the equation!
And also, youre not right entirely about the EMF thing only being voltage... You are really generalising and expecting others to read between the lines and get it, what you actually mean. EMF is Electro Motive Force, this is not defined simply as Voltage! It is defined as "coulomb's of charge"...
Bad day old Mate?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
You may find this video of interest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GOMqlamVHk
With respect Old Mate, your 148KHz --->>> 1.1Mhz compared to TinMan's 30Hz is an entirely different and not related to, series of effects.
Apples and Oranges ole Mate!!! Perhaps you can show us a little more on the Delay Line Tech in another topic?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
@ Minnie & MH
Well minnie/MH,it seems we have a problem.
As i need to brush up on my induction skills,i am awaiting your input.
Which is the correct wave form(scope shot) for the below circuit ?.
Maybe MH might even like to have a go at this one.
Which is correct MH--surly you are full bottles on plain old induction ;)
Is it the first scope shot/schematic that is correct,or is it the second scope shot with same attached schematic that is correct?.
Either of you two dare to answer>? :D
Brad
One more time, we are back with trying to deal with your stunted communications skills, laziness, and inability to state something properly.
You post two drawings that include scope captures and ask which one is correct. You are asking about phasing issues were the relationship between the frequency, the resistance, and the inductance is critical for determining the phase, but you don't provide any inductance measurements.
It looks like you may intentionally be hiding the voltage scales so we cannot tell what the waveform amplitudes are.
It says, "air or steel laminated core" on the drawings, so which is it? I am assuming that it is a steel laminated core but you don't say.
This is the doozie:
First you say:
Maybe MH might even like to have a go at this one.
Which is correct MH--surly you are full bottles on plain old induction
Is it the first scope shot/schematic that is correct,or is it the second scope shot with same attached schematic that is correct?.
Either of you two dare to answer>?
Then you say:
I will add a little something for you to think about.
Both scope shot's are from the same circuit.
1 scope shot is the result of a PM (that can do no useful work )placed next to the transformer,and oscillating at the resonant frequency of that transformer,but where the field alignment dose not change.
So the setup is not the same for the two scope captures.
What does, "oscillating at the resonant frequency of that transformer" mean?
What does, "the field alignment dose not change" mean?
You are so crippled in your communications skills it's almost unbelievable. You can't punch your way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to describing something in a logical fashion with no ambiguities.
You ask a completely loaded question and you at first don't even state that you changed the setup between the first and second scope capture.
Like usual, when you try to present something just moderately detailed, it's a complete disaster.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Or are you going to think for your self for once,and answer with what you think is correct.
My ass, "think for myself for once." You will say anything, any damn thing, you are grovelling in the dirt.
Remember when I said that this thread has turned you into a borderline psycho person? The quote above is a prime example of you degenerating into a borderline psycho that will say or do anything.
I think for myself and you damn well know it.
MileHigh
-
One more time, we are back with trying to deal with your stunted communications skills, laziness, and inability to state something properly.
You post two drawings that include scope captures and ask which one is correct. You are asking about phasing issues were the relationship between the frequency, the resistance, and the inductance is critical for determining the phase, but you don't provide any inductance measurements.
It looks like you may intentionally be hiding the voltage scales so we cannot tell what the waveform amplitudes are.
It says, "air or steel laminated core" on the drawings, so which is it? I am assuming that it is a steel laminated core but you don't say.
This is the doozie:
First you say:
Then you say:
So the setup is not the same for the two scope captures.
What does, "oscillating at the resonant frequency of that transformer" mean?
What does, "the field alignment dose not change" mean?
You are so crippled in your communications skills it's almost unbelievable. You can't punch your way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to describing something in a logical fashion with no ambiguities.
You ask a completely loaded question and you at first don't even state that you changed the setup between the first and second scope capture.
Like usual, when you try to present something just moderately detailed, it's a complete disaster.
MileHigh
Just say "I dont Know" MilleHehehehe!!!
It would be so much easier!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad:
My ass, "think for myself for once." You will say anything, any damn thing, you are grovelling in the dirt.
Remember when I said that this thread has turned you into a borderline psycho person? The quote above is a prime example of you degenerating into a borderline psycho that will say or do anything.
I think for myself and you damn well know it.
MileHigh
Clearly scrambling to avoid the topic at hand...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Here I've taken a random ferrite-core transformer from my junk stash and connected the Primary in series with a 0.1 ohm non-inductive Ohmite resistor. I then connected it to my F43 function generator set to about 1 kHz sine wave, with the Black output lead connected to the open end of the CSR and the Red output lead connected to the other end of the transformer's Primary. So the CH1 (Yellow) trace is looking at the Vdrop = current through the CSR and Primary. I connected the CH2 (Blue) probe directly across the Secondary of the transformer, so it is looking at the induced voltage across the Secondary. This is equivalent to the schematic Brad has shown, with the exception that I am driving the primary simply with the direct output of the F43 (since it is powerful enough to do so.)
Observe.
Q E D .
-
Here I've taken a random ferrite-core transformer from my junk stash and connected the Primary in series with a 0.1 ohm non-inductive Ohmite resistor. I then connected it to my F43 function generator set to about 1 kHz sine wave, with the Black output lead connected to the open end of the CSR and the Red output lead connected to the other end of the transformer's Primary. So the CH1 (Yellow) trace is looking at the Vdrop = current through the CSR and Primary. I connected the CH2 (Blue) probe directly across the Secondary of the transformer, so it is looking at the induced voltage across the Secondary. This is equivalent to the schematic Brad has shown, with the exception that I am driving the primary simply with the direct output of the F43 (since it is powerful enough to do so.)
Observe.
Q E D .
TK - 30Hz was Tinman's specified Frequency!!! Your experiment is in error by a factor of: 35.678774651694876139862721955915 X
What is it that youre avoiding? QEW? <<<--- Yes the W is Weirdness!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Same setup at 30 Hz:
Q E even more D.
-
TK - 30Hz was Tinman's specified Frequency!!! Your experiment is in error by a factor of: 35.678774651694876139862721955915
What is it that youre avoiding? QEW? <<<--- Yes the W is Weirdness!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
What is it you are avoiding? Admitting your own ignorance, that's what.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg479863#msg479863 date=1460095038]
MileHigh
One more time, we are back with trying to deal with your stunted communications skills, laziness, and inability to state something properly.
Ok,we will try the spoon feeding method for the baby that cannot understand simple explanations.
You post two drawings that include scope captures and ask which one is correct. You are asking about phasing issues were the relationship between the frequency, the resistance, and the inductance is critical for determining the phase, but you don't provide any inductance measurements.
A statement that clearly show's how little you know.
The blue channel is showing the current flow through L1--this is the magnetic field trace--a direct link between the rise,fall,and direction of current to the rise,fall,and polarity change of the magnetic field. Inductance has diddly squat to do with it at these low frequencies ,other than to alter the amplitude on L2,and increase or decrease the amplitude on the L1 current trace.
looks like you may intentionally be hiding the voltage scales so we cannot tell what the waveform amplitudes are
Because the wave form amplitude has nothing to do with the phase relationship between L1s current phase,and L2 EMF. Regardless of what the amplitude may be,the phase relationship between the two will remain the same.
It says, "air or steel laminated core" on the drawings, so which is it? I am assuming that it is a steel laminated core but you don't say.
It can be either,as with or without the steel laminated core,the phase relationship between L1 and L2 will remain the same.
So the setup is not the same for the two scope captures.
That is absolutely correct.
Now all you have to do,is tell us all which one is correct for standard induction theory.
TK managed to post an answer without any trouble at all with the information provided,as the information provided is all that is needed to make a correct account of which scope shot is showing the correct wave form for the schematic posted.
What does, "oscillating at the resonant frequency of that transformer" mean?
:o
You do not need to understand that,nor do i have to explain it.
The information to answer the question correctly is in the schematic with attached scope shot.
One is transformer induction,the other is just there so as you have to choose which is correct.
What does, "the field alignment dose not change" mean?[/b]
As we were talking about the PM,then it means the PMs magnetic field stays aligned with the transformer,and dose not turn,revolve,or move so as the PMs field alternates in regards to the transformer.
You are so crippled in your communications skills it's almost unbelievable. You can't punch your way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to describing something in a logical fashion with no ambiguities.
And you stop at nothing to avoid answering a simple question
Which wave form represents the schematic posted with each wave form?--forget about the magnet being in play with one of them--just show which one is standard transformer induction.
You ask a completely loaded question and you at first don't even state that you changed the setup between the first and second scope capture.
Because my original question had only one scope shot,and the question was asked--is this correct for normal transformer induction.
Neither you nor minnie answered the simple question,but TK had no problem with the question,and he gave his answer.
EMJ then said that it was wrong,that L1s current and L2s EMF should be 180* out of phase,and he also gave his reason's for such,and so i added the scope shot of the wave forms showing the phase relationship that EMJ said we should see.
You are asked to answer as to which one represents simple transformer induction,and nothing to do with how the PM setup is operating.
Like usual, when you try to present something just moderately detailed, it's a complete disaster.
What is a complete disaster is you not being able to answer a simple question regarding standard transformer action--and i see minnie has also gone completely silent :D
Which scope shot represents what we should see with the scope probes placed as shown on the schematic-which phase angle is correct?-it's that simple.
TK was able to answer it,EMJ was able to answer it--but who is correct?
The only one's here that cant or have not answered ,is the two that think i need to learn basic transformer induction lol--->that be you and minnie.
Brad
-
Brad:
My ass, "think for myself for once." You will say anything, any damn thing, you are grovelling in the dirt.
Remember when I said that this thread has turned you into a borderline psycho person? The quote above is a prime example of you degenerating into a borderline psycho that will say or do anything.
I think for myself and you damn well know it.
MileHigh
No MH
You couldnt leave it alone,and now you dislike your own medicine.
You expect so many people to answer all your question's,but you cannot even answer one simple question about transformer induction.
We are pretty much done with your bullshit here.
Brad
-
There you go MH,TK has carried out an experiment,and has scope shot's to back up mine.
How is it he had no problem replicating my experiment,and yet you claim you dont understand it?.
So all you have to do now,is decide for your self if TK is correct,as he shows the same phase offset as i do in the original question.
Or-is EMJ correct,and TK is overlooking something?.
Then you might try and explain as to how and why one of them is wrong--but i doubt it. ;)
Brad
-
Same setup at 30 Hz:
Q E even more D.
I have one of those too - Look Ma no Hands!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
So, TK you going to explain the differences from your ±90 Degrees to my ±180 Degrees?
Its actually very simple, part of the discussion we have had.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
So, TK you going to explain the differences from your ±90 Degrees to my ±180 Degrees?
Its actually very simple, part of the discussion we have had.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Lets give MH and minnie a chance to answer my question,as it is they that think i need some lessons in induction.
Just one simple question MH--just like the one you asked EMJ to answer about a coil.
Lets see if you can do better than what you claimed EMJ did with your question.
Brad
-
Yes, come on Minnie, show us youre smarter than MilleHehehehehe
EDIT: This topic is of exemplary importance! TK has made some Massive Mistakes that need to be corrected! Brad Crack the Whip mate!!!
But to give TK credit, he got there and managed to replicate TM's result, so credit for that!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Chris
You like taunting people and seem to enjoy the misery of others [your "I couldn't stop laughing for an hour" after you saw the guy working in the sewer Pic]
Tinsel is one of the best Guys on this forum for doing a fair and unbiased replication attempt.
if you feel he did you wrong when you made your OU claim? then show us in a simple Vid where this is true.
that would be Exemplary !
your taunts are not enjoyed as much as you would like to believe ..and when they are directed at Tinsel .....
Not good.. Not good at all.
Chet K
-
Chris
You like taunting people and seem to enjoy the misery of others [your "I couldn't stop laughing for an hour" after you saw the guy working in the sewer Pic]
Tinsel is one of the best Guys on this forum for doing a fair and unbiased replication attempt.
if you feel he did you wrong when you made your OU claim? then show us in a simple Vid where this is true.
that would be Exemplary !
your taunts are not enjoyed as much as you would like to believe ..and when they are directed at Tinsel .....
Not good.. Not good at all.
Chet K
I would have to agree with the Chris,and i think we have had words about this before-in that you some times go after the wrong people--much like MH coming after me,just because i have proven him wrong on many occasions now.
You can see the difference in this thread alone,where TK takes the time to carry out experiment's,and post his finding's,while there are those like MH and minnie that say you are wrong,and carry out no experiments to back up there claims.
We then have to waste our time,delivering the correct information,so as there falsehoods do not contaminate those here trying to learn the truth.
As you just seen,TK replicated and answered my question in no time flat,while MH dose everything to avoid the question--im guessing because he dose not know the answer,and minnie -who was the one that said i need to brush up on induction,has just vanished lol<--funny that.
Chris
Can i ask you to post the test schematic you gathered those resulting wave forms from-showing the 180* phase shift?.
Brad
-
I just wondered if tinman's post on April 1 st. was meant as a joke. 1380.
To me it was a complete demonstration of a lack of basic understanding.
The starter in my old Honda, nearly 20 years, has pm's and although it's
gone through 4 sets of brushes the magnets are as good as when new.
There was obviously no dissipation of the original little bit of energy that
was put in.
Do bad things to your magnet and you'll make it lose strength.
I used to pm. MarkE and he set me straight on many things, I just didn't
recognise the beauty of the physics behind induction before he pointed it
out.
Consider the L/R time constant with regards super-conducting magnet.
Please,please let me know if I'm totally wrong on these points.
I love the old Koala's way of going on-he'll always admit if he's wrong
and will continue 'til he gets it right.
Many clever people have given huge chunks of their lives to get us to where
we are now, learn what they have discovered,build on it and enjoy!
John.
-
Brad:
Ok,we will try the spoon feeding method for the baby that cannot understand simple explanations.
Look up "spaghetti brains" in the visual dictionary and you will find a picture of yourself.
A statement that clearly show's how little you know.
The blue channel is showing the current flow through L1--this is the magnetic field trace--a direct link between the rise,fall,and direction of current to the rise,fall,and polarity change of the magnetic field. Inductance has diddly squat to do with it at these low frequencies ,other than to alter the amplitude on L2,and increase or decrease the amplitude on the L1 current trace.
But it could be relevant for your two separate scope captures. I was interested in trying to explain the second one. What will never sink into your head is "good practice." It's a foreign concept to you.
Because the wave form amplitude has nothing to do with the phase relationship between L1s current phase,and L2 EMF. Regardless of what the amplitude may be,the phase relationship between the two will remain the same.
"good practice"
It can be either,as with or without the steel laminated core,the phase relationship between L1 and L2 will remain the same.
"good practice" It could very well make a difference if it is an air core or a steel laminated core since the inductance difference between the two options will be huge. "good practice"
That is absolutely correct.
Yes indeed, the setup is not the same between the two captures and in your posting #1576 and #1580 you don't say that even though your question is "Is it the first scope shot/schematic that is correct,or is it the second scope shot with same attached schematic that is correct?" That makes you a jackass asking a loaded qeustion. Only in posting #1587 do you reveal that the deck is stacked and the two setups are not the same.
Me: What does, "oscillating at the resonant frequency of that transformer" mean?
You: You do not need to understand that,nor do i have to explain it.
Me: You need to explain it.
As we were talking about the PM,then it means the PMs magnetic field stays aligned with the transformer,and dose not turn,revolve,or move so as the PMs field alternates in regards to the transformer.
LOL You need to go back to school and take some courses in English. Go buy yourself a Brad Secret Un-decoder Ring.
Which wave form represents the schematic posted with each wave form?--forget about the magnet being in play with one of them--just show which one is standard transformer induction.
The output on the secondary is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux in the transformer, so that would be the first scope shot.
What is a complete disaster is you not being able to answer a simple question regarding standard transformer action--and i see minnie has also gone completely silent
No, I was curious about the second capture and trying to explain it, the first capture was a no-brainer. And of course I misplaced my secret decoder ring and was trying to fill in the blanks.
Go to school Brad and learn how to write English.
MileHigh
-
.
To me it was a complete demonstration of a lack of basic understanding.
The starter in my old Honda, nearly 20 years, has pm's and although it's
gone through 4 sets of brushes the magnets are as good as when new.
There was obviously no dissipation of the original little bit of energy that
was put in.
Do bad things to your magnet and you'll make it lose strength.
I used to pm. MarkE and he set me straight on many things, I just didn't
recognise the beauty of the physics behind induction before he pointed it
out.
Please,please let me know if I'm totally wrong on these points.
I love the old Koala's way of going on-he'll always admit if he's wrong
and will continue 'til he gets it right.
Many clever people have given huge chunks of their lives to get us to where
we are now, learn what they have discovered,build on it and enjoy!
John.
Consider the L/R time constant with regards super-conducting magnet.
There is no L/R time constant if the magnet is in a true super conducting state,as a super conductor has no R value. So how is it that an L/R time constant can be calculated when there is no R?.
As soon as there is resistance,it is no longer in a super conductive state.
I just wondered if tinman's post on April 1 st. was meant as a joke. 1380
Quote 1380: Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.
Perhaps you got mixed up between asking a question to others to see who knows what,or asking a question because you think i do not know the answer.
The first is what i was asking--i was asking those here as to where the current flow is in a PM that give's rise to the PMs field,such that we see with an electromagnetic field--no current flow--no magnetic field.
As i have stated after that question(that only TK had a go at answering),most are happy that the PMs magnetic field exists,and in no way,shape,or form do they care how it is sustained,or what is taking place within that magnetic material.
You quoted post 1536 : Thank you MH, a magnet does not dissipate energy.
How have you come to this definitive answer?
Can you tell us all here what the magnetic force/field actually is?
If you cannot,then how can you say that a magnet dose not dissipate energy?.
Your post 1487: Oh dear tinman, you really do need to study basic induction,
I have asked both you and MH a very basic question on induction,and neither of you have answered the question,despite being asked several time's.
You both have avoided answering this very basic question on induction.
When either of you are given a multiple choice,you both tuck your tail between your leg's,and hide behind each other--waiting for some one else to answer for you. ::)
As has been seen time and time again in this thread-you two are out of your league,and both of you try bluffing your way through--only this time i am watching,and will correct every mistake you two make.
Yours and MHs bluffing has turned around,and bit you on the ass.
So how are your induction skills minnie?
Who is correct?-TK or EMJ?
I have posted both wave forms attached to one circuit.
TK has one result,and EMJ has the other--both have shown the scope shot's.
Which one is correct ?-1st or second?.
Brad
-
Brad:
MileHigh
Look up "spaghetti brains" in the visual dictionary and you will find a picture of yourself.
Look up self acclaimed bullshit artist--your picture is plastered all over the page.
But it could be relevant for your two separate scope captures. I was interested in trying to explain the second one. What will never sink into your head is "good practice." It's a foreign concept to you.
More bullshit and bluff attempt.
Post 1531--go look at it MH.
There was only one scope shot related to the attached circuit and scope probe placements--not two. The second was added only after EMJ answered what the scope traces should have shown-as far as he was concerned.
So your bluff is once again squashed.
"good practice" It could very well make a difference if it is an air core or a steel laminated core since the inductance difference between the two options will be huge. "good practice"
I am glad you posted this comment,as it shows you know very little about induction.
As i stated before,the increase in inductance at these low frequencies may increase the amplitude of the EMF on L2,but will have an extremely (if any at all) effect on the phase relationship between L1s current,and the induced EMF in L2.
Yes indeed, the setup is not the same between the two captures and in your posting #1576 and #1580 you don't say that even though your question is "Is it the first scope shot/schematic that is correct,or is it the second scope shot with same attached schematic that is correct?" That makes you a jackass asking a loaded qeustion. Only in posting #1587 do you reveal that the deck is stacked and the two setups are not the same.
More absolute bullshit from you MH,as the first time i asked the question(post 1531),there was no second scope shot. The second scope shot was added to represent EMJs answer to my question.
After that,you were simply asked which one of the two was correct,but before that,you were asked if the only scope shot that went with the attached schematic was correct.
If you know all about induction,then how on earth can the question be loaded?
You either know the answer,or you do not. You either know what the waveform should look like,or you do not.
Me: What does, "oscillating at the resonant frequency of that transformer" mean?
You: You do not need to understand that,nor do i have to explain it.
Me: You need to explain it.
The oscillating magnet has nothing to do with you knowing what the waveform should look like that is associated with the schematic i posted.
Both TK and EMJ had no problem with the question. Both replicated the circuit,and posted there resultant wave forms.
LOL You need to go back to school and take some courses in English. Go buy yourself a Brad Secret Un-decoder Ring.
I think you have dyslexia.
The output on the secondary is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux in the transformer, so that would be the first scope shot.
Lol-How is it-all of a sudden,you can answer the question-even if you have worded it wrong by using the term transformer,when it should be primary coil-or L1,as the whole thing is the transformer-->maybe try wording things a little clearer,or correctly. :o
Funny that one day you couldnt make sense of any of it,and that is why you couldnt answer the question,and yet now(after TK had posted the answer,and you had ample time to have a googlegasm)you some how are able to understand the question,and give an answer. :D
, the first capture was a no-brainer. And of course I misplaced my secret decoder ring and was trying to fill in the blanks.
Good thing TK did not misplace his decoder ring--hey MH ;)
No, I was curious about the second capture and trying to explain it
Forget it--you have no chance at explaining that one,as !your PMs! cannot do useful work.
This is only something that the likes of TK,verpies,and a few others could take on.
You have no chance in hell of explaining how one coils phase could shift,while the other coils phase remains the same,when both of those coils are wound on the same former together,and the frequency is unchanged.
Go to school Brad and learn how to write English.
As no one else had any problem with the very simple question i asked,then i would think it more productive if you sort treatment for your dyslexia.
You say i have problems explaining things correctly
Quote:-->The output on the secondary is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux in the transformer
Not so perfect your self-are you MH.
Brad
-
Hello Guys, As I see here some schematic of two coils , take a look on my experiment with two coils and comment please the error in my setup or measurement.
I think Dog-Dog was saying the current transformer works in range up to couple hundreds KHz. But the same one is on both sides of equation and the frequency I feed the main coils is not as high. Just want to know your opinion. At the moment I have four of such same coils and want to make two more to make it six. My aim is to get Eather to spin between coils in triangle or other configuration :)
The result on the picture is very dependent on the distance between coils- it has to be in absolutely sweet spot.
Thanks ;)
-
Brad:
I am a "big gun" according to you, so what happened? I can tell you what happened. You were not given a continuously enabling environment by me, you were put on a level playing field and when you were wrong about something you were told you were wrong. It is extremely upsetting for you to be told that you are wrong. You can't admit that you are wrong when you are indeed wrong. And I am not saying at all that you are wrong all the time, but like any person it does actually happen that you are wrong.
At that is enough to give you a good hard-core freak-out and make you completely compromise your integrity. Now you will say anything and lie through your teeth repeatedly. I am not perfect and I get things wrong and I admit that. But you are lying about me repeatedly. It's a very sad, very very unpleasant spectacle. You have no shame whatsoever.
Your credibility is destroyed, poor Brad on a brain fry from hell.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Look up self acclaimed bullshit artist
Nope, I speak the truth but ever since your brain started to fry you have been shamelessly bullshitting like crazy.
More bullshit and bluff attempt.
Post 1531--go look at it MH.
There was only one scope shot related to the attached circuit and scope probe placements--not two. The second was added only after EMJ answered what the scope traces should have shown-as far as he was concerned.
So your bluff is once again squashed.
Right, only one scope trace but no dots. GOOD PRACTICE, Brad. It shows a normal transformer action. There you go.
GOOD PRACTICE: Don't say two setups are the same when they aren't. No bluff there, let it sink into your head.
I am glad you posted this comment,as it shows you know very little about induction.
Keep on lying like a drunk sailor.
The oscillating magnet has nothing to do with you knowing what the waveform should look like that is associated with the schematic i posted.
Then what the hell are you even doing that for? More nonsense.
I think you have dyslexia.
I do indeed have a little touch of dyslexia. And you need to take some courses in remedial English and remedial English composition so that you can learn how to spell, learn how to use punctuation, and learn how to put a proper sentence together and learn how to compose a paragraph.
Lol-How is it-all of a sudden,you can answer the question-even if you have worded it wrong by using the term transformer,when it should be primary coil-or L1,as the whole thing is the transformer-->maybe try wording things a little clearer,or correctly.
Funny that one day you couldnt make sense of any of it,and that is why you couldnt answer the question,and yet now(after TK had posted the answer,and you had ample time to have a googlegasm)you some how are able to understand the question,and give an answer.
You are just shamelessly lying and there is nothing wrong with the sentence.
Forget it--you have no chance at explaining that one,as !your PMs! cannot do useful work.
This is only something that the likes of TK,verpies,and a few others could take on.
You have no chance in hell of explaining how one coils phase could shift,while the other coils phase remains the same,when both of those coils are wound on the same former together,and the frequency is unchanged.
More shameless lying and you are off in dreamland with your incorrect belief that magnets can do useful work. It represents both a hopeful belief on your part and a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works. Magnets are as dead as a door nail and are not a source of energy in any way, shape, or form. I know that you refuse to believe this.
You say i have problems explaining things correctly
Quote:-->The output on the secondary is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux in the transformer
There is nothing wrong with that sentence. Then of course you have typed out hundreds of contorted brain twisters over the years that would make any fifth grade English teacher's jaw drop. Go to English school.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
At this point, it's time for this to stop. Next week I will discuss the two questions for resonance in a wine glass. That's it, there really in nothing more for us to talk about after that. I am not interested in your projects, and I have already discussed many of them with you in the past. I am not here to discuss your projects and I am not here to debate with you. I am really here for different reasons. This thread started off with a heated debate between you and me about resonance and you were told the truth by me and you freaked out and we can all see the ugly ugly result from that.
Do whatever you want with your hair dryer motors or your dishwasher motors, I don't care and I have zero desire to discuss them with you, ZERO. Likewise, I couldn't care less what combination of good and cockamamie technical knowledge you have up there in your head. Believe whatever you want to believe.
I won't touch any new project threads you start, not interested. But I will speak the truth on this thread or whatever other thread I want to contribute to.
You couldn't answer the two questions about resonance for a wine glass. So stay tuned next week and you will see how simple the answers really are.
MileHigh
-
Earlier on this thread we discussed the hypothetical concept of a "resonant Joule Thief" and then got into a discussion about resonance.
Like anything, there is a learning curve to go up if you want to understand resonance and discuss resonance properly. Without learning about resonance, many people on the forums talk about resonance like it is some magical path to over unity without even actually understanding what it is.
There are many YouTube clips and people making resonance pitches on places like PESN. If you have a chance to interact with any of these people just ask them, "What is resonating in your system and how does the resonating system work?" and see what kind of a response you get from them. Don't be surprised if many of these people promoting "resonance based free energy systems" will not be able to answer the question and they give you blank stares. That would be telling you that they don't know what they are talking about and they are just using the term "resonance" as a meaningless buzz word.
So that lead to the discussion of one of the classic examples of resonance that we all know, the wine glass. I posed two simple questions about a resonating wine glass and requested two short and simple answers, four sentences or less. If you truly understand how a wine glass resonates you should be able to answer them no problem. So far nobody nobody has been able to answer them.
Here are the questions:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
Anybody is welcome to answer them and if nobody gets it they will be answered next week.
-
I would have to agree with the Chris,and i think we have had words about this before-in that you some times go after the wrong people--much like MH coming after me,just because i have proven him wrong on many occasions now.
You can see the difference in this thread alone,where TK takes the time to carry out experiment's,and post his finding's,while there are those like MH and minnie that say you are wrong,and carry out no experiments to back up there claims.
We then have to waste our time,delivering the correct information,so as there falsehoods do not contaminate those here trying to learn the truth.
As you just seen,TK replicated and answered my question in no time flat,while MH dose everything to avoid the question--im guessing because he dose not know the answer,and minnie -who was the one that said i need to brush up on induction,has just vanished lol<--funny that.
Chris
Can i ask you to post the test schematic you gathered those resulting wave forms from-showing the 180* phase shift?.
Brad
Certainly Brad, see below:
@TK - Although you did replicate Brads experiment, you got it wrong.
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.
Faraday's law of induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction) is a basic law of electromagnetism predicting how a magnetic field will interact with an electric circuit to produce an Electromotive Force, E.M.F (e) (http://physicsnet.co.uk/a-level-physics-as-a2/current-electricity/electromotive-force-and-internal-resistance/), is defined in Coulomb's of Charge (C) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb), this is measured in Volts (V) (http://)
The Ampere (A) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere), often shortened to "amp", is the SI unit of Electric Current (I) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current), The ampere is equivalent to one coulomb (roughly 6.241×1018 times the elementary charge) per second. Amperes are used to express flow rate of electric charge.
Here in lies the problem. Brads Circuit is looking at Current (I) or Amperes on one side of the Circuit, and on the other, it is looking at the Voltage (V).
As you correctly pointed out:
Current is not voltage (EMF).
So, you are comparing Apples and Oranges, this cant be done!!! This is wrong!!! EMF, when talking about EMF, must be compared with its couneter part, the Negative of the source EMF which IS and always will be, 180 Degrees out of phase!
Saying that 10 cars are out on the road, and 10 cars went down the road at 200MPH are totally different things, Volume vs Speed and one is not the other!
I am sorry TK but you are giving people a Bung Steer and this is very important!!!
So, E.M.F (e) (http://physicsnet.co.uk/a-level-physics-as-a2/current-electricity/electromotive-force-and-internal-resistance/) has a phase relationship of 180 Degrees to the Source.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad, this certianly kicks the wrinkles out of their pants!!!
Maybe Minnie and MilleHehehehe might stop and think, before "thinking" they know what they are talking about, aka: sticking their feet in their mouths?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
After that posting #1620, now we know we are not in Kansas anymore! LOL and SMH
Chris, you have been fried by your own dots.
-
After that posting #1620, now we know we are not in Kansas anymore! LOL and SMH
Chris, you have been fried by your own dots.
Still a terrible case of foot in Mouth!!!
Your Drivel (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drivel) vs My Scientific Proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence) with References (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation) and everyday Provable Facts (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/provable) - No competition!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
When I use a coil for generating and motoring, since I have 2 magnet rotors and a set of coils in-between the 2, I use the flyback from motor shut-off (now it's generating),store it and use it to motor.
Chris's simple test of taking a coil ,shorting it , and then swiping a magnet across the surface of the coil , one feels the effects of Lenz.
Luc's latest is to me basically an electro-magnet?
I'm trying to get the fields to flip at just right time.
artv
-
Certainly Brad, see below:
@TK - Although you did replicate Brads experiment, you got it wrong.
Faraday's law of induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction) is a basic law of electromagnetism predicting how a magnetic field will interact with an electric circuit to produce an Electromotive Force, E.M.F (e) (http://physicsnet.co.uk/a-level-physics-as-a2/current-electricity/electromotive-force-and-internal-resistance/), is defined in Coulomb's of Charge (C) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb), this is measured in Volts (V) (http://)
The Ampere (A) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere), often shortened to "amp", is the SI unit of Electric Current (I) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current), The ampere is equivalent to one coulomb (roughly 6.241×1018 times the elementary charge) per second. Amperes are used to express flow rate of electric charge.
Here in lies the problem. Brads Circuit is looking at Current (I) or Amperes on one side of the Circuit, and on the other, it is looking at the Voltage (V).
As you correctly pointed out:
So, you are comparing Apples and Oranges, this cant be done!!! This is wrong!!! EMF, when talking about EMF, must be compared with its couneter part, the Negative of the source EMF which IS and always will be, 180 Degrees out of phase!
Saying that 10 cars are out on the road, and 10 cars went down the road at 200MPH are totally different things, Volume vs Speed and one is not the other!
I am sorry TK but you are giving people a Bung Steer and this is very important!!!
So, E.M.F (e) (http://physicsnet.co.uk/a-level-physics-as-a2/current-electricity/electromotive-force-and-internal-resistance/) has a phase relationship of 180 Degrees to the Source.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Read your own post. EMF is _voltage_. And as I have DEMONSTRATED, and as FARADAY's LAW STATES CLEARLY, the relationship between induced voltage and inducing magnetic field (current) is 90 degrees. When the time rate of change of the magnetic field (dB/dt) is maximum, the induced EMF is maximum. When the time rate of change of the magnetic field (dB/dt) is zero, the induced EMF is zero. You can clearly see this on the oscillograms. For you who have no calculus, the _slope_ of a voltage vs time graph is the time rate of change of the voltage. When the slope is horizontal (at the peaks) the instantaneous time rate of change -- the slope --is zero. When the sine wave crosses the zero axis, the slope is at its steepest, so the time rate of change (instantaneous) is at maximum, hence the induced voltage is maximum (and of opposite sign.) Faraday's Law in its simplest form: EMF (induced voltage) = - dB/dt. (instantaneous time rate of change of B).
The transformer diagram you keep posting is comparing CURRENT AND CURRENT. Brad's schematic and my testing compares CURRENT AND VOLTAGE. The secondary current in your transformer diagram does what all currents through an inductor do: it lags behind the applied voltage. The primary induces a VOLTAGE in the secondary that is 90 degrees out of phase of the primary CURRENT, as Faraday's Law clearly states. This induced voltage in the secondary then causes a CURRENT that is itself delayed due to the inductance of the secondary, adding up to an additional phase shift. If you have the frequency correct, this additional phase shift in the CURRENT can be 90 degrees IN ADDITION TO the 90 degrees shift in the INDUCED VOLTAGE a la Faraday's Law. So you can see a total 180 degree phase shift in the secondary CURRENT when compared to the primary CURRENT.
When you spin an ordinary PM generator at a certain RPM you get a certain voltage output. When you spin the generator _faster_ you get a _higher_ voltage output. Why? Because the _time rate of change_ of the magnetic fields linking the windings is increased. Faraday's law of induction again.
-
Complete and Utter Rubbish!!!
Why is it that we measure the Phase difference from Voltage to Current in Transformers?
Because this value Changes depending on Load and Transformer Configuration.
I have already proven you wrong!
You are deliberately BSing the masses to save face!!!
You know for a FACT that I am right and you are wrong. But someone is PAYING you to LIE to everyone!!!
TK shame, shame on you!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad, as I've demonstrated in a video a few pages back, and as we know, the total phase shift that can be measured depends somewhat on the frequency of the oscillation, because different core materials respond differently and there will always be stray inductances and capacitances caused by wiring. SO I had to increase the frequency of my test setup to get the perfect relationship shown below.
I'm using the same setup as in my previous demonstrations, using the random ferrite-cored transformer, except that I am testing two conditions.
First, the transformer secondary open, just connected to the scope probe, so I am testing the _voltage_ across the secondary, unloaded. This produces the first scopeshot below: The 90 degree phase relationship between the applied primary current (i.e. the magnetic field) and the secondary's induced _voltage_. And as I've shown, this nice 90 degree relationship holds across a wide range of applied frequency. (30Hz, 1 kHz, and in the shot below, around 700 Hz.)
In the second scopeshot below I have attached a 1.0 ohm precision non-inductive resistor directly across the transformer's secondary, and then the probe across the resistor. So the resistor is acting both as a load, and its own CSR. Now the scope probe is measuring the _current_ as a voltage drop across this resistor.
As I said, I had to increase the frequency to make the _current_ phase shift look so accurately 180 degrees. If I perform this same comparison test at 30 Hz, I "only" get a total phase shift of about 140 degrees for the _current_, while the _voltage_ phase shift remains at 90 degrees-- as I showed earlier.
-
Complete and Utter Rubbish!!!
Why is it that we measure the Phase difference from Voltage to Current in Transformers?
Because this value Changes depending on Load and Transformer Configuration.
I have already proven you wrong!
No, you have not proven anything except how ignorant and arrogant you are.
I am not wrong and I've given demonstration after demonstration of everything I've said and explained. All you've done is copy-paste and misinterpret.
You are deliberately BSing the masses to save face!!!
You know for a FACT that I am right and you are wrong. But someone is PAYING you to LIE to everyone!!!
TK shame, shame on you!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
You are more than hilarious. I've refuted you time and time again, and ANYONE can repeat my demonstrations for themselves.... even YOU should be able to do it...
and can check my references re Faraday's Law and the algebra and calculus for themselves. The only BS here is coming from YOU.
YOU ARE WRONG, and you are lying, and NOBODY is paying me to do any of this _remedial basic education_.
-
Brad:
I am a "big gun" according to you, so what happened? I can tell you what happened. You were not given a continuously enabling environment by me, you were put on a level playing field and when you were wrong about something you were told you were wrong. It is extremely upsetting for you to be told that you are wrong. You can't admit that you are wrong when you are indeed wrong. And I am not saying at all that you are wrong all the time, but like any person it does actually happen that you are wrong.
At that is enough to give you a good hard-core freak-out and make you completely compromise your integrity. Now you will say anything and lie through your teeth repeatedly. I am not perfect and I get things wrong and I admit that. But you are lying about me repeatedly. It's a very sad, very very unpleasant spectacle. You have no shame whatsoever.
Your credibility is destroyed, poor Brad on a brain fry from hell.
MileHigh
English MH--English.
I am not having a brain fry at all MH--im having a --no more shit from MH time ;)
Feel free to point out where i was wrong,and did not admit it.
What is sad is,seeing some one that use to be helpful, turn into some one that must be right,and when they find out they are wrong,they attack those that pointed out there mistake to them.
That is referring to you by the way.
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg479928#msg479928 date=1460142809]
MileHigh
Nope, I speak the truth but ever since your brain started to fry you have been shamelessly bullshitting like crazy
.
No resonant systems what so ever around an ICE--wrong
No resonance what so ever within the internals of an ICE--wrong
Your statement about using a J/FET makes no sense--wrong
Who is bullshitting ?.
Right, only one scope trace but no dots. GOOD PRACTICE, Brad. It shows a normal transformer action. There you go.
If you are full bottles on transformer induction,why do you need dots ?.
GOOD PRACTICE: Don't say two setups are the same when they aren't. No bluff there, let it sink into your head.
Another lie,as i never said the two setups were the same,and you only had one setup when the question was first asked.
The nose grows long with this one MH.
Keep on lying like a drunk sailor.
Another lie,as i do not drink.
Please post these lies MH.
Then what the hell are you even doing that for? More nonsense.
Already explained--twice,and it had nothing to do with you answering the question.
I do indeed have a little touch of dyslexia. And you need to take some courses in remedial English and remedial English composition so that you can learn how to spell, learn how to use punctuation, and learn how to put a proper sentence together and learn how to compose a paragraph.
Then stop blaming your problems on me,and get them sorted.
If it dose not come up in red(indicating there is a spelling mistake),then i do not correct it. I am not here to win some sort of spelling bee MH.
Why are you the only one having a problem ?.
You are just shamelessly lying and there is nothing wrong with the sentence.
Yes there is.
TK gave an answer in the correct manor-yours is wrongly termed.
More shameless lying and you are off in dreamland with your incorrect belief that magnets can do useful work. It represents both a hopeful belief on your part and a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works. Magnets are as dead as a door nail and are not a source of energy in any way, shape, or form. I know that you refuse to believe this.
Babble on MH.
You say i do not know how the world works,but you are full bottles on a force that you have no idea as to what it is. Bookworms often make claims about things they do not understand.
There is nothing wrong with that sentence. Then of course you have typed out hundreds of contorted brain twisters over the years that would make any fifth grade English teacher's jaw drop. Go to English school.
Like i said,no one else has a problem--only you.
Brad
-
EMJunkie:
This is another warning to you to not slander/libel other members of the forum. Posts of this nature will be removed.
Thank you.
Bill
-
Thanks Bill, now you have removed valuable information...
Electrical Science for Technicians (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=up7wCQAAQBAJ)
Ref: Electrical Science for Technicians: Page 198 (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=cJ7wCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=Lenz's+Law+180+out+of+phase&source=bl&ots=2NMMhvh5rG&sig=jbFYtXvQWOLGOJxytNC7LsrAFR8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJn97MoYDMAhUlq6YKHZ42CpEQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=Lenz's%20Law%20180%20out%20of%20phase&f=false)
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Thanks Bill, now you have removed valuable information...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
The information is fine...the slander/libel is not.
Thanks,
Bill
-
The information is fine...the slander/libel is not.
Thanks,
Bill
Bill - You only half done the job:
No, you have not proven anything except how ignorant and arrogant you are.
I am not wrong and I've given demonstration after demonstration of everything I've said and explained. All you've done is copy-paste and misinterpret.
You are more than hilarious. I've refuted you time and time again, and ANYONE can repeat my demonstrations for themselves.... even YOU should be able to do it...
and can check my references re Faraday's Law and the algebra and calculus for themselves. The only BS here is coming from YOU.
YOU ARE WRONG, and you are lying, and NOBODY is paying me to do any of this _remedial basic education_.
Well is Fair Fair?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg479929#msg479929 date=1460143676]
MileHigh
At this point, it's time for this to stop.
I tried this before MH,and you continued to drag my name through the mud,and continued your insults toward me-and only due to your lack of knowledge of simple common electronic components.
Next week I will discuss the two questions for resonance in a wine glass.
At the start,i may have been interested in what you had to say,but now that i know how little you know about the subject matter,i am not the least bit interested in what you have to say about resonance.
That's it, there really in nothing more for us to talk about after that.
Im happy with that-as i was before.
But if you keep going at me MH,i will continue to expose you for the fraud you are.
I am really here for different reasons.
And what are those reasons MH?--many of us are wondering as to what they are.
This thread started off with a heated debate between you and me about resonance and you were told the truth by me and you freaked out and we can all see the ugly ugly result from that.
More lies.
You were told the truth by me,and you got your knickers in a twist.
You hate being corrected by some one you see as being beneath you.
Do whatever you want with your hair dryer motors or your dishwasher motors, I don't care and I have zero desire to discuss them with you, ZERO.
We have never discussed anything to do with dryer or dishwasher motors.
I carried out some measurements as per PWs,and MarkEs instruction's--you were nothing to do with that,so why you even decided to post this comment ???-well ,that is beyond me. ::)
Likewise, I couldn't care less what combination of good and cockamamie technical knowledge you have up there in your head. Believe whatever you want to believe.
Then stop with your bullshit MH,and leave my name out of it when you are trying to belittle other's-such as EMJ.
I won't touch any new project threads you start, not interested. But I will speak the truth on this thread or whatever other thread I want to contribute to.
Great,but make sure you are speaking the truth MH,and not feeding incorrect information on subjects you know nothing about--such as resonant systems in ICEs,electronic components such as J/FETs--things like that.
You couldn't answer the two questions about resonance for a wine glass. So stay tuned next week and you will see how simple the answers really are.
You have not answered any questions(bar one-even late then) asked of you MH,and the one you did try and answer about simple induction,was worded like a bowl of noodles,and made no sense at all--and even now,you dont know if you have it right. ;)
What really happened in this thread MH(and the proof is in the thread it self),is you tried to dismiss resonant systems within an ICE. This whole thread is (was ::))about resonance increasing efficiency and power output--which you have !on many occasions! dismissed as rubbish--resonance dose not increase efficiency or power output ::)
I corrected you on the ICE resonance issue,and you had a panic attack.
You then move to-there is no resonance what so ever taking place withing the internals(piston,cylinder-ETC)of an ICE. Once again,i proved you wrong. I showed you both the good and bad of internal resonance within ICEs.
Your list of blunders and insults toward those that have corrected you ,grows by the day.
Brad.
-
Bill - You only half done the job:
Well is Fair Fair?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
That is TK defending himself against your "claim" that he was a paid disinformation agent or whatever. That alone is quite an accusation and a man should always be able to defend himself. He made no comments about your mother, ancestry or body parts so, I have no problem with TK's post.
Please just attack ideas and data and not the individual. I know that gets hard to do at times as we are all passionate here, which is good...but, and I say this to MH and Brad as well, do not let it get personal as that is bad and, it does not get anyone anywhere.
Thanks,
Bill
-
Well-that was fun :o
Anyway,in regards to my question (that was meant for minnie--who did not answer),the below is of course correct,where the wave form is correct for the circuit and scope prob placements on that circuit.
Please remember--the question was specific for the attached schematic,and i only asked if the wave form was correct for that schematic.
It was only a simple question directed at minnie,due to his comment about me needing to learn more about basic induction. Minnie was also the only one that did not answer the question.
Brad
-
That is TK defending himself against your "claim" that he was a paid disinformation agent or whatever. That alone is quite an accusation and a man should always be able to defend himself. He made no comments about your mother, ancestry or body parts so, I have no problem with TK's post.
Please just attack ideas and data and not the individual. I know that gets hard to do at times as we are all passionate here, which is good...but, and I say this to MH and Brad as well, do not let it get personal as that is bad and, it does not get anyone anywhere.
Thanks,
Bill
Bill - Very mature response! Thank You for that.
Fair bit of Love shown for TK however. But as you stated, Its about the Facts, real Science and proving the Lies Wrong!
So, back to it.
Lie: Current is EMF and part of Faradays Law of Induction - This is a lie and I have proven this: Click Here (http://overunity.com/8341/joule-thief-101/msg479936/#msg479936)
Truth: EMF is defined in Coulomb's of Charge (C) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb), which is a Quantity measured in Volts (V) (http://) - This is a completely True and I have proven this: Click Here (http://overunity.com/8341/joule-thief-101/msg479936/#msg479936)
Most every single book in the universe and every single person with any qualification knows that: The E.M.F that Faradays law of Electromagnetic Induction predicts, that Heinrich Lenz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Lenz) himself clearly shows, and is incorporated into every single equation of Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction, being the (-) Sign, infering and a total reversal of Sign, that: Lenz's Law 180 out of phase to the Source.
E.M.F = -N dϕ/dt
Where:
E.M.F as is clearly shown, is Coulomb's of Charge (C) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb), which is a Quantity measured in Volts (V) (http://).
The Negative Sign (-) is the SINE of the Phase relationship as stated by Heinrich Lenz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Lenz) himself.
Simple Calculus:
int width = this.pictureBox1.Width;
int height = this.pictureBox1.Height;
Bitmap b = new Bitmap(width, height);
Graphics g = Graphics.FromImage(b);
g.Clear(Color.White);
for (int i = 0; i < width; i++)
{
int y = (int)((Math.Sin((double)i * 2.0 * Math.PI / width) + 1.0) * (height - 1) / 2.0);
b.SetPixel(i, y, Color.Black);
}
for (int i = 0; i < width; i++)
{
int y = (int)((-Math.Sin((double)i * 2.0 * Math.PI / width) + 1.0) * (height - 1) / 2.0);
b.SetPixel(i, y, Color.Red);
}
this.pictureBox1.Image = b;
Where the only thing that has changed from the Black to Red wave form is the (-) sign before the Math.Sin part.
See the Simple Picture: "Some SIMPLE Calculus.png"
So, once more, because I like the look of it, I need to reference:
Electrical Science for Technicians (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=up7wCQAAQBAJ)
Ref: Electrical Science for Technicians: Page 198 (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=cJ7wCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=Lenz's+Law+180+out+of+phase&source=bl&ots=2NMMhvh5rG&sig=jbFYtXvQWOLGOJxytNC7LsrAFR8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJn97MoYDMAhUlq6YKHZ42CpEQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=Lenz's%20Law%20180%20out%20of%20phase&f=false)
There is no such Phase Angle of ±90 Degrees that is related to the EMF, that is predicted by Faradays Law of Induction, at all. It is ±180...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad, as I've demonstrated in a video a few pages back, and as we know, the total phase shift that can be measured depends somewhat on the frequency of the oscillation, because different core materials respond differently and there will always be stray inductances and capacitances caused by wiring. SO I had to increase the frequency of my test setup to get the perfect relationship shown below.
I'm using the same setup as in my previous demonstrations, using the random ferrite-cored transformer, except that I am testing two conditions.
First, the transformer secondary open, just connected to the scope probe, so I am testing the _voltage_ across the secondary, unloaded. This produces the first scopeshot below: The 90 degree phase relationship between the applied primary current (i.e. the magnetic field) and the secondary's induced _voltage_. And as I've shown, this nice 90 degree relationship holds across a wide range of applied frequency. (30Hz, 1 kHz, and in the shot below, around 700 Hz.)
In the second scopeshot below I have attached a 1.0 ohm precision non-inductive resistor directly across the transformer's secondary, and then the probe across the resistor. So the resistor is acting both as a load, and its own CSR. Now the scope probe is measuring the _current_ as a voltage drop across this resistor.
As I said, I had to increase the frequency to make the _current_ phase shift look so accurately 180 degrees. If I perform this same comparison test at 30 Hz, I "only" get a total phase shift of about 140 degrees for the _current_, while the _voltage_ phase shift remains at 90 degrees-- as I showed earlier.
Thanks TK for doing these test,and yes,frequency has a lot to do with phase angles.
But i would like to show you a way of changing the phase relationship between L1 and L2 without changing the frequency. This also has the effect that when the two current flows of L1 and L2 are bought into phase with each other,the power drawn by L1 becomes less,and the power delivered by L2 becomes more. We will do this by way of an oscillating PM,where although L1 is the source of energy for the oscillations of the PM,the PMs field will return a higher energy amount to L1 than L1 consumed to oscillate the PM in the first place.
If you are interested in building this simple setup,and working along with me to explain what is taking place within the DUT,then let me know,and i will post a video here- of the DUT,and the effects i am getting.
I have taken into account increasing inductance,reduction in impedance --most of what i can think of,but still the results do not add up to what is taking place--so need a good set of eyes looking at,and working on this.
Due to the fact that this is not a JT setup,i (we)will be shifting to the mechanical resonance thread after initial tests are carried out.
Brad
-
That is TK defending himself against your "claim" that he was a paid disinformation agent or whatever. That alone is quite an accusation and a man should always be able to defend himself. He made no comments about your mother, ancestry or body parts so, I have no problem with TK's post.
Please just attack ideas and data and not the individual. I know that gets hard to do at times as we are all passionate here, which is good...but, and I say this to MH and Brad as well, do not let it get personal as that is bad and, it does not get anyone anywhere.
Thanks,
Bill
Done.
Brad
-
Thank you Chris, thank you Brad.
Bill
-
Thank you Chris, thank you Brad.
Bill
Bill, be honest, where does ±90 Degrees fit, in Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction: E.M.F = -N dϕ/dt
Come on, be truly honest.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad:
Did you just see that insane argument between TK and EMJunkie? Well you and I had a long version of the very same thing. It's like being witness to an insane asylum reading what goes on on treads around here sometimes. You go to hell for having the audacity to tell me I don't know my stuff after all the time I have been around here. It's a shameful bald-faced lie. You "flipped" and went to the dark side and severely compromised your integrity instead of just trying to argue your points rationally. You are a total creeper.
You exist in a cocoon around here, and that includes being in a cocoon with respect to your language problems. I will just repeat to you that if you were on a real electronics forum you would be sliced to pieces in no time. No cocoon, you would be sliced to pieces after people saw you in action with your sometimes strange and nonsensical ideas. When some little project you do goes south and people are explaining to you that what you are doing is not making sense, you always have your Plan B, and that is to simply withdraw without saying anything and let the thread die. We all know your M.O.
Do your thing, dismantle another motor and look for "energy from magnets." Make another pulse motor, build another whackadoo transformer that "conventional engineering doesn't understand." I don't give a rat's ass.
MileHigh
-
Bill, are you seeing this: Profanity, personal attack... Fair Bit of Sooky Soldier... Ticks all the boxes even after the last warning!
Brad:
Did you just see that insane argument between TK and EMJunkie? Well you and I had a long version of the very same thing. It's like being witness to an insane asylum reading what goes on on treads around here sometimes. You go to hell for having the audacity to tell me I don't know my stuff after all the time I have been around here. It's a shameful bald-faced lie. You "flipped" and went to the dark side and severely compromised your integrity instead of just trying to argue your points rationally. You are a total creeper.
You exist in a cocoon around here, and that includes being in a cocoon with respect to your language problems. I will just repeat to you that if you were on a real electronics forum you would be sliced to pieces in no time. No cocoon, you would be sliced to pieces after people saw you in action with your sometimes strange and nonsensical ideas. When some little project you do goes south and people are explaining to you that what you are doing is not making sense, you always have your Plan B, and that is to simply withdraw without saying anything and let the thread die. We all know your M.O.
Do your thing, dismantle another motor and look for "energy from magnets." Make another pulse motor, build another whackadoo transformer that "conventional engineering doesn't understand." I don't give a rat's ass.
MileHigh
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Bill, are you seeing this:
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Get lost Chris. I recounted the story from your thread about the question on the coil and you flat-out lied and said that it wasn't true.
-
Get lost Chris. I recounted the story from your thread about the question on the coil and you flat-out lied and said that it wasn't true.
I dont Lie MileHigh, and I don’t like Liars!!!
Please just attack ideas and data and not the individual. I know that gets hard to do at times as we are all passionate here, which is good...but, and I say this to MH and Brad as well, do not let it get personal as that is bad and, it does not get anyone anywhere.
Bill You seeing this? Provication!!! Another Box Ticked!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Well I am going to try the Google search on this forum and you had better hope that the search engine sucks.
-
Well I am going to try the Google search on this forum and you had better hope that the search engine sucks.
<Your Search Term> site:overunity.com
Knock yourself out!
Bill, see how helpfull that was?
Are you still watching Bill?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg479987#msg479987 date=1460173550]
MileHigh
Did you just see that insane argument between TK and EMJunkie?
I did.
But that argument is not about the wave form that is associated to the schematic i posted.
That argument is more about terminology.
Well you and I had a long version of the very same thing. It's like being witness to an insane asylum reading what goes on on treads around here sometimes. You go to hell for having the audacity to tell me I don't know my stuff after all the time I have been around here.
All i did MH,was correct you on your incorrect statements in regards to resonant systems associated
with ICE's--this is !knowing your stuff!
It's a shameful bald-faced lie. You "flipped" and went to the dark side and severely compromised your integrity instead of just trying to argue your points rationally. You are a total creeper.
MH
I think you will find that it was you that went to the !dark side! once i started correcting your mistakes. The fact is that you started calling me !wakaddo! and the likes as soon as i mentioned resonant systems within an ICE that increased efficiency's and power output.
You exist in a cocoon around here, and that includes being in a cocoon with respect to your language problems.
As i have said before MH-you seem to be the only one having trouble with my language,and how i word things.
I will just repeat to you that if you were on a real electronics forum you would be sliced to pieces in no time.
If we were on one of your !!real!! electronics forum's,we would not be discussing overunity.
But as we are on a forum that is dedicated in the search for something your !real! electronics forums would laugh at,then there is no real threat toward anyone that i may misspell some words,or be slightly out with how or where i place comers :D
No cocoon, you would be sliced to pieces after people saw you in action with your sometimes strange and nonsensical ideas.
Ideas like-Why not just use a J/FET,and have a high winding ration between the primary and secondary,where the(high turn) secondary would turn the J/FET off.
And then an EE guy(like your self) would reply with-->But we can't forget that the bench research done around here is bleeding and weeping edge, and conventional EE'rs are stuck in the past and only know what is in books.
Then the hobby bench researcher would say-Common sense say's that if there is not enough voltage to switch on a transistor or mosfet,then you use one that is already in an on state,and boost the voltage via a step up transformer to switch the fet off.
The EE guy that loves his book's,and knows his stuff would say-->Yeah well I would have to say that that doesn't make any sense at all. But don't let that stop you since this whole thread is filled with nonsensical statements by you and just about nobody says anything about it.
A day later,after Mr EE made an unexpected discovery about a common electronic component,he had to return and say-->I made a mistake an assumed that a JFET required some Gate-Source voltage to be ON, when that is not the case
This was of course after he said--> this whole thread is filled with nonsensical statements by you
When some little project you do goes south and people are explaining to you that what you are doing is not making sense, you always have your Plan B, and that is to simply withdraw without saying anything and let the thread die. We all know your M.O.
http://iaec.forumco.com/
There you go MH-here is my M.O
Years of my hard work-along with the other members,to build a great little forum from scratch. 100's of started and completed projects. Prize money donated out of my own pocket,and countless hours of organization for the pulse motor build off prizes--along with other members of the OU community.
That little forum grew faster than any other alternative energy forum on the net. You were a member there !U27!,before the owner of the forum had to kick you out for the very same behavior you have displayed on this thread,and many other threads on this forum-to the point where you have been banned from posting without prior approval--something that has never been placed on me.
I am in no way an EE,and in no way will i use terms that EE guys would find acceptable.
This is a forum for hobbyist,and for you to expect every member here to explain in terms that high end EE guys would use,is nothing more than a dream--it just will not happen.
I have been civil in my reply to you ,at the request of Bill,and also because it dose no one any good throwing insults all over the show. You may think i am posting insults in this reply,but i have posted nothing more than the truth of a small portion of the way you react to thing's i say,and only latter you find out i was correct. You are insulted more by the fact that i proved you wrong,and not by how i word thing's.
On another note--i would like to know-or could you tell us all what the magnetic force or field is actually made up of,or what it is,as to make an absolute determination that the PM dose not dissipate any power or energy at all,you would have to know exactly what the magnetic field comprises of in order to make that determination.
Brad.
Do your thing, dismantle another motor and look for "energy from magnets." Make another pulse motor, build another whackadoo transformer that "conventional engineering doesn't understand." I don't give a rat's ass.
Yes-i will continue on with my whackadoo experiments,and post things i find !odd!,or do not understand.
One such experiment is about to make it's way here--feel free to post your input or thoughts,if you wish.
-
Chris:
This is as close as I can get to a smoking gun to prove that you lied:
http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg451230/#msg451230
Me to you: "Well, you bragged a lot about your electronics prowess and knowledge about coils. (10 years+ worth, wasn't it?) I gave you a circuit that consisted of a voltage source and a single coil and you fell flat on your face and had a mini freakout when you could not answer a question about it."
That posting is from May 26th, 2015. So sometime before that I posed the question to you about a single ideal coil and an ideal voltage source. You could not answer it, and eventually MarkE stepped in and answered the very simple question.
MileHigh
-
Bill Are you seeing this:
Chris:
This is as close as I can get to a smoking gun to prove that you lied:
http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg451230/#msg451230
Me to you: "Well, you bragged a lot about your electronics prowess and knowledge about coils. (10 years+ worth, wasn't it?) I gave you a circuit that consisted of a voltage source and a single coil and you fell flat on your face and had a mini freakout when you could not answer a question about it."
That posting is from May 26th, 2015. So sometime before that I posed the question to you about a single ideal coil and an ideal voltage source. You could not answer it, and eventually MarkE stepped in and answered the very simple question.
MileHigh
Some kind of strange accusations that I know everything: a 1770 x 313 Image that claims of claims are claims and claims of claims... Or somthing strange like that - WOW Smoking Gun!!!
I guess one of those "Had to be there to get it" situations? Delusions of a Crazy person maybe!!!
Bill, are you seeing this? Boxes being Ticked on a large scale now!!! claims of claims are claims and claims of claims ...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad:
I really don't give a rat's ass.
But there is a funny little story about your forum. None of the "boys" could understand where the infamous high-voltage spike came from in a coil in a Bedini motor, and they had been building motors for months. They all were clueless and very puzzled about the whole affair. They were all budding Bedini enthusiasts. That includes Mr. CaribbeanRoots/TimberJack. As we know, he is not technical at all, his fun is just to build stuff out of MDF panels and he barely pays attention to measurements. It also included Mr. Twally and others that wanted to understand the "mystery" of the high voltage spike.
Since nobody was at a decent technical level, I spent about 10 hours of hard work over about two weeks to craft about half a dozen postings to explain where the high voltage spike came from in a step-by-step process, one posting leading into the next posting to construct a comprehensible narrative for people with no technical background. It was a lot of hard work and I did it to hopefully educate your little gang and take them to the next level of understanding.
So when I finally made my last posting, it turned out to be a complete farce. All of a sudden everybody said, "Oh, I knew that." They were all lying, it was a disgusting display of human nature at it's worst. They were all a bunch of strutting peacocks having a mutual wanking session and "pretending" that they already knew and understood. And that includes good old Mr. TimberJack, who was the site operator at the time, who barely knows what he is doing when it comes to electronics. He just wants to be in his shop cutting up MDF.
Well, I was pretty disgusted at this miserable display of human nature at its worst. I did all that work, and I don't think anybody even thanked me. All that they did was bullshit and feign that they "already knew" what I was talking about. Bald-faces liars.
So my attitude changed and Timber boy looked for an opportunity to get rid of me and then he took it.
You, on the other hand, got my respect because you did not strut around like a fake-ass bullshitting peacock in a grotesque display of fake colours. You did not lie like the others and claim that you "already knew."
However, a few weeks after that incredibly disappointing fiasco and grotesque display of how awful human nature can be, I went to your YouTube channel and looked at one of your clips. I made some kind of technical comment to help you and when you saw it you banned me from your channel. So in the end you ended up in the same morally bankrupt boat as the fake-ass strutting peacocks.
I just glanced at your forum now, and I have perhaps looked at it one or two times in the past two years. Your forum is treading water, it's just one step above being a ghost town. It's just consolidation, there is only so much room on the Internet for free energy forums.
But all in all, I don't give a rat's ass. Go build another funky contraption with coils and do your thing. You won't be working on the Galaxy S8, that's for sure.
MileHigh
-
@MileHigh - What I can prove, is that it is you that is Lying right now:
1: You don't know what I know and don't know! How could you?
2: I never claimed to be an Expert in Electronics, I know enough to get by most of the time.
3: I know exactly what a Cap can do and cant in a circuit!
4: Bill and I have had communications before. I trust Bill, I know he would never mislead others. Besides I know the storey behind How Bill got onto this technology and where it actually came from! If I told you, you would not believe me!
5: I have researched this stuff for a long time! I believe I have something to share that is of value!
If anyone would like, all the posts are there, please feel free to go back and verify the fact that I never claimed to be an electronics guru. If MileHigh insists I did then we all know what that means anyway.
The very fact that we all know MileHigh to be what he is, is surely enough to save your own time anyway...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Bill, are you seeing this:
Brad:
I really don't give a rat's ass.
But there is a funny little story about your forum. None of the "boys" could understand where the infamous high-voltage spike came from in a coil in a Bedini motor, and they had been building motors for months. They all were clueless and very puzzled about the whole affair. They were all budding Bedini enthusiasts. That includes Mr. CaribbeanRoots/TimberJack. As we know, he is not technical at all, his fun is just to build stuff out of MDF panels and he barely pays attention to measurements. It also included Mr. Twally and others that wanted to understand the "mystery" of the high voltage spike.
Since nobody was at a decent technical level, I spent about 10 hours of hard work over about two weeks to craft about half a dozen postings to explain where the high voltage spike came from in a step-by-step process, one posting leading into the next posting to construct a comprehensible narrative for people with no technical background. It was a lot of hard work and I did it to hopefully educate your little gang and take them to the next level of understanding.
So when I finally made my last posting, it turned out to be a complete farce. All of a sudden everybody said, "Oh, I knew that." They were all lying, it was a disgusting display of human nature at it's worst. They were all a bunch of strutting peacocks having a mutual wanking session and "pretending" that they already knew and understood. And that includes good old Mr. TimberJack, who was the site operator at the time, who barely knows what he is doing when it comes to electronics. He just wants to be in his shop cutting up MDF.
Well, I was pretty disgusted at this miserable display of human nature at its worst. I did all that work, and I don't think anybody even thanked me. All that they did was bullshit and feign that they "already knew" what I was talking about. Bald-faces liars.
So my attitude changed and Timber boy looked for an opportunity to get rid of me and then he took it.
You, on the other hand, got my respect because you did not strut around like a fake-ass bullshitting peacock in a grotesque display of fake colours. You did not lie like the others and claim that you "already knew."
However, a few weeks after that incredibly disappointing fiasco and grotesque display of how awful human nature can be, I went to your YouTube channel and looked at one of your clips. I made some kind of technical comment to help you and when you saw it you banned me from your channel. So in the end you ended up in the same morally bankrupt boat as the fake-ass strutting peacocks.
I just glanced at your forum now, and I have perhaps looked at it one or two times in the past two years. Your forum is treading water, it's just one step above being a ghost town. It's just consolidation, there is only so much room on the Internet for free energy forums.
But all in all, I don't give a rat's ass. Go build another funky contraption with coils and do your thing. You won't be working on the Galaxy S8, that's for sure.
MileHigh
Alot more profanitys, personal attacks, and terrible language skills...
Obama, send this Terrorist to Guantanamo Bay Torture Center for Rehabilitation and Retraining!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad, I am thinking about building a new Space Center, it will be called "Galaxy S8" - Wanna work on it with me?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Chris, your signal to noise ratio is -140 dB.
-
Bill, are you seeing this:
Chris, your signal to noise ratio is -140 dB.
Name Calling, he said I was a Number!
Terribly Painfull that was. I am shattered... Hahahahahaha
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
MileHigh - Do you like this:
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Hey good to see the same old NeoCIA spokespersons plugging away.
say Brad what is this other forum can someone link me?
good recently video re resonance by the way.
just keep experimenting (as you do ) when you are bored come chat with the NeoCIA guys.
(that's generally what i do, after all they are just doing their job )
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzK1pph4sYM
the microwave double charger - great video ha ha.
-
Hey good to see the same old NeoCIA spokespersons plugging away.
say Brad what is this other forum can someone link me?
good recently video re resonance by the way.
just keep experimenting (as you do ) when you are bored come chat with the NeoCIA guys.
(that's generally what i do, after all they are just doing their job )
Sure,although,as MH said,it has become quite quiet over there since myself and timberjack left the reins with 49er. Many others have also moved on-just life i guess :)
http://iaec.forumco.com/
Brad
-
Bill, are you seeing this:
Name Calling, he said I was a Number!
Terribly Painfull that was. I am shattered... Hahahahahaha
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Lol
Some times you crack me up Chris lol.
Bill,Bill--are you seeing this Bill.
Bill-where are you--lookit over here--MH bloody :P--Bill--you there Bill. :(
Bill-MH said :-* my ass--Bill--you there Bill--are you seeing this Bill.
Lol
-
Lol
Some times you crack me up Chris lol.
Bill,Bill--are you seeing this Bill.
Bill-where are you--lookit over here--MH bloody :P--Bill--you there Bill. :(
Bill-MH said :-* my ass--Bill--you there Bill--are you seeing this Bill.
Lol
Hahahaha - I am glad my Humor tickles someone around here.
Try to lighten things up a bit when the heat is on!
Happy Days Brad, we have such a wonderfull future ahead of us!!!
Let me ask you, is the EMF 180 or 90, pm me the answer as I know its a touchy subject on this thread atm!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Hahahaha - I am glad my Humor tickles someone around here.
Try to lighten things up a bit when the heat is on!
Happy Days Brad, we have such a wonderfull future ahead of us!!!
Let me ask you, is the EMF 180 or 90, pm me the answer as I know its a touchy subject on this thread atm!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
At 50Hz,with a 5 watt incandescent bulb as a load on the secondary.
As EMF is measured in voltage,then the EMF phase relationship between primary and secondary is either 180* or in phase with each other--depending where you place MHs dot's on the transformers primary and secondary windings. As it is AC,then either is correct. But if we are to stick to the dot convention,then the EMF phase relationship between L1 and L2 is 180*-as in first scope shot.
If the load on the secondary is purely resistive,then the currents phase angle relationship between L1 and L2 is also 180*-if we are to assume ideal (or near to) conditions-as in second scope shot.
At 50Hz-the frequency we are using for these examples,the voltage and current will be in phase with each other(or very close to) in both L1 and L2-as in 3rd scope shot.
But this is only with a resistive load placed on L2. If L2 is open,then there is a phase shift of about 90* between L1s current trace,and L2 EMF trace.
To quote TK---:Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.
So in regards to my question on the schematic,where the secondary was open, and associated scope shot,TKs reply is correct. If a decent resistive load is placed on the secondary,and where we are operating at the transformers designed operational frequency,then L1s current will be very close to 180* from L2s voltage/EMF.
Brad
-
At 50Hz,with a 5 watt incandescent bulb as a load on the secondary.
As EMF is measured in voltage,then the EMF phase relationship between primary and secondary is either 180* or in phase with each other--depending where you place MHs dot's on the transformers primary and secondary windings. As it is AC,then either is correct. But if we are to stick to the dot convention,then the EMF phase relationship between L1 and L2 is 180*-as in first scope shot.
If the load on the secondary is purely resistive,then the currents phase angle relationship between L1 and L2 is also 180*-if we are to assume ideal (or near to) conditions-as in second scope shot.
At 50Hz-the frequency we are using for these examples,the voltage and current will be in phase with each other(or very close to) in both L1 and L2-as in 3rd scope shot.
But this is only with a resistive load placed on L2. If L2 is open,then there is a phase shift of about 90* between L1s current trace,and L2 EMF trace.
To quote TK---:
So in regards to my question on the schematic,where the secondary was open, and associated scope shot,TKs reply is correct. If a decent resistive load is placed on the secondary,and where we are operating at the transformers designed operational frequency,then L1s current will be very close to 180* from L2s voltage/EMF.
Brad
Now this is what I call truely professional.
Nice Job! Yes a Resistive/Capacitive or Inductive load, or combinations of each, will change the Voltage Current Phase angle and sometimes it will be very dramatic!
The Voltage to Current Phase Angle, which needs to be measured and accounted for separately, is not aligned to Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction at all, its Load dependant. As you know already and have pointed out.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
So in regards to my question on the schematic,where the secondary was open, and associated scope shot,TKs reply is correct.
Tinman,
Had you stated this a bit sooner, you might have spared us several pages of EMJ's "attitude"...
PW
-
Bill, are you seeing this:
Tinman,
Had you stated this a bit sooner, you might have spared us several pages of EMJ's "attitude"...
PW
Hahahaha Pulling ya leg PW. How's about you drop the attitude please ;) Hahahaha still Pulling ya leg PW.
P.S: Its not anything to do with Tinman, its what TK stated and how it was said! Sorry but its true.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Bill, are you seeing this:
Hahahaha Pulling ya leg PW. How's about you drop the attitude please ;) Hahahaha still Pulling ya leg PW.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
case in point...
-
case in point...
Hey Old Mate, seem to remember you having a bit of a stand for truth just recently also!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Hey Old Mate, seem to remember you having a bit of a stand for truth just recently also!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Curious...
So, will you be apologizing to TK for all that "attitude" you dished out?
-
Curious...
So, will you be apologizing to TK for all that "attitude" you dished out?
Absolutely Not!!!
TK was wrong in what he said and did not correct himself in anyway. PW, you yourself know, Voltage to Current Phase Angle is nothing to do with EMF and Electromagnetic Induction! I am specifically referring to Tinman's Circuit and Mutual Coupling of general Transformer Tech, which I feel I shouldnt have to explain but I am anyway.
If TK corrects himself, then, yes I will appologise.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Tinman,
Had you stated this a bit sooner, you might have spared us several pages of EMJ's "attitude"...
PW
The reason i said nothing,was because i was waiting on minnie's reply/answer,as he is the one that stated i needed to learn more on induction. As it turned out,he did not answer at all.
I think everyone can show some attitude when two people start to disagree on things they firmly believe in.
Brad.
-
Absolutely Not!!!
TK was wrong in what he said and did not correct himself in anyway. PW, you yourself know, Voltage to Current Phase Angle is nothing to do with EMF and Electromagnetic Induction!
If TK corrects himself, then, yes I will appologise.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Well we should straighten this out.
Chris--what was it that TK said that was wrong,in regards to my posted question based around the supplied schematic,scope probe point's,and associated scope shot ?.
Brad
-
Well we should straighten this out.
Chris--what was it that TK said that was wrong,in regards to my posted question based around the supplied schematic,scope probe point's,and associated scope shot ?.
Brad
Brad, this quote is wrong:
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law:
Faradays Law predicts no such thing!!!
Again, E.M.F = -N dϕ/dt
The (-) sign is 180 Degrees, not 90 Degrees. He infered your Current and Voltage were the same.
See attached Image:
Mate, I am only standing for this because its wrong, its not right we let others learning, see these errors and believe them to be fact.
PW, Brad, others, I am sorry but its true, errors should be corrected!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Yup, you shouldnt have asked :) - You got me started again.
How about we move on now.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Hey good to see the same old NeoCIA spokespersons plugging away.
say Brad what is this other forum can someone link me?
good recently video re resonance by the way.
just keep experimenting (as you do ) when you are bored come chat with the NeoCIA guys.
(that's generally what i do, after all they are just doing their job )
Well, that completes the picture, sort of like a last-minute appearance of a kitchen sink. It's a PTB/MIB inverse bogeyman here to make all the children scared and keep a light on when they go to sleep.
-
The reason i said nothing,was because i was waiting on minnie's reply/answer,as he is the one that stated i needed to learn more on induction. As it turned out,he did not answer at all.
I think everyone can show some attitude when two people start to disagree on things they firmly believe in.
Brad.
MileHigh is remarkably silent on this subject also!!! Unusally so!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Well, that completes the picture, sort of like a last-minute appearance of a kitchen sink. It's a PTB/MIB inverse bogeyman here to make all the children scared and keep a light on when they go to sleep.
;' (
dry those tears.
: D
ever had 'Sleep paralysis' ? (speaking of lights )
if so, you need TM Joule thief circuit.. i just watch a video where reducing the base resistance was definite giving more light.
that will keep those dark men away !
-
... Childish competition....
-
You've hit the nail on the head wistiti!
John.
-
You've hit the nail on the head wistiti!
John.
Acting as if you are Inocent, it was you, John, that were partisan to this same Childish Competition.
Talk about chopping the Turkys Head off and watching it run around the yard!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
You've hit the nail on the head wistiti!
John.
Oh there you are ::)
The war is over,the smoke has cleared,and up pops John from his rabbit hole.
-
John, you should watch this: Induction and Faraday's Law example problem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gryFRpQQ7bI)
Next time you may have some ammunition to join the debate!
Damn, I didnt see anything about 90 Degrees there. You know what I did see though?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
This is my story. I was going to get an oscilloscope.
I saw what a hash the Junkie made with his attempts.
I spent a few dollars and mailed the offending board to
the Koala.ln a couple of days he had sorted it.
John.
-
This is my story. I was going to get an oscilloscope.
I saw what a hash the Junkie made with his attempts.
I spent a few dollars and mailed the offending board to
the Koala.ln a couple of days he had sorted it.
John.
Nice Story, you know what they say about storeys?
Ever heard the term: "Carpium Chronicus"?
Please feel free to defend yourself: Notable Characteristics: Feels compelled to share an (unfavorable) opinion on just about everything. Has never seen an artistic masterpiece or a preschool graduation that couldn't use a bit of tweaking. Prone to eye rolling, smirking, and/or slow-motion head shaking, as well as a tone best described as oozing with condescension. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201106/field-guide-the-critic)
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
I'm an old man and for the last few months I've been doin'
10 to 12 hrs a day on the farm, cooking , cleaning , washing
and baby sitting. That's been every day of the week too.
This is a bit of amusement for me, the idiocy of it all,
grown men spending their time and money arguing over one
poxy coupled inductor.
I use my Fisher Paykel clothes washer for laundry and my
Dyson for cleaning-and very good they are at it too.
John.
-
What's really got to me is that my life is almost over and I've only
just started to understand what relativity is and the beauty of it
and the possible relevance of quantum mechanics.
-
What happens when all fields are pushing?
2 approaching magnets at different distance from the coil.
The coil builds a field to oppose the oncoming magnet, closest to it.
But that opposing field is now attracting the other magnet which is further away.
The more you increase the magnetic field , the more attraction and repulsion you get.
Distance is the way I'm trying.
artv
-
What's really got to me is that my life is almost over and I've only
just started to understand what relativity is and the beauty of it
and the possible relevance of quantum mechanics.
Truely, Nature is beautiful! Eligant in everyway! Perfection a every level.
Mysteries to us are no doubt very minor details to the Creator ;)
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
What happens when all fields are pushing?
2 approaching magnets at different distance from the coil.
The coil builds a field to oppose the oncoming magnet, closest to it.
But that opposing field is now attracting the other magnet which is further away.
The more you increase the magnetic field , the more attraction and repulsion you get.
Distance is the way I'm trying.
artv
All excellent observations!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Faradays Law predicts no such thing!!!
Again, E.M.F = -N dϕ/dt
The (-) sign is 180 Degrees, not 90 Degrees. He infered your Current and Voltage were the same.
See attached Image:
Mate, I am only standing for this because its wrong, its not right we let others learning, see these errors and believe them to be fact.
PW, Brad, others, I am sorry but its true, errors should be corrected!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Brad, this quote is wrong:
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law:
Actually,that quote is correct in regards to the scope shot i provided with the schematic and scope probe placements.
According to Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction, rate of change of flux linkages is equal to the induced emf,so the induced EMF will be greatest when the rate of change of flux is greatest.
If we look at the schematic below,with the attached scope shot,we can see that the EMF is indeed greatest when the rate of change of flux is greatest,and the EMF is 0 when the rate of change of magnetic flux is 0.
The blue trace is our current,and from that current trace we can see when the rate of change of magnetic flux will be greatest,which is when the currents wave form is passing through the 0 volt line on the scope,at which point we can see that the induced EMF is at it's highest value.. When the current is at it's peak,then the rate of change of magnetic flux is at it's lowest-even though the magnetic flux will be at it's greatest,at which point we can see the induced EMF is 0.
Remember-the question was asked based around the schematic and associated scope shot supplied. If a resistive load is placed on the L2 coil,then the current trace on L1,and the voltage trace(our EMF trace)on L2 will then become very close to 180* to each other. This is once again assuming that we are operating the transformer at it's designed frequency,load,and the load is resistive.
I think maybe that you have either-
1-seen the current trace as showing the peak as being the greatest rate of change of the magnetic flux
Or 2- missing the fact that L2 (the secondary coil) has no load on it,where as if it did,then the EMF of L2 would shift a further 90*(there about's) to line up with the current now flowing through it,which would then show a 180* (or close to) phase difference to that of L1s current trace.
So to sum up-
TK is correct,and Faradays law of induction holds true for the scope shot given with the attached schematic.
Only when a load is attached to L2(our secondary) dose -N dϕ/dt come into play,as L2 will only produce it's own CEMF when a current is flowing through it,and this CEMF(as we know)will be 180*(or close to) the EMF that induced it.
Hope that clears that up.
Brad
-
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law:
Actually,that quote is correct in regards to the scope shot i provided with the schematic and scope probe placements.
According to Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction, rate of change of flux linkages is equal to the induced emf,so the induced EMF will be greatest when the rate of change of flux is greatest.
If we look at the schematic below,with the attached scope shot,we can see that the EMF is indeed greatest when the rate of change of flux is greatest,and the EMF is 0 when the rate of change of magnetic flux is 0.
The blue trace is our current,and from that current trace we can see when the rate of change of magnetic flux will be greatest,which is when the currents wave form is passing through the 0 volt line on the scope,at which point we can see that the induced EMF is at it's highest value.. When the current is at it's peak,then the rate of change of magnetic flux is at it's lowest-even though the magnetic flux will be at it's greatest,at which point we can see the induced EMF is 0.
Remember-the question was asked based around the schematic and associated scope shot supplied. If a resistive load is placed on the L2 coil,then the current trace on L1,and the voltage trace(our EMF trace)on L2 will then become very close to 180* to each other. This is once again assuming that we are operating the transformer at it's designed frequency,load,and the load is resistive.
I think maybe that you have either-
1-seen the current trace as showing the peak as being the greatest rate of change of the magnetic flux
Or 2- missing the fact that L2 (the secondary coil) has no load on it,where as if it did,then the EMF of L2 would shift a further 90*(there about's) to line up with the current now flowing through it,which would then show a 180* (or close to) phase difference to that of L1s current trace.
So to sum up-
TK is correct,and Faradays law of induction holds true for the scope shot given with the attached schematic.
Only when a load is attached to L2(our secondary) dose -N dϕ/dt come into play,as L2 will only produce it's own CEMF when a current is flowing through it.
Hope that clears that up.
Brad
Hey Brad, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
EMF is not Current. EMF is "Columb's of Charge" measured in Volts. Which is a quantity that can be measured on a "Generators" Terminals, when No Current is Flowing.
It is Apples and Oranges we are comparing when fitting your Scope Shots to behaviours.
Faraday's law of induction is a basic law of electromagnetism predicting how a magnetic field will interact with an electric circuit to produce an electromotive force (EMF)
We both know, and have discussed on many Ocasions, The Magnetic Field is Current, they are one in the same things. The Magnetic Field is Not Voltage - the mesaurement of EMF!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Also, the Phase Angle can change, as both you and TK have shown, at any time, through adding a Load, or change in Frequency, and others reasons. E.G: Adding a DC Bias to the device.
By definition, Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction, including Heinrich Lenz's contribution, predicts EMF. Which is by definition the (-) of the Source, which is mathematically equal to 180 degrees, or Anti Phase.
Electrical Science for Technicians (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=up7wCQAAQBAJ)
Ref: Electrical Science for Technicians: Page 198 (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=cJ7wCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=Lenz's+Law+180+out+of+phase&source=bl&ots=2NMMhvh5rG&sig=jbFYtXvQWOLGOJxytNC7LsrAFR8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJn97MoYDMAhUlq6YKHZ42CpEQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=Lenz's%20Law%20180%20out%20of%20phase&f=false)
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot of moaning and groaning and shameless outright lying when it comes to the wine glass questions. Or there will be more strutting little fake-ass peacocks flashing their phony colours and saying, "Oh, I already knew that."
This is a no-strutting-peacock no-outright-lying zone when it comes to the wine glass questions. So if you want to answer them now then give it a shot, don't dare say after the fact that you could answer the questions. Show that you have some moral fiber and character.
Here are the questions, only short, simple answers will qualify as correct answers. Don't even think about a copy-paste.
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
Let's see if any of the resonance fetishists can answer the questions successfully.
-
Hey Brad, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
It is Apples and Oranges we are comparing when fitting your Scope Shots to behaviours.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
EMF is not Current. EMF is "Columb's of Charge" measured in Volts.
That is correct,and the yellow trace in the scope shot is measuring the columb's of charge by way of showing us a voltage trace.
Which is a quantity that can be measured on a "Generators" Terminals, when No Current is Flowing.
That is also correct. And if we use a PM generator,the EMF produced from the stator coil will be 0 when the PM is directly at the center of the stator coil's core-where the induced magnetic field into that core is at it's greatest,but the rate of change of that magnetic flux through the core is 0,and so the EMF is also 0.
The Magnetic Field is Current, they are one in the same things.
The magnetic field is the result of current flow through a conductor.
As i said,and showed above with the generator example,the magnetic flux through the core will be at maximum when the EMF is at 0,and so the current flow will be at maximum when the rate of change of magnetic flux is 0,and the EMF will also be at 0 when the rate of change of magnetic flux is at 0.
See pic below.
The Magnetic Field is Not Voltage - the mesaurement of EMF!
That is correct.
But a changing magnetic field through a conductor produces an EMF in that conductor.
We both know, and have discussed on many Ocasions,
Yes,but it has been with a load placed on the secondary,which will then put the secondaries CEMF 180* to that of the primaries EMF,as the secondary now will have current flowing through it,and will produce it's own CEMF which is 180* from the EMF of the primary that produced it.
The primary has an EMF placed across it,and the secondary produces an EMF that apposes it-(a counter EMF-our 180* phase relationship) - but only when current flows through it.
But if the secondary is open(as it was in my schematic),then the EMF across the secondary is inline with the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the core,not the strength of the magnetic flux in the core-where maximum field strength is indicated by peak current,and maximum rate of change is indicated at the 0 volt line of the current trace.
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg480084#msg480084 date=1460249448]
Let's see if any of the resonance fetishists can answer the questions successfully.
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by the shape,size,and structure of the glass.
We can find out what the resonant frequency is by vibrating the glass using sound waves and raising the frequency of those sound waves until the vibrations of the wine glass reach a maximum amplitude.
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism
It resonates due to the deformation and reformation of the wine glass from it's rest shape,where the resonant frequency of this deformation and reformation is determined by the shape,size and structure of the wine glass. This causes pressure wave's that can be heard-->sound waves.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot of moaning and groaning and shameless outright lying when it comes to the wine glass questions. Or there will be more strutting little fake-ass peacocks flashing their phony colours and saying, "Oh, I already knew that."
Childish--as expected.
Brad
-
Wrong and wrong.
-
For any that are interested-->
If you wish to increase the capacity/remaining energy in your !nearly depleted! 1.5 volt batteries by up to 50% for use in your JT's,then simply squeeze them slightly in a vice-end from end,or place the negative end on a bench,and tap the positive end with a hammer a few times.
Do not tap that hard that it crushes the battery-light taps only needed-maybe 10.
P.S--make sure you insulate your vice jaws of course,so as not to short the battery.
Brad
-
For any that are interested-->
If you wish to increase the capacity/remaining energy in your !nearly depleted! 1.5 volt batteries for use in your JT's,then simply squeeze them slightly in a vice-end from end,or place the negative end on a bench,and tap the positive end with a hammer a few times.
Do not tap that hard that it crushes the battery-light taps only needed-maybe 10.
P.S--make sure you insulate your vice jaws of course,so as not to short the battery.
Brad
Lol Same here. If the remote for the tv stops working take out the batteries and bang them on a table or wood and it sometimes gets ya goin a bit. Not if they were sitting dead for a while. I suppose it is mixing up the electrolyte a bit, something physical.
Used to take c and d cells apart when I was a kid. And lol, sometimes if you try to put a d cell back together, the electrolyte filling around the carbon center rod, the batt would get real hot. Shorted it out some how. Was around the beginnings of learning electricity. But most likely like me, I bet most of us had very first electricity experiences at the ac outlets in our homes. :o ;D None of the rebuilt batteries ever exploded. But did have smoke sometimes.. I imagine a high end nimh d cell that can put out a continuous 50A and peak 100A may be a problem if left in a shorted position after a full charge.
Mags
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg480084#msg480084 date=1460249448]
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by the shape,size,and structure of the glass.
We can find out what the resonant frequency is by vibrating the glass using sound waves and raising the frequency of those sound waves until the vibrations of the wine glass reach a maximum amplitude.
It resonates due to the deformation and reformation of the wine glass from it's rest shape,where the resonant frequency of this deformation and reformation is determined by the shape,size and structure of the wine glass. This causes pressure wave's that can be heard-->sound waves.
Childish--as expected.
Brad
Yup. Say we ping the wine glass on the side, that impact on the side of the glass creates an initial wave around both sides of the glass that peak on the other side of the glass and the wave travels back to the other side of the glass where it was impacted. If the wave were more dispersed, as in an off freq of the glass resonant freq then the ring, oscillation would not continue. And the liquid called glass is quite flexible at resonant freq as compared to trying to reshape it as in the glass breaking vids with a vice or a clamp. Thats for sure.
Mags
-
Yup. Say we ping the wine glass on the side, that impact on the side of the glass creates an initial wave around both sides of the glass that peak on the other side of the glass and the wave travels back to the other side of the glass where it was impacted. If the wave were more dispersed, as in an off freq of the glass resonant freq then the ring, oscillation would not continue. And the liquid called glass is quite flexible at resonant freq as compared to trying to reshape it as in the glass breaking vids with a vice or a clamp. Thats for sure.
Mags
And depending on the distance around the glass, glass makeup, thickness and maybe other factors that determine the freq of the wave. Those factors determining how long it will take the wave to travel from ping point to the other side and back again for 1 full wave..
Mags
-
Hey Brad,
That is correct,and the yellow trace in the scope shot is measuring the columb's of charge by way of showing us a voltage trace.
But the other is measuring Current. Which is not the EMF of the Source.
That is also correct. And if we use a PM generator,the EMF produced from the stator coil will be 0 when the PM is directly at the center of the stator coil's core-where the induced magnetic field into that core is at it's greatest,but the rate of change of that magnetic flux through the core is 0,and so the EMF is also 0.
Dont agree entirely here, this is dependant on the Passive Inductance's and or Capacitance's present, or Purely Resistive, Load characteristics in the circuit.
The magnetic field is the result of current flow through a conductor.
As i said,and showed above with the generator example,the magnetic flux through the core will be at maximum when the EMF is at 0,and so the current flow will be at maximum when the rate of change of magnetic flux is 0,and the EMF will also be at 0 when the rate of change of magnetic flux is at 0.
It is not only possible, but common to see Voltage and Current in Phase, or very close to it on the Terminals of a "Generator" - Again this depends on the Load. It is also possible to see a Phase Shift of 90 Degrees as you have shown.
So no Sir, I dont agree.
See pic below.
That is correct.
But a changing magnetic field through a conductor produces an EMF in that conductor.
Yes, and this is the part that is being confused. The Magnetic Field (B): 1 Gauss = 3.335641e-10 Amperes (http://www.convertunits.com/from/gauss/to/ampere)
Again Current and the Magnetic Field are one and the same things.
The issue is, Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction, by definition, predicts EMF, Coulombs of Charge (C) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb), a quantity measured in Volts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volt) - The E.M.F and B are Two different things.
As it stands, the equation for Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction (E.M.F = -N dϕB/dt), does not, at all, predict a Phase Shift of 90 Degrees between E.M.F (measured in Voltage) and the Magnetic Field (ϕB) or any other angle as a mater of fact between these two quantitys E.M.F (measured in Voltage) and Magnetic Field (ϕB)!
Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction does predict a Phase Shift of 180 Degrees, thanks to Heinrick Lenz, from the Source E.M.F and the Destination E.M.F
Yes,but it has been with a load placed on the secondary,which will then put the secondaries CEMF 180* to that of the primaries EMF,as the secondary now will have current flowing through it,and will produce it's own CEMF which is 180* from the EMF of the primary that produced it.
The primary has an EMF placed across it,and the secondary produces an EMF that apposes it-(a counter EMF-our 180* phase relationship) - but only when current flows through it.
But if the secondary is open(as it was in my schematic),then the EMF across the secondary is inline with the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the core,not the strength of the magnetic flux in the core-where maximum field strength is indicated by peak current,and maximum rate of change is indicated at the 0 volt line of the current trace.
Brad
Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction) does not, never will, and can not, ever, precdict the Passive Component Effects (http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/passive-components.html) in a Circuit, Period!
Series RLC Circuit Analysis (http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/series-circuit.html)
Please compare the equations, they are not even close to the same!!!
TK was wrong and should Correct himself!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad, I really feel like swearing, PW should have picked this up and done the right thing, he will know what I have said is true.
Damn even our Local Resident Clown, MileHigh should know this stuff. Many hundreds of readers here should know this stuff.
It honestly is not hard to see this massive error that TK has made!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Wrong and wrong.
What a great explanation from you. It's as informative as the rest of your explanations.
-
What a great explanation from you. It's as informative as the rest of your explanations.
If you have been following along I stated that I will not give any clues to lead people to the correct answer. It's a no-spoon-feeding zone. You either get it right or you don't. I also said that if nobody gets it I will provide the answers next week.
Over the years I have provide a ton of informative explanations so you should take back your words because they are a lie.
-
What a great explanation from you. It's as informative as the rest of your explanations.
;)
-
Brad, I really feel like swearing, PW should have picked this up and done the right thing, he will know what I have said is true.
Damn even our Local Resident Clown, MileHigh should know this stuff. Many hundreds of readers here should know this stuff.
It honestly is not hard to see this massive error that TK has made!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
You are actually the resident clown, and if you don't realize that, then you are the hapless unaware resident clown. Most of the unaware clowning is on the technical side, a clowning of the copy-paste-agasm variety. You do a lot of "intelligent sounding" copy-pasting but you have no idea if your copy-pasting of legitimate material applies to the issue at hand or not. You are just doing it like an automaton. It's all part and parcel of the Dr. Strangelove meets Monty Python aspect of this thread. You are adding the Monty Python flavour.
-
As it stands, the equation for Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction (E.M.F = -N dϕB/dt), does not, at all, predict a Phase Shift of 90 Degrees between E.M.F (measured in Voltage) and the Magnetic Field (ϕB) or any other angle as a mater of fact between these two quantitys E.M.F (measured in Voltage) and Magnetic Field (ϕB)!
Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction does predict a Phase Shift of 180 Degrees, thanks to Heinrick Lenz, from the Source E.M.F and the Destination E.M.F
Really Dr. Roboto?
You don't understand the implications and ramifications of the equations that you are regurgapasting. You are just a blank copy-paste automaton. Does phase shift really have anything to do with it, or is phase shift only used in certain circumstances as a convenient shorthand?
What if ϕB is 4?
What if ϕB is 17*(sqrt(t))?
What if ϕB is A*cos(omega*t)?
What if ϕB is K(t^3.67)?
What if ϕB is B*sin(omega*7t)?
Inquiring minds want to know. Automatons need not apply.
-
The issue is, Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction, by definition, predicts EMF, Coulombs of Charge (C) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb), a quantity measured in Volts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volt) - The E.M.F and B are Two different things.
Could there be some short circuits taking place in the automaton's positronic brain? Like Dr. Roboto has some regurgapasting indigestion? There are no coulombs of charge in sight!!! We are talking about electric current here. However, in a capacitor, you define one farad as one coulomb of charge per volt. So it looks like the robot had a misfire, and the positronic memory banks of the automaton got crossed signals. Time for a reboot.
-
Brad, I really feel like swearing, PW should have picked this up and done the right thing, he will know what I have said is true.
Damn even our Local Resident Clown, MileHigh should know this stuff. Many hundreds of readers here should know this stuff.
It honestly is not hard to see this massive error that TK has made!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
The phase relationship is really not defined,and can change in certain circumstances.
My test was at a very low frequency,and phase distortion played no part in the test.
If you and Erfinder really want to rack your brains over something,then watch my next video when i post it,and we throw faradays law of induction out the window ;)
Chris
If you firmly believe in what your saying,then stick to your gun's,and use it as you can to your advantage. You dont need to prove anything to me,TK,or anyone else--only to yourself.
I can only provide the information i feel is true,and that just happens to be the same as the information TK provided.
Of course, the two that i asked the question in relation to induction,where either late for lunch,or did not show up at all--until all the dishes were done. :D
I guess some like to use conventional current flow,while others like to use true current flow.
But faradays law of induction dose not always hold true,and needs the additives and modifications-some of which you have mentioned.
Brad
-
author=EMJunkie link=topic=8341.msg480096#msg480096 date=1460266545]
Chris Sykes
But the other is measuring Current. Which is not the EMF of the Source.
That is correct. But the EMF of the source is in phase with the current.
See scope shot below,where we are measuring both source current and EMF across the source--they are in phase.CH1 is current through the source,and channel 2 is the EMF across the source.
Remember-low frequency,and open secondary.
Dont agree entirely here, this is dependant on the Passive Inductance's and or Capacitance's present, or Purely Resistive, Load characteristics in the circuit.
Yes,all that matters,and must be taken into account. But remember,we are discussing the answers provided in regards to the schematic posted with the associated scope shot.
It is not only possible, but common to see Voltage and Current in Phase, or very close to it on the Terminals of a "Generator" - Again this depends on the Load. It is also possible to see a Phase Shift of 90 Degrees as you have shown.
Yes it is,but if there is no load on the output,then there is no current. If there is no current,then the EMF on the output will be determined by the rate of change of magnetic flux through the coil-we are assuming normal operating frequencies of the generator here.
I am happy to build up a small generator,and show you if you like. ;)
The issue is, Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction, by definition, predicts EMF, The E.M.F and B are Two different things.
That is correct. But as in my schematic and associated scope shot,the rate of change in the increase and decrease of B around L1 is what determines the EMF value across L2. The EMF value across L2 is greatest when the rate of change of B is at it's greatest,and that point on the scope shot is when the current trace is passing through the 0 volt line-not the peak current points.
So no Sir, I dont agree.
I can tell you,that in regards to the generator,there will be 0 volt's(no EMF) across the output of the generator when the core of the generator coil is receiving maximum flux coupling from the PM-the magnet is directly lined up with the core of the output coil. This is the point of no rate of change between an increasing or decreasing magnetic flux through the output coil.
As it stands, the equation for Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction (E.M.F = -N dϕB/dt), does not, at all, predict a Phase Shift of 90 Degrees between E.M.F (measured in Voltage) and the Magnetic Field (ϕB) or any other angle as a mater of fact between these two quantitys E.M.F (measured in Voltage) and Magnetic Field (ϕB)!
It dose when the secondary is open,and no current is flowing through it-as in my posted schematic,and we are confined to the parameters of the test,where normal low operating frequencies were used that are close to what the transformer was designed for.
Of course different transformer configurations,and higher frequencies will show varying result's as far as phase alignment go's between the primary and secondary EMF.
Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction does predict a Phase Shift of 180 Degrees, thanks to Heinrick Lenz, from the Source E.M.F and the Destination E.M.F
You need to specify the type of transformer,as this is not always the case-even at low frequencies.
The transformer i am using in my experiments at the moment,is an air core transformer with a winding ratio of about 50:1. I have a 5ohm resistive load on the secondary.
The second scope shot below shows the EMF across both the primary and secondary-where the blue trace is the primary EMF,and the yellow trace is the secondary EMF. The secondaries EMF is close to 90* out of phase in relation to the primaries EMF,not 180*. As you can see on the scope shot,the frequency is very low.
Please compare the equations, they are not even close to the same!!!
TK was wrong and should Correct himself!!!
Chris
TK was correct in what he described,where he said-Quote:
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.
That statement is absolutely correct in regards to the schematic,probe placements,and scope shot i provided.
The peak EMF produced across L2 is when the magnetic field produced around L1 is at it's greatest rate of change--not at it's maximum amplitude. The point of no change of the magnetic field around L1,is when the current is at it's peak,meaning that the magnetic field produced by L1 has also reached it peak amplitude. As the magnetic field is no longer changing in amplitude,the induced EMF across L2 will be zero-see scope shot 3 below.
Brad
-
EMJ,
Don't be offended......
What can you do with what you are presenting? It would be awesome if you not refer me to your partnered coil work. What you are suggesting is beyond that, I know this for a fact. This is fast turning into a new debate and that sir is absolutely unnecessary.
So again, what are you prepared to demonstrate in support of your position? Are you in the position to demonstrate anything? I would love to see this information put to practical use.
Regards
Hey E - Look this is a really good question!
We have had dialogs before, where we crossed paths for a very good reason.
Some points:
1: Virtually everyone here has either very little to no idea on How Electrical Energy is "Generated"! - I have given you all HARD DATA, real Science with References!
2: Most everyone here has been off wildly looking for Fantasy Science that has nothing to do with real Science, fake stuff like: Cold Electricity or Cold Current's, Radiant Energy, the list goes wildly on into the wilderness of false hope and failure. - I have given some guidance, it is really YOU that needs to take the steering Wheel of Life and do it for yourselves!!!
3: A real world, with demonstrations, with more real referencable data, several verifications, of working technology - NO ONE HERE HAS EVER HAD THAT!!!!!!!!! I have! Anti-Lenz effect (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWzZqw8eLDU)
And to be honest thats more than anyone else has ever presented. All I have already shown to you all.
Others have shown what I have said, for so long, to be real, and that speakes Volumes!!! More than me showing you my demonstrations, its others showing you their demonstrations after following the layouts I have shared!!! You see, this is undeniable! Its independant Verification!!!
You see, for many decades, you, the people, have had thousands of demonstrations given to you. All with Secrets, mysterious false guidances, like "Permanent Magnet Conditioning", "Earth Currents" and more BS than anyone has ever been able to verify, ever!!!
See, what I have given to everyone, is real, it is completely explained by Real Science, through all the Real Verifiable Laws of Science...
I have given you so much more than you can ever imagine...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
P.S: It is "Take it or Leave it", I have no problem at all either way. Either people will pick this up and learn, or they will not, the choice really is yours.
What is it that You have to Offer?
-
author=EMJunkie link=topic=8341.msg480096#msg480096 date=1460266545]
Chris Sykes
That is correct. But the EMF of the source is in phase with the current.
See scope shot below,where we are measuring both source current and EMF across the source--they are in phase.CH1 is current through the source,and channel 2 is the EMF across the source.
Remember-low frequency,and open secondary.
Yes,all that matters,and must be taken into account. But remember,we are discussing the answers provided in regards to the schematic posted with the associated scope shot.
Yes it is,but if there is no load on the output,then there is no current. If there is no current,then the EMF on the output will be determined by the rate of change of magnetic flux through the coil-we are assuming normal operating frequencies of the generator here.
I am happy to build up a small generator,and show you if you like. ;)
That is correct. But as in my schematic and associated scope shot,the rate of change in the increase and decrease of B around L1 is what determines the EMF value across L2. The EMF value across L2 is greatest when the rate of change of B is at it's greatest,and that point on the scope shot is when the current trace is passing through the 0 volt line-not the peak current points.
I can tell you,that in regards to the generator,there will be 0 volt's(no EMF) across the output of the generator when the core of the generator coil is receiving maximum flux coupling from the PM-the magnet is directly lined up with the core of the output coil. This is the point of no rate of change between an increasing or decreasing magnetic flux through the output coil.
It dose when the secondary is open,and no current is flowing through it-as in my posted schematic,and we are confined to the parameters of the test,where normal low operating frequencies were used that are close to what the transformer was designed for.
Of course different transformer configurations,and higher frequencies will show varying result's as far as phase alignment go's between the primary and secondary EMF.
You need to specify the type of transformer,as this is not always the case-even at low frequencies.
The transformer i am using in my experiments at the moment,is an air core transformer with a winding ratio of about 50:1. I have a 5ohm resistive load on the secondary.
The second scope shot below shows the EMF across both the primary and secondary-where the blue trace is the primary EMF,and the yellow trace is the secondary EMF. The secondaries EMF is close to 90* out of phase in relation to the primaries EMF,not 180*. As you can see on the scope shot,the frequency is very low.
Chris
TK was correct in what he described,where he said-Quote:
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.
That statement is absolutely correct in regards to the schematic,probe placements,and scope shot i provided.
The peak EMF produced across L2 is when the magnetic field produced around L1 is at it's greatest rate of change--not at it's maximum amplitude. The point of no change of the magnetic field around L1,is when the current is at it's peak,meaning that the magnetic field produced by L1 has also reached it peak amplitude. As the magnetic field is no longer changing in amplitude,the induced EMF across L2 will be zero-see scope shot 3 below.
Brad
I am sorry Brad, reading your first paragraph, this is not always the case! You know it. I have read the whole lot, to show respect.
Brad, you believe what you want, in the end, this will catch up with you and you will see the truth!
You have an old washing machine motor there, Spin it Up and test and verify the phase relationships with different Passive Components...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
I am sorry Brad, reading your first paragraph, this is not always the case! You know it. I have read the whole lot, to show respect.
Brad, you believe what you want, in the end, this will catch up with you and you will see the truth!
You have an old washing machine motor there, Spin it Up and test and verify the phase relationships with different Passive Components...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Chris
All i say is in relation only to the test setup i supplied--that is what we are talking about here--nothing else.
As i said,there are many variables that can change thing's--see next post and video.
Brad
-
Here is a video showing the effects of an oscillating magnetic field against transformer action.
How dose the oscillating magnet allow so much more power dissipation,while reducing the power to the source that drives the oscillating system.
Comments and thoughts welcome from all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlb79xSh93w
Brad
-
The phase relationship is really not defined,and can change in certain circumstances.
My test was at a very low frequency,and phase distortion played no part in the test.
If you and Erfinder really want to rack your brains over something,then watch my next video when i post it,and we throw faradays law of induction out the window ;)
Chris
If you firmly believe in what your saying,then stick to your gun's,and use it as you can to your advantage. You dont need to prove anything to me,TK,or anyone else--only to yourself.
I can only provide the information i feel is true,and that just happens to be the same as the information TK provided.
Of course, the two that i asked the question in relation to induction,where either late for lunch,or did not show up at all--until all the dishes were done. :D
I guess some like to use conventional current flow,while others like to use true current flow.
But faradays law of induction dose not always hold true,and needs the additives and modifications-some of which you have mentioned.
Brad
Hey Brad,
TK describes your Circuit in terms of Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction, when he should have used Passive Component Analysis (http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/passive-components.html) to determine the Phase Shift of 90 Degrees.
Purely Inductive Circuit:
XL = VL/IL = 2πfL
Z = ∠+90o = 0+jXL
IS = VS/XL
The very reason PW is staying quiet is because he can not deny this as it is beyond true! He is scared of going Head to Head with TK... Who is very wrong by the way...
Brad, as you already know now, we have to stick to our Guns in a Gun Fight, but shooting the wrong Man is fruitless. What I have said is true, it is very easily, and I already have, proven it, beyond a shadow of a doubt!
It takes a big Man to admit he was incorrect publically! Will He? Or will he Not?
In a court of Law, I would be receiving damages right about now.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
P.S: Lets not forget that your Scope Grounds are at the same point and the two Coils are effectively connected together at this point!
-
You make it difficult to respond, your tone is slightly offensive, as if you feel threatened. I am not here to offend nor defend. The laws you place at the feet and under the nose of those who choose to enter your sand box, I don't recognize. I have a different perspective, one where Lenz isn't a cancer. A perspective which allows me to see the oscillator which forms the superstructure of every electrodynamic machine I have ever worked on. A perspective which enables me to identify the higher order of capacitance and inductance as they relate to that super structure. A perspective which has facilitated the ability to produce and reproduce the self reinforcing self oscillation effect that you mentioned, but in my opinion don't necessarily demonstrate in your "public" demonstrations of the same.
One can also consider the chart you recently posted, where EMF associated with self and mutual induction are illustrated. I understand from my own effort, how to setup a generator so as to negate the negative effects associated with induction.
I contacted you in the past because I felt our paths were aligned.... I am not looking for a guru, not looking for someone to point at the answer to my question for me. I don't need your data nor anyone else's. I have what I want. It would be wise of you to humble yourself. To think one knows more than one who claims to know nothing, can place one in a very precarious position when the right questions are asked, and you cannot answer them but the one who knows claims to know nothing can.
I would like to respect that this thread has a very specific direction, and as such will continue this dialog with you, if you wish, on your thread.
Regards
Yes, if you like.
I never claimed, ever, that I am a guru, infact, quite the opposite, I have said on may ocasions, "I dont have all the answers (https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=EMjunkie+I+dont+have+all+the+answers+site:http:%2F%2Foverunity.com%2F15395%2Fpartnered-output-coils-free-energy)"!
I am offended, completely, that the Scientific minds of the world think they know so much, that something so simple, is impossible.
So many minds here are suffering from: "Carpium Chronicus (https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201106/field-guide-the-critic)"
Many paths lead to Rome,
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
In regards to this statement and the image you attached to it, the above stated is only true part of the time.
I have found that there are two very specific geometries that one should look for, specifically:
* (a) where the point of maximum flux change is not coincident with the point of maximum flux density, peak voltage is just before and just after TDC. (Two voltage nodes centered by a current node)
* (b) where the point of maximum flux change is coincident with the point of maximum flux density, peak induced voltage will be at TDC. (Two current nodes centered by a voltage node)
Most time and energy is invested in trying to find ways to circumvent the loss mechanism, which technically isn't a loss mechanism. I have found this to be a complete waste of time. As justification I offer that the system as I see it is an oscillator, a tank. The tank would oscillate between series and parallel resonance, however, owing to the fact that the system is structured in accordance with (a), series resonance which is possible only in a system structured as (b) cannot happen. The important point i'm trying to make here is the flux should be allowed to move back to the inducer, unimpeded, effectively placing the stator and the rotor magnets in series. Please understand that I use the term "resonance" loosely here, and it has no relation to the term as it is applied to electromagnetic phenomena.
Careful analysis of the behavior of the circuit as we presently view it reveals (requires a stretch of the imagination of some) that the laws operating in said circuit describe the characteristics of a parallel resonant tank. The mechanism of opposition to change governs the rate at flux is cycled between the inducer and the induced. This holds true for both systems (a) and (b).
Inducing flux entering the stator in (a) decreases with increasing induced current. Inducing flux entering the stator in (b) increase with increasing induced current.
These are my observations, I am not a EE, I therefore cannot adhere to laws I am not qualified to comprehend, besides, there are too many to know and keep track of. Playing it by ear has worked for some of the great musicians in the past, I take inspiration from them. I cannot prove anything that I suggest. I only offer what I offer as food for thought.
Regards
Heir Heir!!!
An intelligent and well worded post. Sensible and logical!
A pleasure to read!
Erfinder is completely correct, without Lenz's Law, Gains of COP > 1 would not be possible, but at the same time, Lenz's Law is the Big Stick to Keep Monkeys in their Cages!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Is part of the answer in the parts underlined in red....emphasis on "part"?
The proper relations need to be made, and there are parts missing.......my opinion...
Wanted to add one thing.....
Consumption decrease is the indication that the circuit is governed by the negative effects associated with opposition to change in flux and or current. This is not something I look for, as it limits system effectiveness. It seems like a good thing, consumption dropping and the output going up, however, in reality (as I interpret it), the input is working against the self induced (standard), and the boost in the output of the secondary, could be summed up to there being at least two augmenting induced currents operating in the secondary.
Regards
Well,i will wait and see if any others care to comment first--maybe PW,or verpies?.
But lets look at what happens when the oscillating magnet is introduced into the system.
The primary coil must now do extra work in order to give rise to the oscillating PM at the resonant frequency of the PM and fixture of the PM. We know energy is being dissipated from this oscillating system by way of vibration and noise. We also see a vast increase in the energy being dissipated over the 5 ohm load resistor that is across the secondary coil. But at the very same time,we see a decrease in power input to the primary coil that is now driving the second system(the oscillating magnet)
The oscillating magnet supplied more energy to the secondary coil than the primary coil did,and yet it is the primary coil that is providing the energy to keep the magnet and stand in it's resonant oscillating state. then there is also the 90* phase shift between the primaries current,and secondaries voltage across the dissipation resistor when the oscillating magnet is bought into play-something to think about ;). Then there is the magnetic fields to consider-both the PMs field,and the primary coils field. The PMs field remains the same polarity,but varies in time- where the primary coil is the view point. The primaries magnetic field however,alternates in polarity over each cycle. We now have an effect where the two fields will be in bucking mode through 1/2 of each cycle,and in attraction mode during the other half of the cycle,and yet we see no such distortion in the secondaries wave form,where one half of he secondaries wave form should increase due to the bucking fields strength increase,and the other half of the secondaries wave form should decrease,due to the two attracting fields of the other half of the cycle. But in stead,we see an increase on both 1/2 cycles on the secondary,but a decrease in the primaries current draw-even though the primary coil is now doing more work.
Anyway,we will see if any others have some thoughts toward this.
I now have a small 13 watt amplifier,so i will be building a bigger unit soon.
Brad
-
Of course, the two that i asked the question in relation to induction,where either late for lunch,or did not show up at all--until all the dishes were done. :D
Brad
No way, not on this thread. You stop your shameless sleazy low-life lying.
That is correct,and the yellow trace in the scope shot is measuring the columb's of charge by way of showing us a voltage trace.
Whoops Brad, you made a mistake because you gobbled up EMJ's nonsense about "'Columbs of Charge' measured in Volts" without bothering to go through the hassle of trying to correct him. And now you find yourself trying to correct him in the role of "teacher of the deluded and misled" and it's not really that much fun, is it? Try doing that for five years.
What do you think is a contributor to the melting knowledge glacier? It's doing what you just did above with EMJ's statement. If you can't try to talk sense among yourselves and correct each other's mistakes then you all end up hurting each other by restating nonsense like it's the truth.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Some advice: If you are going to post a diagram, and least try to have what you see in the diagram make sense. In your diagram the output waveform shown does not match the physical setup shown, it's a mistake.
Indeed I am being somewhat picky here, because most people will understand what is going on. The problem is that often enough you are dealing with people that don't understand what is going on and therefore they can easily be misled and confused by confusing graphic images that have errors in them.
MileHigh
-
Twas spelt like this when I went to school !! ;)
"Coulomb's law, or Coulomb's inverse-square law"
Typo?
Cheers Grum.
-
I have found that there are two very specific geometries that one should look for, specifically:
* (a) where the point of maximum flux change is not coincident with the point of maximum flux density, peak voltage is just before and just after TDC. (Two voltage nodes centered by a current node)
* (b) where the point of maximum flux change is coincident with the point of maximum flux density, peak induced voltage will be at TDC. (Two current nodes centered by a voltage node)
Regards
Erfinder:
If you are going to talk about geometries and the outputs you can get from those geometries, then please go ahead and put up some physical and electrical diagrams of the setups that you are discussing along with voltage and current timing diagrams that illustrate exactly what you are saying.
What you are saying is cryptic, and I am not convinced of what you are saying at all. However, you seem to be stating things in relatively simple terms. Hence the request to explain precisely what you mean with the aid of associated mechanical/electrical diagrams and their voltage and current timing diagrams.
Thanks,
MileHigh
-
I can see this as becoming known as the "Junkie-Tinman Law"
-
I can see this as becoming known as the "Junkie-Tinman Law"
LOL
And here is the "Postulate of Blank Stares:"
What if ϕB is 4?
What if ϕB is 17*(sqrt(t))?
What if ϕB is A*cos(omega*t)?
What if ϕB is K(t^3.67)?
What if ϕB is B*sin(omega*7t)?
-
Here are some college sayings:
- The derivative of sine is cosine and the derivative of cosine is negative sine. -
- The first derivative of 'e' to the 'x' is 'e' to the 'x'. -
-
Wow, look at this so cool: Just like sitting in class with a virtual blackboard.
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/differential-calculus/taking-derivatives/derivatives-of-common-functions/v/derivatives-of-sin-x-cos-x-tan-x-e-x-and-ln-x
'e' is just so damn cool! (And you see it in action on your scope display about 75% of the time when you are playing with your circuits.)
-
Here is a video showing the effects of an oscillating magnetic field against transformer action.
How dose the oscillating magnet allow so much more power dissipation,while reducing the power to the source that drives the oscillating system.
Comments and thoughts welcome from all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlb79xSh93w
Brad
Brad, you have shown without a doubt, what I have said to be true!
Adding the Pendulum / Oscillating with Magnet's on it, has bought added Reactance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance) into the Circuit through Mutual Coupling.
Which as I have already stated many times is part of Passive Circuit Analysis (http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/passive-components.html) and nothing to do at all with Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction).
Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction) is fully able to do its job with, or without Reactance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance)
Again, as I have sated many hundreds of times now, Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction) has absolutely nothing to do with the Phase Angle differences between Current (I) and Voltage (V) - It is the responsibility of Reactance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance)
And So, TK was very wrong when he stated this:
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.
And by its very definition, Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction) predicts E.M.F and NOT Phase Differences of Voltage and Current.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Twas spelt like this when I went to school !! ;)
"Coulomb's law, or Coulomb's inverse-square law"
Typo?
Cheers Grum.
Heir Heir - Nice Catch Grum!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
And still silence from those that should not!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Is part of the answer in the parts underlined in red....emphasis on "part"?
The proper relations need to be made, and there are parts missing.......my opinion...
Wanted to add one thing.....
Consumption decrease is the indication that the circuit is governed by the negative effects associated with opposition to change in flux and or current. This is not something I look for, as it limits system effectiveness. It seems like a good thing, consumption dropping and the output going up, however, in reality (as I interpret it), the input is working against the self induced (standard), and the boost in the output of the secondary, could be summed up to there being at least two augmenting induced currents operating in the secondary.
Regards
Erfinder is completely correct again. Also stating that this is "Part" of whats going on is a clever way to say, Brad, you have Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction) occuring from two different Sources and both have their own Phase difference!
As a comparision, an LC Tank circuit when in resonance, is 180 degrees out of phase from Voltage to Current! In other words, a Highly Reactive (http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/passive-components.html) Circuit.
Is this starting to make more sense yet?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
I mentioned geometries, two to be exact, I never mentioned outputs which can be generated from them. I don't do diagrams.
To one skilled in the art, the words of the novice are cryptic. I'm ok with you not being convinced of anything I am saying, I am not convinced of anything that anyone on this forum says. I appreciate you taking note of the fact that I am trying to communicate in "relatively" simple terms. I am a relatively simple guy. It takes balls (gender irrelevant) to come in here and say anything, especially since the sign over the door states "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here."
On that note, respectfully, I decline your request to present diagrams. I will however, continue to post when it suits me, maybe I will get better at articulating the ideas, I wouldn't hold my breath on that though.....damn green horns....
Regards
E - Ignore the Closet Clown, he is smacked out on Weed and Womble Logic!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
And still silence from those that should not!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Sometimes we get great choral arrangements from the Choir of One Hand Clapping.
Brad and TK are still 100% correct in what they are telling you about a setup with a transformer input being driven by a sine wave and the output being unloaded and you are just measuring the unloaded EMF output on the secondary coil. Copy and paste as much as you may, but your problem is that you actually have to understand what you are pasting and when, where, and how to apply it.
As I alluded to before, the "phase shift" is not even real - there is no phase shift. It's just an abstraction we use to make it easier to describe sinusoidal-type waveforms you see on your scope display. It's just like using the terms "North" and "South" for describing magnetic fields when in reality neither "North" or "South" even exist.
Now, moving on to Brad's latest clip, now things start to change and you observe different types of phase shifts depending on what is going on.
Unfortunately, Brad makes a huge mistake in that clip. At 14:43 in the clip he says, "We've decreased our power input to the primary, we've increased the power output from our secondary."
He actually never even measured the power input to the primary. All that he did was monitor the current flow through the primary. That's a fail that he should never have done, he should have known better. He did not measure the input voltage to the primary and more importantly, he did not check the phase between the input voltage and the input current on the primary so that he could properly measure the input power. It's pretty clear that when he went from just driving the single load resistor to driving the load resistor and the vibrating metal post and associated magnet, that the phase shift between the voltage and the current decreased considerably, and the real power power consumption went up.
Behind that is another issue that I have mentioned to Brad repeatedly but I don't think it has ever stuck and registered with him. By adding the vibrating metal post and associated magnet to the system, the electro-mechanical impedance of the system went down, and the corresponding power consumption of the system went up.
So, if you were a "true experimenter" and really wanted to know what is happening, you would redo the experiment with your secondary scope channel across the input coil to measure the voltage and phase, and with a decent multimeter across the load resistor to measure the voltage. That would put you in a decent position to make your measurements, and occasionally you could put the secondary channel of the scope across the load resistor to make spot checks on the phase there also. Then you would record the waveforms and phases and power flows for every component in the system for the case without the metal post and with the metal post. You would do a power audit in both cases and account for all of the power flow in both cases. The most interesting measurement that could be made, directly or possibly indirectly, would be how much mechanical vibrational power is flowing into Brad's bench. He mentions this in his clip. It's safe to consider the power flow into the bench as being a "perfect impedance match" or a "power sink" with no vibrational power returning back into the vibrating post. However, don't hold your breath.
MileHigh
-
E - Ignore the Closet Clown, he is smacked out on Weed and Womble Logic!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Said from the Choir of One Hand Wanking.
-
And still silence from those that should not!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Let's recap...
Tinman posts a schematic and two scope captures.
One capture shows a 90 degree phase difference between primary CURRENT and the open circuit secondary VOLTAGE.
The second capture shows a difference of 180 degrees between primary CURRENT and open circuit secondary VOLTAGE.
Tinman asks "which capture is correct?"
TK responds that the capture showing the 90 degree phase difference is correct, as determined by his empirical study (replication) and by his very lucid argument invoking Faraday by stating that the primary current is a fairly accurate proxy for the magnetic flux and that when the rate of change of that flux is at its minimum so will the secondary voltage be at its minimum.
Tinman also states that his empirical study demonstrated that the 90 degree phase shift was indeed correct and, as well, also invokes Faraday in further support of his empirical results.
EMJ apparently disagrees with TK and Tinman and claims that the capture showing the 180 degree phase shift is correct, making one wonder if EMJ actually understands the question as presented. It seems more likely he is arguing about the primary VOLTAGE instead of primary CURRENT, but perhaps not...
In EMJ's post 1585, he presents an ideal transformer graphic supposedly in support of his 180 degree phase shift assertion regarding Tinman's question that only further causes one to wonder if he actually understood Tinman's question, his schematic, his scope captures, or none at all. The ideal transformer graphic presented appears to be discussing primary voltage (not current) and does not indicate an open secondary.
EMJ in his post #1562 appears to argue in support of both TK and Tinman via presentation of a graphic clearly stating that Faraday does indeed state that the induced voltage is directly proportional to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux. Which, reasonably, also indicates that the induced voltage will be at its minimum when the time rate of change is also at its minimum (as both TK and Tinman reasoned in further support of their empirical data).
EMJ again appears to argue in support of both TK and Tinman by presenting the copy/paste of a textbook page several times now similar to his post #1658. In that copy pasta is a "Figure 10.14". The caption to that figure clearly states that the open circuit primary current lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees and that the primary current is mainly responsible for the magnetic flux which, therefore, also lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees. This clearly supports TK's original response to Tinman's question.
So, at this point I have no idea what it is EMJ is arguing for or against.
EMJ seems to argue that the empirical data both TK and Tinman presented is incorrect and that instead, the open circuit secondary voltage should differ from the primary current by 180 degrees. But EMJ also presents data clearly stating that the correct answer is 90 degrees.
EMJ also apparently disagrees with both TK and Tinman's assertion that, from Faraday, it can be deduced that the secondary voltage will be at its minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux (as indicated by the primary current) is also at is minimum. But again, EMJ posts material also agreeing with TK and Tinman's assertion that Faraday does indeed indicate the induced voltage is proportional to magnetic flux and that the primary current is indeed a fairly accurate proxy representative of magnetic flux.
Perhaps someone else can sort this out...
PW
-
PW:
One word: copy-paste-agasm.
MileHigh
-
Let's recap...
Tinman posts a schematic and two scope captures.
One capture shows a 90 degree phase difference between primary CURRENT and the open circuit secondary VOLTAGE.
The second capture shows a difference of 180 degrees between primary CURRENT and open circuit secondary VOLTAGE.
Tinman asks "which capture is correct?"
TK responds that the capture showing the 90 degree phase difference is correct, as determined by his empirical study (replication) and by his very lucid argument invoking Faraday by stating that the primary current is a fairly accurate proxy for the magnetic flux and that when the rate of change of that flux is at its minimum so will the secondary voltage be at its minimum.
Tinman also states that his empirical study demonstrated that the 90 degree phase shift was indeed correct and, as well, also invokes Faraday in further support of his empirical results.
EMJ apparently disagrees with TK and Tinman and claims that the capture showing the 180 degree phase shift is correct, making one wonder if EMJ actually understands the question as presented. It seems more likely he is arguing about the primary VOLTAGE instead of primary CURRENT, but perhaps not...
In EMJ's post 1585, he presents an ideal transformer graphic supposedly in support of his 180 degree phase shift assertion regarding Tinman's question that only further causes one to wonder if he actually understood Tinman's question, his schematic, his scope captures, or none at all. The ideal transformer graphic presented appears to be discussing primary voltage (not current) and does not indicate an open secondary.
EMJ in his post #1562 appears to argue in support of both TK and Tinman via presentation of a graphic clearly stating that Faraday does indeed state that the induced voltage is directly proportional to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux. Which, reasonably, also indicates that the induced voltage will be at its minimum when the time rate of change is also at its minimum (as both TK and Tinman reasoned in further support of their empirical data).
EMJ again appears to argue in support of both TK and Tinman by presenting the copy/paste of a textbook page several times now similar to his post #1658. In that copy pasta is a "Figure 10.14". The caption to that figure clearly states that the open circuit primary current lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees and that the primary current is mainly responsible for the magnetic flux which, therefore, also lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees. This clearly supports TK's original response to Tinman's question.
So, at this point I have no idea what it is EMJ is arguing for or against.
EMJ seems to argue that the empirical data both TK and Tinman presented is incorrect and that instead, the open circuit secondary voltage should differ from the primary current by 180 degrees. But EMJ also presents data clearly stating that the correct answer is 90 degrees.
EMJ also apparently disagrees with both TK and Tinman's assertion that, from Faraday, it can be deduced that the secondary voltage will be at its minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux (as indicated by the primary current) is also at is minimum. But again, EMJ posts material also agreeing with TK and Tinman's assertion that Faraday does indeed indicate the induced voltage is proportional to magnetic flux and that the primary current is indeed a fairly accurate proxy representative of magnetic flux.
Perhaps someone else can sort this out...
PW
PW - Clearly you have entirely missed the very specific point of the current debate as you completely circumvented it. Why?
You claim I have bought into question, Brads Circuit, scope shots of it, and the replications of it, when this is entirely fase! Why?
True or False: Faraday's Law Electromagnetic Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction) does not and never will predict Circuit Reactance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance)
Please just answer the question! Can you manage something like this:
False
PW
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
PW - Clearly you have entirely missed the very specific point of the current debate as you completely circumvented it. Why?
You claim I have bought into question, Brads Circuit, scope shots of it, and the replications of it, when this is entirely fase! Why?
True or False: Faraday's Law Electromagnetic Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction) does not and never will predict Circuit Reactance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance)
Please just answer the question!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
And just where and when did either TK or Tinman mention "reactance" in responding to Tinman's original question?
PW
-
Here is a video showing the effects of an oscillating magnetic field against transformer action.
How dose the oscillating magnet allow so much more power dissipation,while reducing the power to the source that drives the oscillating system.
Comments and thoughts welcome from all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlb79xSh93w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlb79xSh93w)
Brad
;D
One thing. Not sure. Does it matter if the secondary is wound first under the primary or as you have it. Just wondering if the effects would be any different.
Mags
-
;D
One thing. Not sure. Does it matter if the secondary is wound first under the primary or as you have it. Just wondering if the effects would be any different.
Mags
Not meaning the affect to the sec from the resonating magnet stand, but the influence of the primary on the secondary. Ive read that if on the same bobbin that the sec should be wound first then the primary after.
Mags
-
And just where and when did either TK or Tinman mention "reactance" in responding to Tinman's original question?
PW
PW - Youre being difficult delerately - Why?
You know as well as I do, Reactance is responsible for changing the Phase Angles of Current and Voltage. Three different Phase Angles have been shown by TK and Brad: 90 (http://overunity.com/8341/joule-thief-101/msg479868/#msg479868), 91.08 (http://overunity.com/8341/joule-thief-101/msg479870/#msg479870) and 180 (http://overunity.com/8341/joule-thief-101/msg479872/#msg479872) Degrees
How is it possible we see any change at all of Phase Angles if what you say is true? Do the Laws of Science change ramdomly, at will, do they? That is, Electromagnetic Induction Changes depending on what Time of Day it is!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
TK's response to Tinman's question:
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.
The first coil's magnetic field follows, to first order, the current shown on the scope trace. At the peaks of this current, the time rate of change is zero (instantaneous slope is horizontal) -- and so the induced EMF as shown in the second coil's trace is zero (the induced current trace crosses the zero volt baseline at the same time the inducing current peaks.) When the inducing current (magnetic field) is changing at its maximum rate (the place where the instantaneous slope is steepest or most vertical: the zero crossing) the induced current is at its maximum (the peaks).
As you raise the frequency of your test, stray inductances (wire connections) become increasingly important and the observed phase difference on the scope will change.
EMJ's response to TK's answer above:
WRONG!!!
180 Degrees is the angle you will see!!! Faradays Law does not predict this, its actually Heinrich Lenz and Lenz's Law!!! Written as a (-) sign in the Equations of Faradays Law of Induction.
Which is Equal and Opposite.
See TK, if you had a handle on this, you could see and do so much more!!!
Chris Sykes
Clearly EMJ was wrong. Even the references EMJ himself has posted refute his answer...
PW
-
TK's response to Tinman's question:
EMJ's response to TK's answer above:
Clearly EMJ was wrong. Even the references EMJ himself has posted refute his answer...
PW
Thats it - "Clearly EMJ was wrong" - This is your proof?
Youre saying Every Single Textbook in the world is wrong and Reactance is not responsible for the Phase Angle differences we see every day of the week, that we measure on a continual basis to correctly measure Power?
This is your proof?
PW - Shame on you!!!
Please feel Free to show us the Mathmatical Proof where the Equation (E.M.F = -N dϕB/dt) Predicts the Phase angle differences between Voltage and Current we have seen already!
Go ahead, please provide the proof!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Thats it - "Clearly EMJ was wrong" - This is your proof?
Youre saying Every Single Textbook in the world is wrong and Reactance is not responsible for the Phase Angle differences we see every day of the week, that we measure on a continual basis to correctly measure Power?
This is your proof?
PW - Shame on you!!!
Please feel Free to show us the Mathmatical Proof where the Equation (E.M.F = -N dϕB/dt) Predicts the Phase angle differences between Voltage and Current we have seen already!
Go ahead, please provide the proof!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
I present as "exhibit one" the page you copy/pasted several times such as in your post #1658 and the caption to "Figure 10.14" therein.
Do you now claim the material contained in that copy/pasted page is also in error?
PW
-
Fact: Tinman's experiment is classed as a Transformer.
Fact: Transformers can exibit many different Phase Angle differences (within the range of 0-360 Degrees) - Thus the reason we Measure it in the first place.
Fact: We have seen several different Phase Angle Differences already from te replications.
Fact: The smallest change to the Circuit can Change the Phase Angle
Fact: The smallest change to the System can Change the Phase Angle
Fact: Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction works and is still valid through all these changes. No matter where the Phase Angles of Voltage to Current are.
FACT: Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction does not Predict Phase angles between Voltage and Current. It Predicts E.M.F
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
I present as "exhibit one" the page you copy/pasted several times such as in your post #1658 and the caption to "Figure 10.14" therein.
Do you now claim the material contained in that copy/pasted page is also in error?
PW
Clearly referencing Valid Scientific Material is not something your familiar with!!!
It is also clear that you have not read the referenced material!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Fact: Tinman's experiment is classed as a Transformer.
Fact: Transformers can exibit many different Phase Angle differences (within the range of 0-360 Degrees) - Thus the reason we Measure it in the first place.
Fact: We have seen several different Phase Angle Differences already from te replications.
Fact: The smallest change to the Circuit Changes the Phase Angle
Fact: The smallest change to the System changes the Phase Angle
Fact: Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction works and is still valid through all these changes. No matter where the Phase Angles of Voltage to Current are.
FACT: Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction does not Predict Phase angles between Voltage and Current. It Predicts E.M.F
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
And yet your very own posted references clearly state that the no load primary current lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees (as per the caption of Figure 10.14).
Are you now stating that your own references are also incorrect?
Man up...
PW
-
And yet your very own posted references clearly state that the no load primary current lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees (as per the caption of Figure 10.14).
Are you now stating that your own references are also incorrect?
Man up...
PW
PW - Proof Please, then we can idle chat...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Some idle Chat...
WOW have you blokes dug a massive hole for yourselves!!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
PW - Youre still Clearly missing the entire point of the Debate:
FACT: Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction does not Predict Phase angles between Voltage and Current. It Predicts E.M.F
I like this one, it spells out the equation nicely for those that cant grasp simple concepts.
Where:
e = The Prediction made by Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction - How simple is this?
Can you see anything about Phase Angle from Voltage to Current in there? - No me either!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
;D
One thing. Not sure. Does it matter if the secondary is wound first under the primary or as you have it. Just wondering if the effects would be any different.
Mags
Hey Mags - No Induction is Induction.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
PW - Youre still Clearly missing the entire point of the Debate:
I like this one, it spells out the equation nicely for those that cant grasp simple concepts.
Where:
e = The Prediction made by Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction - How simple is this?
Can you see anything about Phase Angle from Voltage to Current in there? - No me either!!
This Equation calculates Phase angle, but it is no where near the other one we saw!!!
COMPLETELY different from The Electromagnetic Induction Equation, now isnt it!!!
Can you read the word coloured in brown text??? Yep, I felt that too, your stomoch just sank PW didnt it!!!
Ref: AC Circuit Complex Impedance, Part 3: Putting It All Together (http://www.hamradioschool.com/ac-circuit-complex-impedance-part-3-putting-together/)
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Hey Mags - No Induction is Induction.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Well consider this..
As Brads coil is basically air core, what if we had a rod core and wound 2 layers of the same turns, 1 layer is the primary and the other is the sec. The outer winding will have more wire length and resistance than the inner layer, due to greater winding diameter, but lets not think of that right now.
So if we use the inner layer as the sec and apply input to the outer layer, "it is said that the sec will have less interaction with the primary due to most of the sec field would be attracted to the core.' Now I imagine that just the fact that the sec field is affecting the core would be interacting with the primary in a fairly big way, as compared to not loading the sec.
But now if we use the first layer as the primary, and the outer as the sec, I can imagine less of the primary field cutting the outer sec as the primary field of the underlying layer would be attracted to the core and less induction of the outer sec.
Ponder it a bit. Cleaning off bench. Made a little work station for my equip to stack and keep the bench less cluttered. Always seem to need more room.
Mags
-
Hey Mags - Yeah me too.
I believe youre talking about the Coupling Coefficient (k):
When the coefficient of coupling, k is equal to 1, (unity) such that all the lines of flux of one coil cuts all of the turns of the second coil, that is the two coils are tightly coupled together, the resulting mutual inductance will be equal to the geometric mean of the two individual inductances of the coils.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Well consider this..
As Brads coil is basically air core, what if we had a rod core and wound 2 layers of the same turns, 1 layer is the primary and the other is the sec. The outer winding will have more wire length and resistance than the inner layer, due to greater winding diameter, but lets not think of that right now.
So if we use the inner layer as the sec and apply input to the outer layer, "it is said that the sec will have less interaction with the primary due to most of the sec field would be attracted to the core.' Now I imagine that just the fact that the sec field is affecting the core would be interacting with the primary in a fairly big way, as compared to not loading the sec.
But now if we use the first layer as the primary, and the outer as the sec, I can imagine less of the primary field cutting the outer sec as the primary field of the underlying layer would be attracted to the core and less induction of the outer sec.
Ponder it a bit. Cleaning off bench. Made a little work station for my equip to stack and keep the bench less cluttered. Always seem to need more room.
Mags
Now an air core....
Say we have a tesla coil of the kind we see with sparks and all that. Would it be better to have the primary on the outer dia of the sec, as we see them out there, or might it be better to have the primary inside the sec tube? If not, why?
So just throwing it out there that there may be a better config for brads experiment that may be of benefit to the whole, or possibly not. We need as many positive ways of going about things as they all add up to more positive outcomes. This little thing and that little thing add up to something bigger. Then we keep those things in our minds as we go along to improve what we are doing.
Like the idea that if we use 1 coil at say 1w to make the magnet on the spring strip move a particular distance, and then if we add another coil to the other side of the magnet and put it in series with the first coil, and adjust the input so that each coil consumes .5w, total 1w, the magnet moves further.
Why is that? Same power input, more output. Like audio speakers. 1 speaker produces 100db at 100w. But 2 similar speakers, 50w each and the output is now 103db. ;) 4 speakers, 25w ea, total of 100w, 106db. Doesnt seem right does it? How far can we go with this? 32 speakers, total 100w, 115db. So if we had some say pancake motors. 1 motor at 750w is 1hp. If we add another pancake motor, shaft to shaft, and wire them in series and adjust the input so each motor consumes 375w, total of 750w, then would the output be more than 1hp???? ??? ;)
Mags
-
As I posted earlier on:
Electrical Science for Technicians (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=up7wCQAAQBAJ)
Ref: Electrical Science for Technicians: Page 198 (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=cJ7wCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=Lenz's+Law+180+out+of+phase&source=bl&ots=2NMMhvh5rG&sig=jbFYtXvQWOLGOJxytNC7LsrAFR8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJn97MoYDMAhUlq6YKHZ42CpEQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=Lenz's%20Law%20180%20out%20of%20phase&f=false)
and I quote again directly from this document:
The waveform shows the no-load primary current (IO), lagging the supply voltage (EP) by very nearly 90o, and being mainly responsible for setting up the magnetic flux (ϕ) in the core which, itself, also lags the supply voltage by practically 90o. The self-induced voltage in the primary winding (-UP) is shown in anti-phase (i.e. 180o out of phase) with the supply voltage.
I have clearly said on many ocasions, E.M.F is not Current, and it is not Magnetic Flux! Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction Predicts E.M.F, Not Magnetic Flux and Not Current!
Transformers, as is stated in the document I provided, do have phase relationships. Most all of these relationships are governed by Reactance of the Circuit, thus the reason we have seen phase angles that have been shown.
Ref:Transformer Phasor Diagrams (http://www.slideshare.net/AdityaKumar441/transformer-phasor-diagram) come in several varietys, I have listed them below:
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Thus the reason we are seeing Phase angle Changes...
A Requirement for, definately not a Prediction of, A Requirement for Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction) is the Angle of the Magnetic Field (ϕ) to the Conductor.
See my Videos:
Electrical Energy 101 - Faradays Law of Induction - Part 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y7HKsDfY68)
Electrical Energy 101 - Faradays Law of Induction - Part 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqStIeja_s)
Electrical Energy 101 - Faradays Law of Induction - Part 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LkrGGzLNJU)
I show the optimum angle of Flux Cutting is 90o. This is where the Maximum E.M.F (Coulombs of Charge) is "Generated". At lesser angles, less E.M.F (Coulombs of Charge) is "Generated"!
The equation to calculate this: ϕ = BA Cos(θ)
Where:
B = The Magnetic Field (B) (Gauss)
A = The total Cross Sectional Area
θ = The Angle that the Flux is Perpendicular to the Plane.
See attached Image.
So TK's statement was totally Wrong:
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law
Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction) does not Predict (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/predict?s=t) any of the said quantitys. At all.
It is Dependant (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dependant) on these quantities. Further more, the Angle or Sine that is Predicted by Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction, from the addition of Heinrick Lenz's contribution, is 180 degrees out of phase, or Anti-Phase, like I have proven in many posts already.
And so, my comment:
Apples and Oranges ole Mate!!!
You really should have corrected yourself TK, it would have saved a ton of heart ache for you!!!
Now, PW an appology is in order! As I have now clearly shown that you are wrong on so many levels!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
As I posted earlier on:
and I quote again directly from this document:
Electrical Science for Technicians
Ref: Electrical Science for Technicians: Page 198
The waveform shows the no-load primary current (IO), lagging the supply voltage (EP) by very nearly 90o, and being mainly responsible for setting up the magnetic flux (ϕ) in the core which, itself, also lags the supply voltage by practically 90o. The self-induced voltage in the primary winding (-UP) is shown in anti-phase (i.e. 180o out of phase) with the supply voltage.
I have clearly said on many ocasions, E.M.F is not Current, and it is not Magnetic Flux! Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction Predicts E.M.F, Not Magnetic Flux and Not Current!
Transformers, as is stated in the document I provided, do have phase relationships. Most all of these relationships are governed by Reactance of the Circuit, thus the reason we have seen phase angles that have been shown.
Once again you post a quote from your source that clearly states that TK was correct in his answer to Tinman when he stated that the scope capture showing the 90 degree phase difference between the primary current and the open circuit secondary voltage was the correct scope capture.
The above quote also states that the primary current is mainly responsible for the magnetic flux and that both the primary current and magnetic flux lag the primary voltage by very nearly 90 degrees, just as TK also stated in his answer to Tinman.
The above quote also refutes your answer to Tinman and clearly indicates that your answer was wrong wherein you stated that correct scope capture should have been the one showing the 180 degree phase shift. Again, the above quote clearly indicates that your answer to Tinman's question was wrong.
Surely you must also agree with the elegant logic in TK and Tinman's use of Faraday's law to further bolster their answers beyond the empirical when they stated that, as per Faraday's law, the induced voltage (open circuit secondary voltage) will be at its minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is at its minimum. And as your above quote further confirms, the primary current (as viewed on the scope) was an excellent proxy for measurement of magnetic flux.
Other than continuing to prove that TK was correct and that your multi-page "episode" of disrespect towards him was totally unwarranted, what exactly is your point?
PW
-
PW an appology is in order! As I have now clearly shown that you are wrong on so many levels!!!
How does it go? "Man Up"
Be a man and admit I was right all along!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
PW an appology is in order! As I have now clearly shown that you are wrong on so many levels!!!
How does it go? "Man Up"
Be a man and admit I was right all along!
Chris Sykes
Your references clearly indicate that you were wrong. Your answer was incorrect.
It is you that owes TK an apology.
-
My ducks dive in their pond and emerge without a spot of water on them.
How do they do it?
John.
-
Your references clearly indicate that you were wrong. Your answer was incorrect.
It is you that owes TK an apology.
Clearly you do not know enough to be able to interpret.
Youre even more Wrong than TK is. At least he got most of it right. You got all of it Wrong!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Clearly you do not know enough to be able to interpret.
Chris Sykes
So, are you still claiming that both TK and Tinman are wrong and that the correct scope capture was the one showing a 180 degree phase difference between primary current and secondary voltage?
PW
-
So, are you still claiming that both TK and Tinman are wrong and that the correct scope capture was the one showing a 180 degree phase difference between primary current and secondary voltage?
PW
PW - First, Can you Read? Second, do you read? Third, what did you read?
You have proven to me, that Legible, Variable Facts are not part of your curriculum!!!
This here trail I have left behind, of Legible, Variable Facts, already makes you look stupid in the eyes of the world. Playing dumb just adds to it all!!!
Nighty Nite PW
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
EMJ,
Are you also claiming that Faraday's law does not predict that the induced voltage will be at its minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is also at its minimum?
-
EMJ,
Are you also claiming that Faraday's law does not predict that the induced voltage will be at its minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is also at its minimum?
PW - First, Can you Read? Second, do you read? Third, what did you read?
You have proven to me, that Legible, Variable Facts are not part of your curriculum!!!
This here trail I have left behind, of Legible, Variable Facts, already makes you look stupid in the eyes of the world. Playing dumb just adds to it all!!!
Nighty Nite PW
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
PW - First, Can you Read? Second, do you read? Third, what did you read?
You have proven to me, that Legible, Variable Facts are not part of your curriculum!!!
This here trail I have left behind, of Legible, Variable Facts, already makes you look stupid in the eyes of the world. Playing dumb just adds to it all!!!
Nighty Nite PW
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Talk about getting really upset when I sink all your Battle Ships!!!
Terribly Enjoyable for me to watch!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
P.S: All claims made are youre, I have Verifiable Scientific Proof with Citations. You provided nothing of the sorts by tthe way.
-
PW - First, Can you Read? Second, do you read? Third, what did you read?
You have proven to me, that Legible, Variable Facts are not part of your curriculum!!!
This here trail I have left behind, of Legible, Variable Facts, already makes you look stupid in the eyes of the world. Playing dumb just adds to it all!!!
Nighty Nite PW
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Should I take this disrespectful tirade to be an admission by you that your answer regarding the two scope captures was indeed incorrect?
-
PW - First, Can you Read? Second, do you read? Third, what did you read?
You have proven to me, that Legible, Variable Facts are not part of your curriculum!!!
This here trail I have left behind, of Legible, Variable Facts, already makes you look stupid in the eyes of the world. Playing dumb just adds to it all!!!
Nighty Nite PW
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
And does this tirade indicate that Faraday's law does indeed state that the induced voltage will be at a minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is also at a minimum?
-
Should I take this disrespectful tirade to be an admission by you that your answer regarding the two scope captures was indeed incorrect?
Assumptions is what youre best at, I have proven that also!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
And does this tirade indicate that Faraday's law does indeed state that the induced voltage will be at a minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is also at a minimum?
Do you know how small and insignificant a picowatt is? Apparently it is very hard to get it right... or something like that!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Wow youre really upset PW, Why?
Dont be sad, maybe you can learn something from the information I provided to you? Maybe 6 or 12 months some of it might make some sense to you... If not then TK can learn and let you in on the secrets...
Hahaha so very funny!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Do you know how small and insignificant a picowatt is? Apparently it is very hard to get it right... or something like that!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Yes I do, and I routinely measure at levels well below that most every day.
Apparently you have real issues with admitting being wrong.
Is the correct answer to Tinman's original question 90 or 180 degrees?
-
Yes I do, and I routinely measure at levels well below that most every day.
Apparently you have real issues with admitting being wrong.
Is the correct answer to Tinman's original question 90 or 180 degrees?
I would re-post my response, but I know you cant read it!
Now your Battleship has been sunk and youre clambering for your life boat, which looks sad for you old mate, will you be learning to read now? If so, let me know and I can re-post then!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
I would re-post my response, but I know you cant read it!
Now your Battleship has been sunk and youre clambering for your life boat, which looks sad for you old mate, will you be learning to read now? If so, let me know and I can re-post then!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Goodness, your response need only be 180 degrees as per your original answer or 90 degrees based on the references you cite.
Perhaps you believe it to be something else altogether...
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg480140#msg480140 date=1460299029]
MileHigh
Some advice:
Your advice is not needed,as most of the time it is incorrect--as in this case !again!
If you are going to post a diagram, and least try to have what you see in the diagram make sense. In your diagram the output waveform shown does not match the physical setup shown,
Once again-either you did not read description in post as to what the diagram is showing,and/or cannot read the description on diagram it self.
The diagram clearly state's,and shows- EMF will equal 0 when magnetic flux through L1 is at maximum. The diagram clearly shows that the magnet is at the closest point to the coils core,and there for the magnetic flux through the core will be at it's maximum. At that point,the wave form clearly shows the 0 volt point of that wave form at the output of the coil-the only reason the wave form was included.
it's a mistake
Most of what you have said on this thread is a mistake,so i am not really to concerned when you make another-as above.
Indeed I am being somewhat picky here
I would say more a need to continually harass me,as you did not like me proving you wrong on so many occasion's.
The problem is that often enough you are dealing with people that don't understand what is going on and therefore they can easily be misled and confused by confusing graphic images that have errors in them.
There are no errors on the diagram--just your need to try and scale your way back out of the hole you dug your self.
Is there anyone else that had trouble relating my diagram below in conjunction with this post to EMJ ?.
That is also correct. And if we use a PM generator,the EMF produced from the stator coil will be 0 when the PM is directly at the center of the stator coil's core
Brad
-
Goodness, your response need only be 180 degrees as per your original answer or 90 degrees based on the references you cite.
Perhaps you believe it to be something else altogether...
You still Dont Get it, you truely dont get it...
Of course Brads Circuit as was shown will be ±90 Degrees. The issue here is as I have stated some 20,000 times now but youre incapable of reading it... is that the Prediction that TK reffered to is incorrect, it still is and you, you idiot are supporting that!!!
Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction, with Heinrich Lenz's Contribution,
PREDICTS E.M.F - NOT CURRENT AND NOT THE MAGNETIC FLUX
PREDICTS E.M.F - NOT CURRENT AND NOT THE MAGNETIC FLUX
PREDICTS E.M.F - NOT CURRENT AND NOT THE MAGNETIC FLUX
PREDICTS E.M.F - NOT CURRENT AND NOT THE MAGNETIC FLUX
PREDICTS E.M.F - NOT CURRENT AND NOT THE MAGNETIC FLUX
PREDICTS E.M.F - NOT CURRENT AND NOT THE MAGNETIC FLUX
PREDICTS E.M.F - NOT CURRENT AND NOT THE MAGNETIC FLUX
PREDICTS E.M.F - NOT CURRENT AND NOT THE MAGNETIC FLUX
PREDICTS E.M.F - NOT CURRENT AND NOT THE MAGNETIC FLUX
CAN YOU READ THAT ?
You just dont get it!!! Youre brain is still in bed!
PW, seriously now, youre wrong, youre never going to admit it, never going to concede and will continue to play Dumb Dumb and run off on wild random Claim Chases of your wildest fantasys.
I hope I have done a good job of making it clear for you to be able to start your learn to read classes... Start with Sight Words... Its how they do it these days.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Still:
-
Of course Brads Circuit as was shown will be ±90 Degrees.
See, admitting being wrong was not that hard after all. I am proud of you...
Now, using Faraday's law which states that the induced voltage is directly proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux, would it not be logical to predict that when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is at a minimum, the induced voltage will also be at a minimum?
-
See, admitting being wrong was not that hard after all. I am proud of you...
Now, using Faraday's law which states that the induced voltage is directly proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux, would it not be logical to predict that when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is at a minimum, the induced voltage will also be at a minimum?
PW - You and TK are wrong!!!
Brad even proved it in his last video. You have incorrectly inerpreted Basic Science 101 for preschoolers.
I am not wrong, but you believe in your fairy tales...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
I can see this as becoming known as the "Junkie-Tinman Law"
Are you and MH related monnie?-i mean minnie
I see you skipped out on answering the simple question about induction ;)
Brad
-
PW - You and TK are wrong!!!
Oh really?
Both TK and Tinman stated the correct scope capture was the one showing 90 degrees of phase shift.
You have now changed your answer to be in step with theirs, so it seems that all of you are now in agreement that the correct answer to Tinman's question regarding which of the two scope captures was correct is the one showing the 90 degree phase shift.
So what's the problem?
-
PW - Youre still Wrong, and still wont admit to it.
You see, Brads circuit was never in question. Its TKs explanation of it.
Which you seem to support. Emphatically, with no evidence at all to show other wise.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
You see PW, when youre wrong, and know it, you really should admit to it!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Not admitting to it, really isnt a good show of your character.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
"Then there is the magnetic fields to consider-both the PMs field,and the primary coils field. The PMs field remains the same polarity,but varies in time- where the primary coil is the view point. The primaries magnetic field however,alternates in polarity over each cycle. We now have an effect where the two fields will be in bucking mode through 1/2 of each cycle,and in attraction mode during the other half of the cycle,and yet we see no such distortion in the secondaries wave form,where one half of he secondaries wave form should increase due to the bucking fields strength increase,and the other half of the secondaries wave form should decrease,due to the two attracting fields of the other half of the cycle. But in stead,we see an increase on both 1/2 cycles on the secondary,but a decrease in the primaries current draw-even though the primary coil is now doing more work."
Hi Tinman, Thanks for that video, I don't know much about this stuff and was impressed how drastically the inductance can be changed.
My thinking is that by adding the magnet stand, when the poles are attracting the approaching magnet is adding to the secondary, when the poles are repelling the field of the primary is being compressed back towards itself thereby increasing the secondary also . So that to me is why both halves of the cycle have an adding effect.
I would have like to seen what would have happened if you inserted the big block with the magnet stand in place.
Great work artv
-
PW - Youre still Wrong, and still wont admit to it.
You see, Brads circuit was never in question. Its TKs explanation of it.
You stated that TK was wrong and that the correct answer was 180 degrees, so at least in your mind, Tinman's circuit was indeed "in question". It's good to see that you have changed your position and now agree that TK correctly chose the 90 degree capture.
As well, both TK and Tinman used Faraday's law to predict that the induced voltage would be at a minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux was also at a minimum.
Using the 90 degree scope capture, both of them indicated where the induced voltage was at a minimum, and as well, where the rate of change of the magnetic flux was also at a minimum, and how those points in time were in alignment.
Surely you agree that Faraday's law predicts that the induced voltage will be at its minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic field is also at its minimum...
-
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law:
You see, Faradays Law is entirely dependant on the very values that TK says that Faradays Law Predicts.
See, math shows you and TK to be wrong:
E.M.F = -N dϕB/dt
Where:
ϕ = BA Cos(θ)
is a change in ϕ in respect to time. So this quantity is a necessity, to accurately know, well before we can even calculate Faradays law.
This quantity (ϕ) is Design/System dependant, in other words, different Geometrys and Magnetic Fields will show a completely different result for ϕ!!!
This is completely independant of Faraday's law!!! Nothing to do, at all with Faraday's Law!!! Infact Faraday's Law is Governed by these factors!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Only things that Faradays Law Predicts:
1: The E.M.F (http://physicsnet.co.uk/a-level-physics-as-a2/current-electricity/electromotive-force-and-internal-resistance/)
2: The Sign of the E.M.F (http://physicsnet.co.uk/a-level-physics-as-a2/current-electricity/electromotive-force-and-internal-resistance/)
As stated many hundreds of times now, the Sign is Anti Phase. 180 Degrees out of phase from the Source.
Specifically!
So my Flowery Science fiend, you are wrong, dead wrong, and to stubborn to admit!
Brads Circuit is completely outside of these facts and not the topic of this debate. It is entirely related to the description TK presented of how the Circuit was working as referenced above.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
You see, Faradays Law is entirely dependant on the very values that TK says that Faradays Law Predicts.
So you don't believe that Faraday's law predicts that the induced voltage will be at a minimum
when the rate of change of the magnetic field is also at a minimum?
-
Lets look at another simple example - Shall we?
Lets take a Permanent Magnet, 200 Gauss, and spin it up on a rotor in Germany.
Lets take a Stator in Sweden, with 500 turns on it!
Now the Time Rate of Change of the Flux calculated is dϕB/dt where ϕB is calculated from ϕ = BA COS(θ) where θ = 200 Gauss at 3 degrees.
Now, according to YOU and TK, the gurus you are:
your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law
But we know for definate sure that the 500 turns will have NO E.M.F
Does this sound like a logical plan that you and TK are taking?
Are you still Right? Of course not, no you are not right at all.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
So you don't believe that Faraday's law predicts that the induced voltage will be at a minimum
when the rate of change of the magnetic field is also at a minimum?
I believe in you PW, your fairy tale science is aweinspiring!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Ok, another PW Inspired example,
Permanent Magnet, 200 Gauss again, 90 degrees to the core. This time, both in the same Country!
The time rate of change of the Coil is 200RPM but the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the Core and Magnetic Field.
So now what are all TK's Faradays Law Predictions.
Is it E.M.F or something entirely different like a....... "Dog"
We still fit the last "Prediction" of 90 degrees, and thats what Faradays Law "predicts" according to you blokes...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Lets look at another simple example - Shall we?
No, we did look at a simple example. It was the one Tinman presented. It was the
one where all that was asked was which scope capture was correct. The one which
TK answered choosing the 90 degree capture and that you answered choosing the
180 degree capture.
You have apparently recanted and are now agreeing with TK in stating that the 90 degree
capture was indeed correct.
All that needs to be sorted out now is whether or not you agree that Faraday's law predicts
that the induced voltage will be at a minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic field is
also at a minimum.
-
One last example of PW Science...
Kid on a scoter carying the biggest NEO youve ever seen, infact 40 Tesla, a massive one...
North pole faces forward, to the front of the scoter.
Kids pushing as hard as he can, to go as fast as possible with his new NEO.
Car drives past the kid, travelling in the opposite direction, little old Lady, bad ticker, got the latest Buck Boost Converter keeping the little olld heart going.
The Buck Boost converter is facing out to the right hand side of the little old Ladys car.
What will TK and PW decide that Faradays Law will predict this time?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
I got it, a terrible Accident!
Neo flies off the Kids Scooter, grabs the little old Ladys car and spinns it around three times on its roof..
Really, you blokes are so terribly wrong its just not as funny as it was...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Chris:
You bring Monty Python to Dr. Strangelove.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG1P8MQS1cU
-
One last example of PW Science...
So, do you not agree that Faraday's law states that the induced voltage is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic field?
Doesn't Faraday's law therefore "predict" that the induced voltage will be at a minimum when the magnetic field's rate of change is also at a minimum?
-
Brad:
Read what I said again: In your diagram the output waveform shown does not match the physical setup shown.
You are not going to invent your own reality here. You made a mistake so suck it up like a man.
MileHigh
-
No, we did look at a simple example. It was the one Tinman presented.
Yes it was a simple example, you and TK got the description of Faraday's Law wrong on that one too!!!
How is that? Is it because you feel like ramdomply predicting predictions?
Tommorrow Faradays Law will be predicting Egg for Breakfast I think!!!
Hope I have eggs, if not I might magically change the prediction of eggs to Beetroot Salad.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
So, do you not agree that Faraday's law states that the induced voltage is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic field?
Doesn't Faraday's law therefore "predict" that the induced voltage will be at a minimum when the magnetic field's rate of change is also at a minimum?
Youre flat out making all the random predictions PW, how about you choose - youre good at randomly randomising Scientific Principles.
No matter what the evidence, its ok though, because you cant read, they have no baring on your existance do they?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law:
You see, Faradays Law is entirely dependant on the very values that TK says that Faradays Law Predicts.
See, math shows you and TK to be wrong:
E.M.F = -N dϕB/dt
Where:
ϕ = BA Cos(θ)
is a change in ϕ in respect to time. So this quantity is a necessity, to accurately know, well before we can even calculate Faradays law.
This quantity (ϕ) is Design/System dependant, in other words, different Geometrys and Magnetic Fields will show a completely different result for ϕ!!!
This is completely independant of Faraday's law!!! Nothing to do, at all with Faraday's Law!!! Infact Faraday's Law is Governed by these factors!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Only things that Faradays Law Predicts:
1: The E.M.F (http://physicsnet.co.uk/a-level-physics-as-a2/current-electricity/electromotive-force-and-internal-resistance/)
2: The Sign of the E.M.F (http://physicsnet.co.uk/a-level-physics-as-a2/current-electricity/electromotive-force-and-internal-resistance/)
As stated many hundreds of times now, the Sign is Anti Phase. 180 Degrees out of phase from the Source.
Specifically!
So my Flowery Science fiend, you are wrong, dead wrong, and to stubborn to admit!
Brads Circuit is completely outside of these facts and not the topic of this debate. It is entirely related to the description TK presented of how the Circuit was working as referenced above.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Yes it was a simple example, you and TK got the description of Faraday's Law wrong on that one too!!!
How is that? Is it because you feel like ramdomply predicting predictions?
Tommorrow Faradays Law will be predicting Egg for Breakfast I think!!!
Hope I have eggs, if not I might magically change the prediction of eggs to Beetroot Salad.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
So you do not agree that Faraday's law predicts that the induced voltage will be at
a minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is also at a minimum?
Even the reference you posted stated that Faraday's law states that the induced voltage
is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux. Is it not logical therefore to expect
that when the rate of change of the magnetic field is at a minimum value so too will the induced
voltage also be at a minimum value?
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg480177#msg480177 date=1460330737]
MileHigh
As I alluded to before, the "phase shift" is not even real - there is no phase shift. It's just an abstraction we use to make it easier to describe sinusoidal-type waveforms you see on your scope display.
Phase shift
1-a change in the phase of a waveform.
2- any change that occurs in the phase of one quantity, or in the phase difference between two or more quantities
3- to shift sine and cosine curves either left or right. This is known as phase shift.
What dose in and out of phase mean?
1-being or happening in (or out of) synchrony or harmony.
2-having or in the same (or different) phase or stage of variation.
It would appear MH that you got it wrong again.
If current rises and fall in a primary coil at the same time it rises and fall in the secondary coil,then there current relationship is in phase. If the primaries current rises and falls before the secondaries current,then there current relationship is out of phase.
Why do you keep posting these falsehoods ?.
It's just like using the terms "North" and "South" for describing magnetic fields when in reality neither "North" or "South" even exist.
Well you should give each end of a magnet a name MH,that denotes exactly what each end of a magnet is. First describe as to why 1 end of 1 magnet will attract to 1 end of another magnet,but will repel the opposite end of that other magnet. If it is a flow of something,then what is that flow?
If there is now flow of anything,then what is it that surrounds a PM that is able to provide a force that is equal and opposite to that of which your hands are supplying when trying to push two apposing fields together?.
Now, moving on to Brad's latest clip, now things start to change and you observe different types of phase shifts depending on what is going on.
Hang on a minute :o
Quote:-->phase shift" is not even real - there is no phase shift
Well this is a mystery .We are looking for things that don't exist ::)
Unfortunately, Brad makes a huge mistake in that clip. At 14:43 in the clip he says, "We've decreased our power input to the primary, we've increased the power output from our secondary."
He actually never even measured the power input to the primary. All that he did was monitor the current flow through the primary.
Oop's MH--you not listening to the video's again? 4:48--voltage set to RMS value by FG voltage limiting function ;)
That's a fail that he should never have done, he should have known better.
Fail actually on your behalf--again MH.
See scope shots below.
Scope shot 1-->no oscillating magnet.
Scope shot two-->with oscillating magnet.
He did not measure the input voltage to the primary and more importantly, he did not check the phase between the input voltage and the input current on the primary so that he could properly measure the input power.
Doh--there is that !!phase!! that dose not exist-apparently :D
By the way-i did check it,it was one of the first thing's i did when i started of on these experiment's.
But just so as you are happy,i put the small DUT back together to get you your scope shots--see below,as stated above.
It's pretty clear that when he went from just driving the single load resistor to driving the load resistor and the vibrating metal post and associated magnet, that the phase shift between the voltage and the current decreased considerably, and the real power power consumption went up.
Wrong again MH ;)
But your getting good at this lol.--->see scope shots below.
Behind that is another issue that I have mentioned to Brad repeatedly but I don't think it has ever stuck and registered with him. By adding the vibrating metal post and associated magnet to the system, the electro-mechanical impedance of the system went down, and the corresponding power consumption of the system went up.
Oh dear--wrong again-->see scope shots bellow.
So, if you were a "true experimenter" and really wanted to know what is happening, you would redo the experiment with your secondary scope channel across the input coil to measure the voltage and phase, and with a decent multimeter across the load resistor to measure the voltage. That would put you in a decent position to make your measurements, and occasionally you could put the secondary channel of the scope across the load resistor to make spot checks on the phase there also.
Looks like i am a true experimenter ;),as i did all this long ago.
I have told MH many time's before,that you do not see all that i have done in previous experiments. To fit everything i have done into one video--well you guys would be needing many beer's and bags of popcorn.
Then you would record the waveforms and phases and power flows for every component in the system for the case without the metal post and with the metal post.
Oh-there is those non existent phases again ;D
See scope shots below.
You would do a power audit in both cases and account for all of the power flow in both cases. The most interesting measurement that could be made, directly or possibly indirectly, would be how much mechanical vibrational power is flowing into Brad's bench. He mentions this in his clip. It's safe to consider the power flow into the bench as being a "perfect impedance match" or a "power sink" with no vibrational power returning back into the vibrating post. However, don't hold your breath.
Perhaps i could borrow that earth quake monitor from you,from the moon landing thread MH?.
Sometimes we get great choral arrangements from the Choir of One Hand Clapping.
Indeed MH-indeed ;)
Brad
-
So you do not agree that Faraday's law predicts that the induced voltage will be at
a minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is also at a minimum?
Even the reference you posted stated that Faraday's law states that the induced voltage
is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux. Is it not logical therefore to expect
that when the rate of change of the magnetic field is at a minimum value so too will the induced
voltage also be at a minimum value?
Do you agree that the Only things that Faradays Law Predicts:
1: The E.M.F
2: The Sign of the E.M.F
As stated many hundreds of times now, the Sign is Anti Phase. 180 Degrees out of phase from the Source.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Do you agree that Faradays Law is entirely dependant on the accurate measurement of the Angle of, and Quantity of B?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
y * Z = X
Do you agree that X is the predicted Value? and entirely Dependant on the Values of y and Z?
Or is it y? Or Z?
PW, youre an entire Shed short of a Tool Shed!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
PW, lost for words? Or just lost?
I have already answered all your questions in Image form previously.
Would you be so courteous?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Do you agree that the Only things that Faradays Law Predicts:
1: The E.M.F
2: The Sign of the E.M.F
As stated many hundreds of times now, the Sign is Anti Phase. 180 Degrees out of phase from the Source.
Chris Sykes
All that is required as per TK and Tinman's responses is whether or not the induced
voltage is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux. All other discussion is moot.
I believe you now realize that Tinman was measuring primary current, not voltage, so
you also now agree that the correct capture is the 90 degree phase difference capture.
You also surely agree that the induced voltage is indeed proportional to the rate of change of
the magnetic flux, so it is therefore reasonable to predict that the induced voltage will be at
a minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is also at a minimum.
Perhaps you are unhappy with the semantics of the word "predicts" and would have rather
had TK and Tinman use something more like "as further supported by" or "as can be deduced from".
-
Let's recap...
Tinman posts a schematic and two scope captures.
One capture shows a 90 degree phase difference between primary CURRENT and the open circuit secondary VOLTAGE.
The second capture shows a difference of 180 degrees between primary CURRENT and open circuit secondary VOLTAGE.
Tinman asks "which capture is correct?"
TK responds that the capture showing the 90 degree phase difference is correct, as determined by his empirical study (replication) and by his very lucid argument invoking Faraday by stating that the primary current is a fairly accurate proxy for the magnetic flux and that when the rate of change of that flux is at its minimum so will the secondary voltage be at its minimum.
Tinman also states that his empirical study demonstrated that the 90 degree phase shift was indeed correct and, as well, also invokes Faraday in further support of his empirical results.
EMJ apparently disagrees with TK and Tinman and claims that the capture showing the 180 degree phase shift is correct, making one wonder if EMJ actually understands the question as presented. It seems more likely he is arguing about the primary VOLTAGE instead of primary CURRENT, but perhaps not...
In EMJ's post 1585, he presents an ideal transformer graphic supposedly in support of his 180 degree phase shift assertion regarding Tinman's question that only further causes one to wonder if he actually understood Tinman's question, his schematic, his scope captures, or none at all. The ideal transformer graphic presented appears to be discussing primary voltage (not current) and does not indicate an open secondary.
EMJ in his post #1562 appears to argue in support of both TK and Tinman via presentation of a graphic clearly stating that Faraday does indeed state that the induced voltage is directly proportional to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux. Which, reasonably, also indicates that the induced voltage will be at its minimum when the time rate of change is also at its minimum (as both TK and Tinman reasoned in further support of their empirical data).
EMJ again appears to argue in support of both TK and Tinman by presenting the copy/paste of a textbook page several times now similar to his post #1658. In that copy pasta is a "Figure 10.14". The caption to that figure clearly states that the open circuit primary current lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees and that the primary current is mainly responsible for the magnetic flux which, therefore, also lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees. This clearly supports TK's original response to Tinman's question.
So, at this point I have no idea what it is EMJ is arguing for or against.
EMJ seems to argue that the empirical data both TK and Tinman presented is incorrect and that instead, the open circuit secondary voltage should differ from the primary current by 180 degrees. But EMJ also presents data clearly stating that the correct answer is 90 degrees.
EMJ also apparently disagrees with both TK and Tinman's assertion that, from Faraday, it can be deduced that the secondary voltage will be at its minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux (as indicated by the primary current) is also at is minimum. But again, EMJ posts material also agreeing with TK and Tinman's assertion that Faraday does indeed indicate the induced voltage is proportional to magnetic flux and that the primary current is indeed a fairly accurate proxy representative of magnetic flux.
Perhaps someone else can sort this out...
PW
Tinman posts a schematic and two scope captures.
TK responds that the capture showing the 90 degree phase difference is correct
I will clear this bit up.
I posted only one schematic with one scope shot,and asked minnie if the wave form was correct for the schematic.(he did not answer of course),but TK did,and said it was correct.
The second wave form was added only after EMJ said it should be 180* out of phase-not 90* as the first scope shot showed,and only after TK had already answered the question,and performed his experiments--so i added the wave form with the magnetic oscillator in play with the supplied schematic to give a wave form that represented what EMJ said it should be.. As seen in my video,both wave forms came from the same electrical circuit,but the one that shows the secondaries EMF 180* out from the primaries current,is with the magnetic oscillator in play--the mechanical side of the device is now in play. But a note on that. The secondaries EMF is not 180* out of phase with the primaries current,it is actually in phase now,as the external magnetic field(the PM) rises before current starts to flow through the primary coil-->this is the odd thing i am asking others to consider,as it is the primary coils current/magnetic field that is the source that oscillates the PM and stand.
Anyway-just wanted to clear up the fact that the question was asked and answered before the second scope shot was in play. MH added to the confusion by insisting that the second scope shot was of importance--some sort of loaded question-,but as it was not anything to do with the original question,it was of no importance at all.
Brad
-
;D
One thing. Not sure. Does it matter if the secondary is wound first under the primary or as you have it. Just wondering if the effects would be any different.
Mags
Not sure yet Mag's, but i have started building a more powerful unit,and the primary and seconary will be wound on the former together.
Brad
-
I will clear this bit up.
I posted only one schematic with one scope shot,and asked minnie if the wave form was correct for the schematic.(he did not answer of course),but TK did,and said it was correct.
The second wave form was added only after EMJ said it should be 180* out of phase-not 90* as the first scope shot showed,and only after TK had already answered the question,and performed his experiments--so i added the wave form with the magnetic oscillator in play with the supplied schematic to give a wave form that represented what EMJ said it should be.. As seen in my video,both wave forms came from the same electrical circuit,but the one that shows the secondaries EMF 180* out from the primaries current,is with the magnetic oscillator in play--the mechanical side of the device is now in play. But a note on that. The secondaries EMF is not 180* out of phase with the primaries current,it is actually in phase now,as the external magnetic field(the PM) rises before current starts to flow through the primary coil-->this is the odd thing i am asking others to consider,as it is the primary coils current/magnetic field that is the source that oscillates the PM and stand.
Anyway-just wanted to clear up the fact that the question was asked and answered before the second scope shot was in play. MH added to the confusion by insisting that the second scope shot was of importance--some sort of loaded question-,but as it was not anything to do with the original question,it was of no importance at all.
Brad
Brad, this is not true:
-
The 180 Degrees I stated, is, and always was directly related to TK's Comment on Faradays Law Prediction!!!
Nothing to do with your Circuit at all.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
I then posted the Image:
-
Showing Faraday's Law does Predict Anti Phase EMF.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
I guess, no one reads my posts properly, this is where assumed falsitys are interpreted?
Too Long?
Too much information?
It must have been ONLY TK that read my posts properly as then he posted the equation for Faradays Law... Isnt that sad, the only person to read my posts properly, is the one that I have chosen to correct and prompt for a Correction.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
I guess, no one reads my posts properly, this is where assumed falsitys are interpreted?
Too Long?
Too much information?
It must have been ONLY TK that read my posts properly as then he posted the equation for Faradays Law... Isnt that sad, the only person to read my posts properly, is the one that I have chosen to correct and prompt for a Correction.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Well, TK, for this reason above:
I appologise for the way I flew off my handle at your Mistake!
Its still wrong, but I am sorry for the way I acted. It was a bit agressive of me. Their we go.
TK will you still read my posts Properly? Looks like youre the only one that does.
PW cant read at all!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
For others, reading properly...
If one were to rearrange the Equation for Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction, no matter how it was rearranged, there is no way of knowing or Predicting the values for θ and ϕ - Substitute Values could be derrived, but certianly these would only ever be assumptions. Hey PW, again... Thats it, sound it out...Ass...Ump
in this Equation: ϕ = BA COS(θ)
It can not be accurately predicted!
This fact alone proves PW is Wrong!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
As I posted earlier on:
and I quote again directly from this document:
Transformers, as is stated in the document I provided, do have phase relationships. Most all of these relationships are governed by Reactance of the Circuit, thus the reason we have seen phase angles that have been shown.
Ref:Transformer Phasor Diagrams (http://www.slideshare.net/AdityaKumar441/transformer-phasor-diagram) come in several varietys, I have listed them below:
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Faradays law states--Faraday's law of induction is a basic law of electromagnetism predicting how a magnetic field will interact with an electric circuit to produce an electromotive force (EMF)—a phenomenon called electromagnetic induction.
Faraday's Law. Any change in the magnetic environment of a coil of wire will cause a voltage (emf) to be "induced" in the coil
Electromagnetic induction is the production of an electromotive force across a conductor when it is exposed to a time varying magnetic field.
Faradays law predicts that a magnetic field changing in time induces an EMF in a coil of wire.
Faraday’s Law of Induction describes how an electric current produces a magnetic field and, conversely, how a changing magnetic field generates an electric current in a conductor.
I have clearly said on many ocasions, E.M.F is not Current, and it is not Magnetic Flux!
That is correct.
Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction Predicts E.M.F, Not Magnetic Flux and Not Current!
That is incorrect Chris.
The very definition of Faradays law states that a magnetic field that changes in time will produce an EMF across a conductor/coil..
When you pass a permanent magnet across a coil of wire(meaning the magnetic field is changing in regards to that coil of wire),and EMF will be generated across that coil of wire.
The very heart of Faradays law of induction predicts this to happen.
In my schematic(posted once again below),you need to see the primary coil as that passing permanent magnet,and the secondary coil as the coil of wire the PM is going to pass.
As we approach the coil of wire with the PM(PM field rising in the coil of wire),the EMF across that coil will increase in one polarity. As the PM reaches the middle of the coil,there is no longer an increase in magnetic field strength(magnetic field no longer changing in time),and at this point,the EMF across the coil will be 0volts. As the PM leaves that coil,an EMF of the opposite polarity will form across that coil,as the magnetic field is once again changing in time.--->This is faradays law of induction-a magnetic field that changes in time in relation to a conductor, will produce an EMF across a conductor.
Your primaries EMF maybe 180* out of phase with the secondaries EMF,but that has nothing to do with the question i asked in regards to the schematic below,and associated scope shot.
'
TKs answer in regards to my specific question is absolutely correct,and is the very heart of Faradays law of induction.
Brad
-
My ducks dive in their pond and emerge without a spot of water on them.
How do they do it?
John.
The pond was empty.
-
Faradays law states--Faraday's law of induction is a basic law of electromagnetism predicting how a magnetic field will interact with an electric circuit to produce an electromotive force (EMF)—a phenomenon called electromagnetic induction.
Faraday's Law. Any change in the magnetic environment of a coil of wire will cause a voltage (emf) to be "induced" in the coil
Electromagnetic induction is the production of an electromotive force across a conductor when it is exposed to a time varying magnetic field.
Faradays law predicts that a magnetic field changing in time induces an EMF in a coil of wire.
Faraday’s Law of Induction describes how an electric current produces a magnetic field and, conversely, how a changing magnetic field generates an electric current in a conductor.
That is correct.
That is incorrect Chris.
The very definition of Faradays law states that a magnetic field that changes in time will produce an EMF across a conductor/coil..
When you pass a permanent magnet across a coil of wire(meaning the magnetic field is changing in regards to that coil of wire),and EMF will be generated across that coil of wire.
The very heart of Faradays law of induction predicts this to happen.
In my schematic(posted once again below),you need to see the primary coil as that passing permanent magnet,and the secondary coil as the coil of wire the PM is going to pass.
As we approach the coil of wire with the PM(PM field rising in the coil of wire),the EMF across that coil will increase in one polarity. As the PM reaches the middle of the coil,there is no longer an increase in magnetic field strength(magnetic field no longer changing in time),and at this point,the EMF across the coil will be 0volts. As the PM leaves that coil,an EMF of the opposite polarity will form across that coil,as the magnetic field is once again changing in time.--->This is faradays law of induction-a magnetic field that changes in time in relation to a conductor, will produce an EMF across a conductor.
Your primaries EMF maybe 180* out of phase with the secondaries EMF,but that has nothing to do with the question i asked in regards to the schematic below,and associated scope shot.
'
Brad, I have quoted more than enough references.
If I wanted to fill the bucket with water, what would i have to know prior to filling the bucket with water?
That I need Water and a Bucket.
I would need suficent water, to fill the bucket.
Required Materials and Quantitys to complete a task. Certain relationships are also needed, all items are necessary to be in proximity to each other before completing the task.
It is the Change in Flux (ϕ) that Induces and EMF, but with any Change in Flux (ϕ) an associated EMF is also Present. EG: A moving Magnetic Constitutes an Electric Field...
Each EMF is 180 out of phase. Lenz's Law.
And, as I have also very clearly shown, the Phase relationships are very much dependant on Complex Impedances. Although E2 will be 90 Degrees to the Flux (ϕ), I1 might be 120 Degrees.
TKs answer in regards to my specific question is absolutely correct,and is the very heart of Faradays law of induction.
Brad
I disagree, 90 Degrees is what your Circuit was showing. Its not Predicted. Again, its a Phase relationship, thats necessary, necessary to know, measure in some cases.
This phase relationship can be changed! It can change the system!
This is not a "Predicted" quantity. Its a Required aspect!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
-
Brad:
Read what I said again: In your diagram the output waveform shown does not match the physical setup shown.
You are not going to invent your own reality here. You made a mistake so suck it up like a man.
MileHigh
@ all.
I have modified the below diagram to satisfy bub bub.
Brad
-
@ all.
I have modified the below diagram to satisfy bub bub.
Brad
Here you go bubba, I fixed your double mistake. Open your eyes.
Work on your bloody communication skills.
-
@all
Another @tinman vid left in the dust while Mr. Faraday retakes the stage. Just not enough time to read the thread and try to respond and the thread just flies a few more pages. Just full of crap. Always the same thing. Well Faraday said this, said that, WTF gives a shit. We are in 2016 and you guys are still stuck in the 1800s hahahahaha. Good luck with that. Sucking on a Faraday Pop is surely not the way to advance to OU.
What Faraday did not explain to you Brainiacs is WHY THE FUCK THERE IS A PHASE CHANGE ILLUSION. But I'll let you guys figure it out with the checkmate "electron flow" model we have inherited you will never explain it just as the same electron flow model cannot explain simple AC. The lack is all tied into the same weakness of this EE construct. But please try as you might. Fit that big box into that tine hole.
So only Mags got even close to providing some "constructive" discourse but his post is way back now and lost in this page by page shuffle of nothingness. Too bad because it had substance and it started to answer @tinmans questions. Started too. There are other points but forget it. His vid is way back now.
Bahhhh. What is the use of trying to talk on these threads. No use at all when guys only want to argue irrelevance.
wattsup
-
Brad, I have quoted more than enough references.
If I wanted to fill the bucket with water, what would i have to know prior to filling the bucket with water?
That I need Water and a Bucket.
I would need suficent water, to fill the bucket.
Required Materials and Quantitys to complete a task. Certain relationships are also needed, all items are necessary to be in proximity to each other before completing the task.
It is the Change in Flux (ϕ) that Induces and EMF, but with any Change in Flux (ϕ) an associated EMF is also Present. EG: A moving Magnetic Constitutes an Electric Field...
Each EMF is 180 out of phase. Lenz's Law.
And, as I have also very clearly shown, the Phase relationships are very much dependant on Complex Impedances. Although E2 will be 90 Degrees to the Flux (ϕ), I1 might be 120 Degrees.
I disagree, 90 Degrees is what your Circuit was showing. Its not Predicted. Again, its a Phase relationship, thats necessary, necessary to know, measure in some cases.
This phase relationship can be changed! It can change the system!
This is not a "Predicted" quantity. Its a Required aspect!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Ok Chris,i will try and explain where you are going wrong,and why TKs answer is correct,and that it is Faradays law that predicts it.
Quote: Faraday's law of induction is a basic law of electromagnetism predicting how a magnetic field will interact with an electric circuit to produce an electromotive force (EMF)—a phenomenon called electromagnetic induction. It is the fundamental operating principle of transformers, inductors, and many types of electrical motors, generators and solenoids.Faraday's law states that the EMF is also given by the rate of change of the magnetic flux:
Now here is what the added Lenz law part says
Quote: Lenz's law, formulated by Heinrich Lenz in 1834, describes "flux through the circuit", and gives the direction of the induced EMF and current resulting from electromagnetic induction.The induced electromotive force in any closed circuit is equal to the negative(your 180* phase relationship) of the time rate of change of the magnetic flux enclosed by the circuit.
So here is where i think you are going wrong with thinking TKs answer is wrong.
Using Faradays law of induction to describe what is happening in the circuit i provided(as TK did),is the correct law to use. The reason for this is,the secondary coil is open,and there is no closed loop or current flow through the secondary that is needed to use Lenz's inclusion in Faradays law of induction.
Faraday's law states that the EMF is also given by the rate of change of the magnetic flux:
Lenz's law describes "flux through the circuit"and gives the direction of the induced EMF and current resulting from electromagnetic induction.
The secondary coil in my schematic is clearly open,and so it is Faradays law of induction that is used to predict the very wave form i showed with the attached scope shot,where the peak of current(top and bottom part of the blue trace),shows the maximum field strength of the magnetic field around L1,but also shows that the magnetic field at that point is not changing in time. When the magnetic field dose not vary/change in time,then that is the very point there will be 0 volts(EMF) across the secondary/L2. I have once again included the scope shot with circuit in question,and show you a vertical line where there is 0 volts across the secondary at the very point where the current /magnetic field peaks--which is where the magnetic field dose not change in time-even though that time is very brief.
In normal circumstances-using an off the shelf transformer,we would see a 90* phase shift between the current/magnetic field on the primary,and the EMF across the secondary,where the secondary is open. If the secondary has a resistive load placed on it,and now a current flowing through it,then the EMF across that secondary will line up(very close to)the current through that secondary. That is when you will see the 180* phase relationship between the primary EMF and the secondaries EMF--and also the current for the primary and secondary.
So to sum up,as the secondary coil is open on the schematic and scope shot in question, TKs answer is absolutely correct,and using Faradays law of induction in this case is also absolutely correct.
Hope that clears that up.
Brad
-
Here you go bubba, I fixed your double mistake. Open your eyes.
Work on your bloody communication skills.
Work on your own understanding and reading skills MH
To quote my reference to the posted diagram--which had nothing at all to do with any waveform produced by the generator sketch--> thats right MH-->nothing to do with a wave form production.
Quote: --->And if we use a PM generator,the EMF produced from the stator coil will be 0 when the PM is directly at the center of the stator coil's core
Brad
-
You can never really trust anything. We've got a new saw,Stihl 4mix, it runs on
2stroke mix and sounds like a 4stroke....who'd a thought it?
-
A rat got in the pond and drowned. Question is whether the Koala is a duck
or a rat?
This whole thing is really most enjoyable.!
-
You can never really trust anything. We've got a new saw,Stihl 4mix, it runs on
2stroke mix and sounds like a 4stroke....who'd a thought it?
Guess you have never heard of skip beat two strokes,or economizers as there some times referred to.
Ask MH--he's full bottles on ICEs.
Just be careful when the resonant cavity kicks in--it can really throw you around ;)
Brad.
-
Wattsup:
You have a point about the back and forth arguing in the thread. That's life and it happens sometimes. Believe me, sometimes you almost want to pull your hair out when you see two sides of an argument on this forum.
With respect to your moaning and groaning about conventional EE and your "spintronics magic" - deliver some goods. Do something practical that shows all of this talk has some merit.
Here is a dose of reality for you: You are the other person along with EMJ that couldn't answer a very simple question about a circuit that consisted of a power supply and one single component. EMJ has been "doing something" on his bench for about 10 years and I assume that it's roughly the same ballpark for you. So you have been winding coils, experimenting with coils, talking about coils, watching other people doing experiments with coils, and proposing alternative theories about coils for years and years - and yet you were completely lost just like EMJ and couldn't answer a simple question about a circuit that consisted of a power supply and one single coil.
So I think it's justified to say that and give you some perspective and frankly put you in your place. The world of EE and the science and physics behind it consists of something like five lifetimes worth of knowledge when you look at the entire body of knowledge. No single person can know it all. And here you are a bench tinkerer that has some radical unproven theories that you have been reading somewhere in cyberspace and you probably still don't understand how an inductor truly works, just like EMJunkie doesn't understand how an inductor truly works.
So complain if you want to, but also know that from a different perspective you are a "lost soul." A "lost soul" just like the lay people that think that Solar Roadways are awesome and expect to see that "technology" deployed on highways. If you want to show something that backs up your theories that truly is unique and brings value to the table, that would be great. But don't be surprised if when you do show something that it will feel like a carpet being pulled from up under your feet when some knowledgeable people tell you what is _really_ happening in what you demonstrate, and not what you think is happening.
MileHigh
-
Work on your own understanding and reading skills MH
To quote my reference to the posted diagram--which had nothing at all to do with any waveform produced by the generator sketch--> thats right MH-->nothing to do with a wave form production.
Quote: --->And if we use a PM generator,the EMF produced from the stator coil will be 0 when the PM is directly at the center of the stator coil's core
Brad
You are the bloody Pope Brad. Back in brain-fry mode. Your two diagrams were wrong and could mislead beginners. And you can't even bring yourself to state that.
-
PW:
Yes I do, and I routinely measure at levels well below that most every day.
That's pretty awesome and amazing. I couldn't imagine how you measure sub-picowatt power levels or why you would even need to do that. I am guessing that is well below the power levels associated with RF ID tags.
MileHigh
-
Wattsup:
MileHigh
With respect to your moaning and groaning about conventional EE and your "spintronics magic" - deliver some goods. Do something practical that shows all of this talk has some merit.
Oh no--no way wattsup--no moaning and groaning on this thread please :D
You have a point about the back and forth arguing in the thread. That's life and it happens sometimes. Believe me, sometimes you almost want to pull your hair out when you see two sides of an argument on this forum.
Here is a dose of reality for you: You are the other person along with EMJ that couldn't answer a very simple question about a circuit that consisted of a power supply and one single component. EMJ has been "doing something" on his bench for about 10 years and I assume that it's roughly the same ballpark for you. So you have been winding coils, experimenting with coils, talking about coils, watching other people doing experiments with coils, and proposing alternative theories about coils for years and years - and yet you were completely lost just like EMJ and couldn't answer a simple question about a circuit that consisted of a power supply and one single coil.
So I think it's justified to say that and give you some perspective and frankly put you in your place. The world of EE and the science and physics behind it consists of something like five lifetimes worth of knowledge when you look at the entire body of knowledge. No single person can know it all. And here you are a bench tinkerer that has some radical unproven theories that you have been reading somewhere in cyberspace and you probably still don't understand how an inductor truly works, just like EMJunkie doesn't understand how an inductor truly works.
So complain if you want to, but also know that from a different perspective you are a "lost soul." A "lost soul" just like the lay people that think that Solar Roadways are awesome and expect to see that "technology" deployed on highways. If you want to show something that backs up your theories that truly is unique and brings value to the table, that would be great. But don't be surprised if when you do show something that it will feel like a carpet being pulled from up under your feet when some knowledgeable people tell you what is _really_ happening in what you demonstrate, and not what you think is happening.
OK book guru--it's your turn now.
Time for you to answer a question,using your wonderful books ;)
So many times you have asked others to answer your questions,so now it's your turn Mr wine glass.
I proved you wrong in regards to external resonant systems around ICEs that improve efficiency's.
I proved you wrong in regards to internal resonant systems within ICEs.
I proved you wrong about the simple J/FET--oh wait,sorry,i got that worng-->you proved your self wrong on that one :D
So now lets see how your books go explaining my latest little gadget.
You posted your reply regarding my video,but my response,along with the scope shot's showed once again that you got it all wrong--post 1807--which i see you are yet to make a counter reply on.
We have eliminated from post 1738
1-Unfortunately, Brad makes a huge mistake in that clip. At 14:43 in the clip he says, "We've decreased our power input to the primary, we've increased the power output from our secondary."
As we know by watching the video,and looking at the two scope shots below,i made no mistake,and we are indeed reducing the P/in.
2-He actually never even measured the power input to the primary. All that he did was monitor the current flow through the primary. That's a fail that he should never have done, he should have known better.
Actually,i did know better,and as the voltage was set,and there was no phase shift between voltage and current in the primary,then current was all we had to view to know that the P/in was either increasing or decreasing
3-He did not measure the input voltage to the primary and more importantly, he did not check the phase between the input voltage and the input current on the primary so that he could properly measure the input power.
Yes he did,it just wasnt on the video--things we do outside of video's,so what we say in the video's is correct :D
4- It's pretty clear that when he went from just driving the single load resistor to driving the load resistor and the vibrating metal post and associated magnet, that the phase shift between the voltage and the current decreased considerably, and the real power power consumption went up.
How do you know that the voltage and currents phase shifted,when you just stated above that i did not check the phase between the input voltage and the input current--what are you talking about here MH?. ??? Anyway,it is clear that the real power power consumption went down--as can be seen in the scope shots below.
5-So, if you were a "true experimenter" and really wanted to know what is happening, you would redo the experiment with your secondary scope channel across the input coil to measure the voltage and phase,
Already done--scope shots below.
Now,lets see your books and laws work that one out MH--and remember,this is a very simple setup that anyone can make,and verify my results-i think Mags already has--not sure on that though.
Your so happy to sit there and criticize my work--point out faults that don't exist ,dismiss PMs being able to do any work--then lets see your books explain the result's.
The P/in for each test-without and with the oscillating magnet are there in the scope shot's. Voltage and current is in phase--easy to calculate P/in.
P/out from the secondary is there in the video for both cases--so work it out MH-give ya books a good work over,and see what you come up with.
The change in inductance test was done in the video,and clearly shows that with the large laminated block increasing the inductance by a huge factor,still did not come close to the results of the oscillating magnet. So we can rule out any inductance increase. Then along with that fact,and there being no phase shift between voltage and current,or no change in frequency,and also the frequency being very low,and resistance staying the same,would take care of any sort of change in impedance or reactance.
So what else do your books have MH?
Brad
-
PW:
That's pretty awesome and amazing. I couldn't imagine how you measure sub-picowatt power levels or why you would even need to do that. I am guessing that is well below the power levels associated with RF ID tags.
MileHigh
To monitor muscle impulses of the subterranean earth worm.
Oh,thought i was minnie there for a while :D
Brad
-
Brad:
It's just the same old communication and language skills problem that you have. You make a 14-minute clip and you never once mention anything about measuring the voltage phase on the coil. It's a bloody coil and people are always concerned about the power factor when you are driving a coil. It's a front and center issue, and you can't be bothered to mention a single thing about it, it's ridiculous. GOOD PRACTICES in a lab Brad, GOOD PRACTICES. I thought that you slipped and forgot about it.
I saw the load resistor and only gave it a second thought. That was a mistake because you only have to put a small load on a transformer secondary for the primary voltage and current to go in phase. I realized that with 20-20 hindsight after seeing the scope captures that you posted. Again, that was information that you should have put in your clip. So what are you going to do now, wank over that? Are you going to say it 20 times? Go get yourself a big box of Kleenex. You provided incomplete information and with more information I got a clearer picture and realize after the fact that it makes sense that the voltage and current would be in phase for both without the vibrating post and with the vibrating post. So get you hot little hand ready.
Now, do you want to do a "real" experiment? Do you have a photocell? Just set up a photocell and light source and scope it along with your voltage trace and find out what the phase is like for the vibrating post below the resonant frequency, at the resonant frequency, and above the resonant frequency. Then just make a simple test on the EMF generation in the coil for when post approaches the coil and when it recedes away from the coil. Since the current decreases at the resonant frequency, my updated theory is that the vibrating post is just adding to the inductance of the coil. In effect, the vibrating post is a mechanical extension of the electrical coil and acts like a mechanical inductor that adds to the electrical inductor. A scope and a photocell and some tests will tell you exactly what is going on.
If I recall for the load resistor the voltage changes in both amplitude and phase from no vibrating post to with a vibrating post. When you do your investigations you will need to explain this also.
You know exactly what the input power is in both cases, it's a no-brainer. So you can go ahead and do a full power audit in both cases and see exactly where the power is flowing and account for all of it. Right now it's looking like the vibrating post is dissipating relatively little power, it's just a mechanical reactor. Previously, I thought the vibrating post was dissipating much more power.
So the proof is in the pudding for the measurements and the correct interpretation of the measurements. You seem to be suggesting that "something unusual" might be happening. I am not 100% sure if you are saying that, but I have seen you state the same thing before for similar cases to this. You would be a fool if you actually believed that, this is just a simple test where everything is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing, no more, no less.
So if you make your measurements and account for where all of the input power is going in both cases, and if you can demonstrate that the vibrating post is acting like an inductive mechanical reactor that is adding to the inductance of the coil, and you can account for the changes for the load resistor, then you would be in pretty good shape. You should be able to make a very good inference for how much mechanical power is being dissipated in your bench also.
Then, if all goes well, you should WRITE IT UP. I know that's a shocker for you. You can accumulate all of your power measurements and make some timing diagrams and then post it. That would be a successful experiment. You demo two setups, without the vibrating post, and with the vibrating post, and then post your results and offer your conclusions.
Now that would be a very very pleasant shock for one and all, and many would learn a lot from your TRUE experiment. You should push yourself and effectively communicate your findings for this experiment and sum everything up in a nice tidy posting with ALL of the relevant information and your conclusions.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Your so happy to sit there and criticize my work--point out faults that don't exist ,dismiss PMs being able to do any work--then lets see your books explain the result's.
The main criticisms of your work include the fact that you are too lazy and/or sloppy to use good practices and document yourself properly. The other criticism is that you refuse to acknowledge when you are wrong about something to the point of insanity. Look at your ridiculous push-back because you made a half-assed diagram of a magnet on a rotor passing a coil. In the realm of doing experiments on an electronics bench, these are serious faults.
You better believe it that PMs are not able to do any work. So I am assuming that you believe that your simple vibrating post experiment is suggesting that PMs can do work? If yes, you are going right back down that garden path that you have traveled down so many times before. If you do the experiment properly like I am suggesting you do, then you will indeed find that the PM does nothing out of the ordinary.
"Lets see your books explain the result's." - do you seriously believe that your little vibrating post experiment is "not in books?" There is another serious flaw in your work as an experimenter. It's the ridiculous way you jump to the conclusion that you are observing something out of the ordinary. That puts forth the challenge for you with that much more emphasis: Do the experiment properly, document it properly, analyze the data and come to a conclusion. If you follow through then there isn't the slightest chance in hell that you will come to the conclusion that permanent magnets are doing work. You can't just look at apparently "funny scope and meter readings" and delude yourself into thinking you are observing permanent magnets doing work.
In a nutshell, hold yourself up to a higher standard. It's all up to you.
MileHigh
-
Tinman ,You say "As we approach the coil of wire with the PM(PM field rising in the coil of wire),the EMF across that coil will increase in one polarity. As the PM reaches the middle of the coil,there is no longer an increase in magnetic field strength(magnetic field no longer changing in time),and at this point,the EMF across the coil will be 0volts. As the PM leaves that coil,an EMF of the opposite polarity will form across that coil,as the magnetic field is once again changing in time.--->"
The field is in constant motion, so how can there be no changing in time? I agree with everything else you said but, I think the part about zero EMF , the cross-over of the rule about current direction in a conductor, depending on magnetic polarity, Is instantaneous, It doesn't so much go to zero ,it just flips polarity, and works in the opposite, If max + is 12V ,It switches to max -12v and as the magnets leaves the -12v goes back up to zero.
-
There you go Brad. I made it very clear to you that posting the proper rotor/magnet/timing diagram was not for me at all. Yet you played the "spoon feeding" card against me which is nothing more than a distraction to try to take attention away from your poor presentation and communication skills.
The proper diagram is for someone like Shylo, because he would be easily confused by your two incorrect diagrams. I uploaded the correct diagram and now you can explain it to him.
-
Tinman ,You say "As we approach the coil of wire with the PM(PM field rising in the coil of wire),the EMF across that coil will increase in one polarity. As the PM reaches the middle of the coil,there is no longer an increase in magnetic field strength(magnetic field no longer changing in time),and at this point,the EMF across the coil will be 0volts. As the PM leaves that coil,an EMF of the opposite polarity will form across that coil,as the magnetic field is once again changing in time.--->"
The field is in constant motion, so how can there be no changing in time? I agree with everything else you said but, I think the part about zero EMF , the cross-over of the rule about current direction in a conductor, depending on magnetic polarity, Is instantaneous, It doesn't so much go to zero ,it just flips polarity, and works in the opposite, If max + is 12V ,It switches to max -12v and as the magnets leaves the -12v goes back up to zero.
At the very point in change of polarity for the EMF,is the very point in time the magnetic flux has reached it's maximum value,and the very point in time the magnetic field is not changing in time.
At theses very points in time,the EMF(voltage) value will be 0,as no matter how short the time period,there must come a point of a 0 EMF(volt) value during that change in polarity.
When we use the speed of light as a reference,this 0 EMF value can be quite long in that frame of reference--like with low speed generators.
As a magnet approaches the coil,you will get a rise in EMF,and this EMF across that coil will peak before the magnet reaches the center of the coils core. When the magnet is directly at the center of the core(as in my previous diagram-below) the EMF across the coil will be 0,as the magnetic flux through the core is at it's maximum. As the magnet leaves the core,an EMF will once again start to develop across the coil,but with the opposite polarity. The maximum amplitude of this EMF will be produce some degree's after TDC,not at TDC,as at TDC the EMF is 0.
Brad
-
There you go Brad. I made it very clear to you that posting the proper rotor/magnet/timing diagram was not for me at all. Yet you played the "spoon feeding" card against me which is nothing more than a distraction to try to take attention away from your poor presentation and communication skills.
The proper diagram is for someone like Shylo, because he would be easily confused by your two incorrect diagrams. I uploaded the correct diagram and now you can explain it to him.
unfortunately for you MH,that diagram you modified to show the wave form is incorrect.
You really do not know that much about induction--do you.
Brad
-
unfortunately for you MH,that diagram you modified to show the wave form is incorrect.
You really do not know that much about induction--do you.
Brad
You've gone full bonkers and you are still wanking away.
-
The past several pages have been quite revealing
psychologically as the "struggle for dominance" has
become increasingly transparent. It seems that Miles
has acquired a small following of "groupies" to augment
his efforts. This is not too surprising as Miles is an
accomplished wordsmith with considerable persuasive
skill. ;)
The "opposition" though is holding up well and making
a good accounting of its prowess as the struggle evolves. :)
It looks as though the tailspin leading to the crash of the
weaker arguments is taking shape. Will there be a recovery? :o
Carry on gentlemen - this may be a new record for length of
discourse. And, it is entertaining too! 8)
-
The past several pages have been quite revealing
psychologically as the "struggle for dominance" has
become increasingly transparent. It seems that Miles
has acquired a small following of "groupies" to augment
his efforts. This is not too surprising as Miles is an
accomplished wordsmith with considerable persuasive
skill. ;)
The "opposition" though is holding up well and making
a good accounting of its prowess as the struggle evolves. :)
It looks as though the tailspin leading to the crash of the
weaker arguments is taking shape. Will there be a recovery? :o
Carry on gentlemen - this may be a new record for length of
discourse. And, it is entertaining too! 8)
When in a panic, just say "Aardvark."
-
Wine Glass Questions - Answered
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
The wine glass resonates by cycling energy back and forth between two forms, kinetic energy and potential energy. The instant when the glass is not deformed, the glass is moving at a maximum velocity and all of the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the form of a moving mass. The instant when the glass is at its maximum deformation, the glass has stopped moving and all of the energy is stored as potential energy in the form of a compressed spring. In between these two states, the energy is stored as combination of kinetic energy and potential energy.
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by a combination of the effective moving mass of the glass and the effective stiffness of the glass interacting with each other. The higher the effective moving mass of the glass, the lower the resonant frequency. The higher the effective stiffness the glass, the higher the resonant frequency.
-
There you go Brad. I made it very clear to you that posting the proper rotor/magnet/timing diagram was not for me at all. Yet you played the "spoon feeding" card against me which is nothing more than a distraction to try to take attention away from your poor presentation and communication skills.
The proper diagram is for someone like Shylo, because he would be easily confused by your two incorrect diagrams. I uploaded the correct diagram and now you can explain it to him.
Dear minnie.
As you think i need some lessons in basic laws of induction,do you agree with MHs modification of my diagram,or do you believe my diagram is correct?.
Time for you to answer minnie--no chicken shitting this time.
Brad
-
You've gone full bonkers and you are still wanking away.
It is quite funny that you can keep on and on about that magical question you asked EMJ--keep on badgering him about it time after time,and yet you your self cannot understand the very laws you preach--that being faradays law of induction.
You just had to step in,and say my diagram was wrong--even admitting to being picky. You then modified my diagram to show what !you! think is the correct wave form for the !circled! time- path (in orange) for the magnets start and end position to form that sine wave you drew on the diagram.
I agreed with Bill to keep it civil,and so i will not use the words you keep using.
But every time you have tried to correct me on this thread,and call me all sorts of names under the sun,you have repeatedly fell flat on your face,and i have had to continually correct your mistake's,so as those here will learn from correct information.
I cannot believe after all this time--all your insulting smart ass comments toward other experimenters (mostly EMJ),and all your preaching of the laws you love so much,that you have no idea how to show them on a simple diagram--which you did not even have to draw--i drew it for you,and you scribbled some rubbish on it.
You preach faradays law of induction,but you screw it all up when it's comes to showing it on paper--you just dont understand what you preach,and there for have no right what so ever to judge other people-like EMJ.
Your ass should be made to apologize to EMJ,as you know less than he dose about basic induction.
In fact,i think EMJ would run rings around you in basic transformer induction-even though he dose not agree with what TK and myself say about mu little schematic and question.
The one you have screwed up is as basic as it come's,and you had another epic fail.
Say sorry to EMJ,and come back when you have learned the basics of induction.
Brad
-
Wine Glass Questions - Answered
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
The wine glass resonates by cycling energy back and forth between two forms, kinetic energy and potential energy. The instant when the glass is not deformed, the glass is moving at a maximum velocity and all of the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the form of a moving mass. The instant when the glass is at its maximum deformation, the glass has stopped moving and all of the energy is stored as potential energy in the form of a compressed spring. In between these two states, the energy is stored as combination of kinetic energy and potential energy.
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by a combination of the effective moving mass of the glass and the effective stiffness of the glass interacting with each other. The higher the effective moving mass of the glass, the lower the resonant frequency. The higher the effective stiffness the glass, the higher the resonant frequency.
Lol.
-
Wine Glass Questions - Answered
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
The wine glass resonates by cycling energy back and forth between two forms, kinetic energy and potential energy. The instant when the glass is not deformed, the glass is moving at a maximum velocity and all of the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the form of a moving mass. The instant when the glass is at its maximum deformation, the glass has stopped moving and all of the energy is stored as potential energy in the form of a compressed spring. In between these two states, the energy is stored as combination of kinetic energy and potential energy.
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by a combination of the effective moving mass of the glass and the effective stiffness of the glass interacting with each other. The higher the effective moving mass of the glass, the lower the resonant frequency. The higher the effective stiffness the glass, the higher the resonant frequency.
In Other Words: Rap the glass and it twangs at its natural
resonant frequency. If that tone isn't satisfactory, partially
fill the glass with wine and rap it again. ;D
Repeat as necessary. ;)
Drink the wine following each trial. :o
-
No
that was just the first Part [It Must be??}
Miles will Now "strut around like A primordial Peacock" and if he can keep from Dragging his Knuckles on the sidewalk ... he will show how this "BIG REVEAL " will drastically alter Brads MO for working with resonance .
or the 100 other methods shared here "PRIOR" to this "BIG REVEAL"....
Miles please tell Us that wasn't the "Money Shot".......
???
Truly the Point of your "Big Reveal" was to teach something worthy of all this Drama ??
a goal beyond semantics ??
a Bold New Path .....the Honing of the Tool .....?
Bigger... better....stronger ??
Please ??
-
If you have been following along I stated that I will not give any clues to lead people to the correct answer. It's a no-spoon-feeding zone. You either get it right or you don't. I also said that if nobody gets it I will provide the answers next week.
Over the years I have provide a ton of informative explanations so you should take back your words because they are a lie.
Over the years you have provided a lot of words, and occasionally a few pictures or drawings to go along with them. Whether those words and pics can be considered informative explanations or not is purely subjective opinion.
Cheers
-
Tinman, I agree the approaching magnet will give rise, but only to the peak of the positive, at TDC that positive peak then reverses instantly to negative peak ,and as the magnet leaves the negative peak rises back to the zero line.??
Why would the decline of the + peak and the propagation of the negative peak take twice as long when only at TDC?
The only way I can see your sine wave is if the core of the coil is twice as wide as the magnet. This would give time for decline of the positive and the rise of the negative.
Not trying to start an argument just trying to understand.
artv
-
Wine Glass Questions - Answered
The higher the effective moving mass of the glass, the lower the resonant frequency. The higher the effective stiffness the glass, the higher the resonant frequency.
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?--The wine glass resonates by cycling energy back and forth between two forms, kinetic energy and potential energy.
Er-no.
The wine glass will not resonate at all unless it receive's energy from another source.
The instant when the glass is not deformed, the glass is moving at a maximum velocity and all of the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the form of a moving mass.
Er-wrong again.
Some of the energy is dissipated as compression waves-- sound waves MH. ;)
The instant when the glass is at its maximum deformation,
Already included this bit in one of my explanations--which of course you said was wrong.
Quote post 1696-It resonates due to the deformation and reformation of the wine glass from it's rest shape,
the glass has stopped moving and all of the energy is stored as potential energy in the form of a compressed spring. In between these two states, the energy is stored as combination of kinetic energy and potential energy.
Nope-im afraid not. Some of the energy is dissipated as compression waves(sound waves),and some is dissipated as vibration through the table or platform the wine glass is sitting on.
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by a combination of the effective moving mass of the glass and the effective stiffness of the glass interacting with each other.
So you say the resonant frequency is determined by-effective moving mass,and stiffness of the glass.To you this is correct.
I say (post 1696)-The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by the shape,size,and structure of the glass,where you effective moving mass !is! the shape and size,and your !stiffness! is determined by the structure of the glass/crystal that the wine glass is made from;
Lol
MH-you really are a comedian some time's ;)
It was a good laugh-if nothing else.
Brad
-
No
that was just the first Part [It Must be??}
Miles will Now "strut around like A primordial Peacock" and if he can keep from Dragging his Knuckles on the sidewalk ... he will show how this "BIG REVEAL " will drastically alter Brads MO for working with resonance .
or the 100 other methods shared here "PRIOR" to this "BIG REVEAL"....
Miles please tell Us that wasn't the "Money Shot".......
???
Truly the Point of your "Big Reveal" was to teach something worthy of all this Drama ??
a goal beyond semantics ??
a Bold New Path .....the Honing of the Tool .....?
Bigger... better....stronger ??
Please ??
Unfortunately Chet,MH got that wrong as well,as not all the energy is stored as he states. If it was all stored and then returned,and then all stored again,the wine glass would resonate all day without any input energy.
All of what he said(other that his !all energy stored statement!,has already been stated by other members here. MH has just worded it differently.
Anyway--on with the show.
Brad
-
Tinman, I agree the approaching magnet will give rise, but only to the peak of the positive, at TDC that positive peak then reverses instantly to negative peak ,and as the magnet leaves the negative peak rises back to the zero line.??
Why would the decline of the + peak and the propagation of the negative peak take twice as long when only at TDC?
The only way I can see your sine wave is if the core of the coil is twice as wide as the magnet. This would give time for decline of the positive and the rise of the negative.
Not trying to start an argument just trying to understand.
artv
Because complete flux linkage from the PM to the core will happen just before TDC,as the magnetic fields will curve toward the steel core of the inductor(generating coil). The flux linkage will also remain at it's maximum slightly after TDC due to this magnetic field curve. Let's just say that we get total flux linkage between the PM and the steel core at 1* BTC and 1* after TDC. This gives us 2* where the magnetic field in the core is not changing in time. As the magnetic field is not changing in time,then there will be no EMF produced across the generating coil--as per faradays law of induction states.
at TDC that positive peak then reverses instantly to negative peak
That simply cannot happen,as can be seen in the AC wave form. You cannot jump from the positive peak of the EMF wave form,to the negative peak of the EMF wave form--you must pass through the 0 volt value first.
Please do not take any notice of MHs messed up timing diagram and associated wave form,as it is incorrect. Faradays law of induction says that it is incorrect. How MH came up with that one--i will never know.
I will put together a test bed,and i will show you in slow motion the wave form that is produced when a magnet passes a coil. I will show from a 10 oclock starting position to a 12 noon finnish,and then from 12 noon to the 2 oclock position,and then a full sweep from 10 oclock to 2 oclock.
We can watch all this in slow motion on my scope.
Will get it done for you ASAP.
Brad
-
That will be greatly appreciated. Can you do the test with a iron core and just an air core ?
Looking forward to it. Thanks artv
-
That will be greatly appreciated. Can you do the test with a iron core and just an air core ?
Looking forward to it. Thanks artv
I can do that.
So just to clear things up a bit.
when we use 1 single small magnet with a small field,you will(should see a sharp rise in a positive sine EMF (voltage across the coil)as the magnet approaches the coil,and then a sharp decline to the 0 volt line,as the magnet is stopped at the center of the core. As we move the magnet away from the core of the coil,we should see a sharp rise in EMF across the coil,but with a negative sine. I will set the scope up to show the sine being a positive value when the magnet is approaching the core of the coil,and then a negative sine when the magnet is leaving the core of the coil.
When i remove the stopper,and we do a full sweep from 10 oclock to 2 oclock,we will see a sharp transition from peak positive to peak negative--maybe this is what you were talking about?.
But as you will see,the trace on the scope will show that the EMF dose pass through the 0 volt line on the scope,and that will be the point where the magnet is directly inline with the core of the coil.
We will see this more clearly when i do the motor driven generator test,where the frequency will be much higher.
Test setup already half done.
Brad
-
Recap from MHs last blast of insult's,and his !!corrected!! version of my diagram.
From MH--you refuse to acknowledge when you are wrong about something to the point of insanity.
From MH--Look at your ridiculous push-back because you made a half-assed diagram of a magnet on a rotor passing a coil.
From MH--Do the experiment properly, document it properly, analyze the data and come to a conclusion.
From MH--In a nutshell, hold yourself up to a higher standard
From MH--In your diagram the output waveform shown does not match the physical setup shown.
You are not going to invent your own reality here. You made a mistake so suck it up like a man.
From MH--Here you go bubba, I fixed your double mistake. Open your eyes.
Work on your bloody communication skills.
From me to MH-->unfortunately for you MH,that diagram you modified to show the wave form is incorrect.
From MH-->You've gone full bonkers and you are still wanking away
From MH--The proper diagram is for someone like Shylo, because he would be easily confused by your two incorrect diagrams. I uploaded the correct diagram and now you can explain it to him.
Below is MHs !correct timing/and associated sine wave diagram description! as he thinks it should be.
All the abuse above is because he think's i made a mistake,and that his diagram of the timing accurately predicts the sine wave he has shown.
As you can read for your selves ,he insists that im still ---well you can read that part for your selves.
He has stated that he corrected the diagram--not for me,but for a fellow experimenter (shylo),so as he would not be misdirected by my mistakes.
MH also claims that he knows faradays law of induction better than most here,and as we have seen,he has made judgments on many fellow experimenters here.
One that comes to mind is EMJ,where MH repeatedly hounded EMJ over his(MHs) stupid coil question. MH felt that he was good enough to pass judgment on EMJ,due to his (MHs)vast superiority in knowledge over EMJ.
I let you (the members of this forum) decide if MHs timing diagram below accurately predicts the wave form he has shown-->or if it is my diagram (the second one below) that depicts the correct wave form for the timing and path of the magnet.
Brad
-
It is quite funny that you can keep on and on about that magical question you asked EMJ--keep on badgering him about it time after time,and yet you your self cannot understand the very laws you preach--that being faradays law of induction.
You just had to step in,and say my diagram was wrong--even admitting to being picky. You then modified my diagram to show what !you! think is the correct wave form for the !circled! time- path (in orange) for the magnets start and end position to form that sine wave you drew on the diagram.
I agreed with Bill to keep it civil,and so i will not use the words you keep using.
But every time you have tried to correct me on this thread,and call me all sorts of names under the sun,you have repeatedly fell flat on your face,and i have had to continually correct your mistake's,so as those here will learn from correct information.
I cannot believe after all this time--all your insulting smart ass comments toward other experimenters (mostly EMJ),and all your preaching of the laws you love so much,that you have no idea how to show them on a simple diagram--which you did not even have to draw--i drew it for you,and you scribbled some rubbish on it.
You preach faradays law of induction,but you screw it all up when it's comes to showing it on paper--you just dont understand what you preach,and there for have no right what so ever to judge other people-like EMJ.
Your ass should be made to apologize to EMJ,as you know less than he dose about basic induction.
In fact,i think EMJ would run rings around you in basic transformer induction-even though he dose not agree with what TK and myself say about mu little schematic and question.
The one you have screwed up is as basic as it come's,and you had another epic fail.
Say sorry to EMJ,and come back when you have learned the basics of induction.
Brad
LOL
You then modified my diagram to show what !you! think is the correct wave form for the !circled! time- path (in orange) for the magnets start and end position to form that sine wave you drew on the diagram.
You are absolutely unbelievable sometimes. The arrow was circled to remind you that the disk is rotating because your second incorrect diagram showed a zero volt output only.
Your third attempt looks great, and at least you are implicitly admitting your mistakes, but we wouldn't want you to say that lest your brain breaks.
-
Dear Brad.
Attached is a screenshot of a " pinched field " waveform past an unloaded coil.
This was done a couple of years ago under the " eye " of T-1000, we were looking at the Leedskalnin generator.
I managed to get a pair of 6 mm ( 1/4" ) square magnets with the N poles facing into a rotor that was spun by hand. Note the tightness despite the very low rotation speed.
Cheers Grum.
-
In Other Words: Rap the glass and it twangs at its natural
resonant frequency. If that tone isn't satisfactory, partially
fill the glass with wine and rap it again. ;D
Repeat as necessary. ;)
Drink the wine following each trial. :o
Yes, early in the thread you were bursting with attitude when we started to talk about resonance and getting all riled up. And lo and behold, now that you see the answer you realize that you were not in fact able to answer the question correctly. Now that you see the answer you can be a better "resonance researcher."
-
LOL
[/b] because your second incorrect diagram showed a zero volt output only.
Your third attempt looks great, and at least you are implicitly admitting your mistakes, but we wouldn't want you to say that lest your brain breaks.
Dont try and wheasle out of this one MH.
You clearly state Timing diagram,where the orange circle indicates the timing of the magnet.
You are absolutely unbelievable sometimes. The arrow was circled to remind you that the disk is rotating
Nice try MH. The arrow was still there,and so we already know that the disc was rotating.
Your orange circle is the magnets travel --your time in your timing diagram.
My diagram was correct both times,indicating a 0 volt value across the coil when the magnet is at the center of the core of the coil--it is even written on all of the diagrams MH lol.
You done the big face plant this time,and now you are trying your back peddle tactic's, but it's all there for everyone to see. lol
Brad
-
Dear Brad.
Attached is a screenshot of a " pinched field " waveform past an unloaded coil.
This was done a couple of years ago under the " eye " of T-1000, we were looking at the Leedskalnin generator.
I managed to get a pair of 6 mm ( 1/4" ) square magnets with the N poles facing into a rotor that was spun by hand. Note the tightness despite the very low rotation speed.
Cheers Grum.
Yes Grum
That is the wave form you should see when a single magnet with a tight field is passing an inductor.
Brad
-
Wine Glass Questions - Answered
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
The wine glass resonates by cycling energy back and forth between two forms, kinetic energy and potential energy. The instant when the glass is not deformed, the glass is moving at a maximum velocity and all of the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the form of a moving mass. The instant when the glass is at its maximum deformation, the glass has stopped moving and all of the energy is stored as potential energy in the form of a compressed spring. In between these two states, the energy is stored as combination of kinetic energy and potential energy.
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by a combination of the effective moving mass of the glass and the effective stiffness of the glass interacting with each other. The higher the effective moving mass of the glass, the lower the resonant frequency. The higher the effective stiffness the glass, the higher the resonant frequency.
This MH was also a big fail.
As i pointed out earlier,--> all of the energy is stored as kinetic energy
Nope-wrong again.
It is funny how you harped away at me,smokey,and others,when we provided our description's,saying we are all wrong,and that you have it all correct-->and then you go and post a description of the worlds first continuous self resonating wine glass lol.
Brad.
-
Yes, early in the thread you were bursting with attitude when we started to talk about resonance and getting all riled up. And lo and behold, now that you see the answer you realize that you were not in fact able to answer the question correctly. Now that you see the answer you can be a better "resonance researcher."
Not with your answer MH--its wrong in many ways.
You forgot energy input to start with.
You state that !!all!! the energy is stored as kinetic energy ::)
That is also incorrect--again.
And now you take the piss out of SeaMonkey,and tell him now that you have supplied your answers,he will better understand resonance lol.
You really crack me up some times MH--you really do lol.
Brad
-
Dear Brad.
Attached is a screenshot of a " pinched field " waveform past an unloaded coil.
This was done a couple of years ago under the " eye " of T-1000, we were looking at the Leedskalnin generator.
I managed to get a pair of 6 mm ( 1/4" ) square magnets with the N poles facing into a rotor that was spun by hand. Note the tightness despite the very low rotation speed.
Cheers Grum.
Captions added.
-
Tinman,
Why would the decline of the + peak and the propagation of the negative peak take twice as long when only at TDC?
The only way I can see your sine wave is if the core of the coil is twice as wide as the magnet. This would give time for decline of the positive and the rise of the negative.
Not trying to start an argument just trying to understand.
artv
OK,trying to clear this up a bit more.
I agree the approaching magnet will give rise, but only to the peak of the positive, at TDC that positive peak then reverses instantly to negative peak ,and as the magnet leaves the negative peak rises back to the zero line.??
If we use a single magnet (as in my diagram),and that magnet has a tight field,then the transition from peak positive to peak negative will look instantaneous. This will also depend on the speed at which the magnets passes the core of the coil as well.
So yes,in some circumstances ,the transition will look instantaneous,but the voltage must reach a value of 0 when changing in polarity. This value is reached when the magnetic flux through the core is no longer changing in time,and that is the point where the magnet is directly inline/or at it's closest point to the core. This can also change when very high rotational speeds are used on the rotor.
Brad.
-
It would really be helpful if you were open to the idea that there is an opposite condition to the one you are describing. Specifically, you make reference to TDC being zero volts, I appreciate this as do most, but as you well know this is text book, everyone can read the same over and over for themselves. The opposite condition, namely, where TDC is the point of maximum opposition to change in flux, the point of maximum induced potential, is not discussed in the literature! An open minded researcher like yourself would be wise to leave room for the possibility of such, and not slam the door shut each time you refer to coils and magnets and their geometric relations and interactions.
Systems configured as we presently practice, are in my opinion half of the equation. Folk don't seem to realize that, nor really care, as apparently it's more important to defend ones position.
My two cent!
Regards
where TDC is the point of maximum opposition to change in flux,
What is in opposition to the change in flux when the coil is open,and no current is flowing?-other than eddy currents in the core of course.
the point of maximum induced potential
The point of maximum induced potential is when the magnet is just before TDC.
Erfinder--stop being so bloody cryptic lol
Lets start a thread,and get the ball rolling ;)
Brad
-
Tinman, I agree the approaching magnet will give rise, but only to the peak of the positive, at TDC that positive peak then reverses instantly to negative peak ,and as the magnet leaves the negative peak rises back to the zero line.??
Why would the decline of the + peak and the propagation of the negative peak take twice as long when only at TDC?
The only way I can see your sine wave is if the core of the coil is twice as wide as the magnet. This would give time for decline of the positive and the rise of the negative.
Not trying to start an argument just trying to understand.
artv
Shylo
Here is the first video. The second will be a motorized version,with a timing trace on the scope,along with a strobe on the rotor.
But for now,this is the best i could get it--hope it helps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7F3JWdsllc
Brad
-
Whoops! The scope trace travels from left to right on the display and the rotor is rotating clockwise so Brad got the colours backwards. However, he copied my marked-up diagram and corrected himself after two tries and got it nearly 100% correct. Nary a peep about his mistakes though.
Me: "The arrow was circled to remind you that the disk is rotating"
You clearly state Timing diagram,where the orange circle indicates the timing of the magnet.
That's a ridiculous thing to say, you are shamelessly lying.
You done the big face plant this time,and now you are trying your back peddle tactic's, but it's all there for everyone to see. lol
Your face is melting like wax while Brainfry's mind experiences thermal runaway. I can see the smoke rising from your head as we speak. You can't even admit that your fist two diagrams were wrong, even though you then turned around on a dime and did an exact copy of the diagram that I marked up. You are morally bankrupt and a joke.
i drew it for you,and you scribbled some rubbish on it.
Your brain is glowing now like hot coals.
MileHigh
-
In Other Words: Rap the glass and it twangs at its natural
resonant frequency. If that tone isn't satisfactory, partially
fill the glass with wine and rap it again. ;D
Repeat as necessary. ;)
Drink the wine following each trial. :o
Whoops, in my haste in my original reply I thought that I was responding to Brad.
Shame on you for your trash talk Mr. Sailor. My answers to the two questions are a serious little mini technical treatise. Nobody got it, nobody could make a succinct answer that was correct and truly answered the questions properly and identified the two energy storage components and two variables associated with a resonating wine glass.. And you can interpret what the implications of that are for yourself.
-
Hope I get you before, Get rid of the stopper block and let it rotate. Stopping the magnet like that changes everything.
I think that you have to bounce it back and forth.
Thanks for the video , To me it shows only a quarter of the wave?
artv
-
No
that was just the first Part [It Must be??}
Miles will Now "strut around like A primordial Peacock" and if he can keep from Dragging his Knuckles on the sidewalk ... he will show how this "BIG REVEAL " will drastically alter Brads MO for working with resonance .
or the 100 other methods shared here "PRIOR" to this "BIG REVEAL"....
Miles please tell Us that wasn't the "Money Shot".......
???
Truly the Point of your "Big Reveal" was to teach something worthy of all this Drama ??
a goal beyond semantics ??
a Bold New Path .....the Honing of the Tool .....?
Bigger... better....stronger ??
Please ??
Chet, the question was serious and the answer was serious. Nobody got it, so you think about that. Yes, the drama is crazy and seeing people break down and compromise their integrity to the extreme is not something that I find fun, but it is what it is. It's actually somewhat shocking. Some people have claustrophobia and if they are put in tight spaces then they go completely nuts, and other people go nuts for different reasons. Don't buy used cars from some of the people around here.
-
Over the years you have provided a lot of words, and occasionally a few pictures or drawings to go along with them. Whether those words and pics can be considered informative explanations or not is purely subjective opinion.
Cheers
Kiss my aura Dora right here on the floora. - Frank Zappa
-
Not really MH,, and what do the implications of that mean??
Your questions were answered,, correctly,, but you failed to grasp the answers,, and now you throw out this duff package of junk?
The implications are that MH does not have a full understanding of resonance, only his myopic view.
I already figured that the "answers" would be useless,, it is nice being right from time to time :)
Your posting is a lie and it is gratuitous nonsense. It's your posting that is useless. The questions were never answered correctly by anyone. You are selling out your soul to dumb-ass peer pressure. You are scared.
You are a drone in the Anti-Knowledge League, George Orwell would be proud of you.
-
Er-no.
The wine glass will not resonate at all unless it receive's energy from another source.
Er-wrong again.
Some of the energy is dissipated as compression waves-- sound waves MH. ;)
Already included this bit in one of my explanations--which of course you said was wrong.
Quote post 1696-It resonates due to the deformation and reformation of the wine glass from it's rest shape,
Nope-im afraid not. Some of the energy is dissipated as compression waves(sound waves),and some is dissipated as vibration through the table or platform the wine glass is sitting on.
So you say the resonant frequency is determined by-effective moving mass,and stiffness of the glass.To you this is correct.
I say (post 1696)-The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by the shape,size,and structure of the glass,where you effective moving mass !is! the shape and size,and your !stiffness! is determined by the structure of the glass/crystal that the wine glass is made from;
Lol
MH-you really are a comedian some time's ;)
It was a good laugh-if nothing else.
Brad
In the quoted posting above, you make yourself look like a fool with scrambled brains. It's enough to make a grown man cry.
Er-no. The wine glass will not resonate at all unless it receive's energy from another source.
There is nothing in the question about the wine glass receiving energy. Is this a failure on your part to think?
Er-wrong again. Some of the energy is dissipated as compression waves-- sound waves MH.
Er-wrong again my ass. The question does not ask about energy dissipation, it just asks how the wine glass resonates. Don't you dare get into one of your insane "car on a hill" arguments. It's yet another failure on your part to think.
Already included this bit in one of my explanations--which of course you said was wrong.
Quote post 1696-It resonates due to the deformation and reformation of the wine glass from it's rest shape,
You never answered the two questions completely and properly.
Nope-im afraid not. Some of the energy is dissipated as compression waves(sound waves),and some is dissipated as vibration through the table or platform the wine glass is sitting on.
No, I'm afraid SO. You are stepping outside the bounds of the question again. It's nonsensical idiocy like that that would get you sliced to pieces in no time on a serious electronics or physics forum. They would think you were nuts.
So you say the resonant frequency is determined by-effective moving mass,and stiffness of the glass.To you this is correct.
I say (post 1696)-The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by the shape,size,and structure of the glass,where you effective moving mass !is! the shape and size,and your !stiffness! is determined by the structure of the glass/crystal that the wine glass is made from;
But you don't actually say the correct thing in your answer, you are just re-spinning your words in an attempt to make them fit. I don't give a rat's ass if "the structure of the glass/crystal that the wine glass is made from" will determine the stiffness. You did not say stiffness and it was never in your mind. Stop the BS.
You completely failed to answer the two questions, mister "resonance researcher." You were all pumped up with attitude at the beginning of this thread about resonance and as it turned out your puffed up chest was a fake because you could not articulate how a wine glass resonates, or how its resonant frequency is determined.
MH-you really are a comedian some time's
Based on what we have seen, you would be the laughing stock on any serious electronics forum. The Tinman is only cool when he is in his cocoon on this forum. You would be eaten alive elsewhere. That's the harsh truth.
MileHigh
-
Unfortunately Chet,MH got that wrong as well,as not all the energy is stored as he states. If it was all stored and then returned,and then all stored again,the wine glass would resonate all day without any input energy.
All of what he said(other that his !all energy stored statement!,has already been stated by other members here. MH has just worded it differently.
I will repeat that the question was not asking about any damping of the resonance. The question specifically asked for short simple answers. Keep it simple, stupid.
I carefully watched all of the replies and nobody got it. Ironically enough, early on in the discussion Magluvin said something like "if you change from regular glass to lead glass then the glass will be heavier and the resonant frequency will decrease." So he answered one-half of one of the questions but it flew right by and nobody paid any attention to it afterwards. Half of of the puzzle for one question was solved by Magluvin and nobody recognized it and tried to take that information and run with it and arrive at a correct answer for one of the two questions.
-
I know this is getting stale, but this is laughable:
Please do not take any notice of MHs messed up timing diagram and associated wave form,as it is incorrect. Faradays law of induction says that it is incorrect. How MH came up with that one--i will never know.
FIRST THE EGG, THEN THE CHICKEN.
-
Well, that was quite a ride and it revealed a lot about the dark side of human nature.
What's interesting is that I lucked out on my wine glass question in the sense that you can't just plug the question into Google and in 0.012 seconds get the perfect answer spat back at you. You actually have to know your stuff and apply your knowledge to successfully answer the two questions. Google is not going to readily spoon feed an answer back to you. And that frustrated our contenders, I am sure.
Ironically enough, a resonating wine glass is just a mechanical version of an LC tank circuit. L = the spring and associated stiffness of the glass, and C = the glass itself and associated mass of the glass. Nothing could be simpler, and nobody got it.
-
Coming from you MH I will take that as a compliment!
I do not lie MH,, it takes more effort to lie than I am willing to put forward.
You lied and you spat out junk - the darker side of human nature revealed.
-
Her are my answers again:
Wine Glass Questions - Answered
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
The wine glass resonates by cycling energy back and forth between two forms, kinetic energy and potential energy. The instant when the glass is not deformed, the glass is moving at a maximum velocity and all of the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the form of a moving mass. The instant when the glass is at its maximum deformation, the glass has stopped moving and all of the energy is stored as potential energy in the form of a compressed spring. In between these two states, the energy is stored as combination of kinetic energy and potential energy.
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by a combination of the effective moving mass of the glass and the effective stiffness of the glass interacting with each other. The higher the effective moving mass of the glass, the lower the resonant frequency. The higher the effective stiffness the glass, the higher the resonant frequency.
Now look at this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XggxeuFDaDU
Then ask yourself these questions:
How does the bridge resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of the bridge determined?
Are there any light bulbs going off in people's heads? Who has the courage to say something positive? Or are you all just submissive sheep and afraid to say that you learned something interesting and useful that can be applied to other situations because Big Bad Brad is watching?
-
@MH
GFYS. Your mouth extends far beyond your little brain squeeze and I understand that causes some to see no further then their noses. Could say more but you do not deserve it. I'll just let you keep fooling yourself and find out the truth when the standard model falls. Because it will fall. You are just blabbering about on borrowed time. All constructs meet their end eventually so you still can play the big man until you can't anymore. hahaha
@tinman
So many vids. Which to talk about. Who knows. During the major ruckus I have done a few days of JTing with a good 6-7 different coils and all do different effects. I will now build a coil just for the JT.
About your last vid. I suggest you take the coil and now try it sideways against the magnet swing instead of having it TDC to the core centered have it TDC to the side of the coil so the magnet cuts across the vertical wires of the coil. I downloaded your video to see it in slow motion with my virtualdub program. In slow motion you see things that you cannot see at normal speeds. I find that this is one of the most wasteful methods of passing a magnet beside a coil as you showed with the coil placed with its circle facing the passing magnet. If you saw from how far the magnet can "influence" the coil, you will realize that before it gets even closer it is already influencing the other side of the round facing coil and this produces so much cancellation that this is why you get that waveform you see. It is the result of a great war between two sides of the same coil being inversely influenced at the same time. Your waveform shows the winner of that fight.
I think you are better to have a complete cooperation of only one side of the coil then to have it face on with two inversed forces so just by pivoting the coil 90 degrees and pass the magnet on its side.
I could start talking about exactly what is happening in the coil and discuss how can electron flow do this type of effect with a magical field influence but since you guys are still in "it's the field" mode, I won't say more. hahaha
wattsup
PS: @MH - For all the grief you gave everyone here about your f'n wine glass, for absolutely nothing, so just shove it where the sun don't shine. You have now lost my respect. You are simply disgusting to have put everyone through all this crap for a bullshit explanation. You need help.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg480449#msg480449 date=1460497713]
MileHigh
In the quoted posting above, you make yourself look like a fool with scrambled brains. It's enough to make a grown man cry.
The truth always hurt's some MH.
I feel your pain.
There is nothing in the question about the wine glass receiving energy. Is this a failure on your part to think?
The question is--how dose a wine glass resonate--what is the mechanism?
Well the very first thing that happens MH,is it receives energy from an out side source--the very first part of the mechanism MH. No energy input-no resonating.
Er-wrong again my ass. The question does not ask about energy dissipation, it just asks how the wine glass resonates. Don't you dare get into one of your insane "car on a hill" arguments. It's yet another failure on your part to think.
Sorry MH,but you bought the energy thing into this your self. Quote !!!ALL!!! the energy is then stored as kinetic energy.--->No MH,some is dissipated--all energy is not (NOT) stored as kinetic energy-->you got it wrong.
You never answered the two questions completely and properly.
As it turns out,your two questions were answered more completely and correctly than you did in your big reveal lol.-->You missed two of the most important part--energy received--energy dissipated lol.
No, I'm afraid SO. You are stepping outside the bounds of the question again. It's nonsensical idiocy like that that would get you sliced to pieces in no time on a serious electronics or physics forum. They would think you were nuts.
I think most here are starting to see who is nut's here MH.
No resonant systems around an ICE
No resonant systems within an ICE
Your silly J/FET device makes no sense
And so on,and so on,-----
But you don't actually say the correct thing in your answer, you are just re-spinning your words in an attempt to make them fit. I don't give a rat's ass if "the structure of the glass/crystal that the wine glass is made from" will determine the stiffness. You did not say stiffness and it was never in your mind. Stop the BS.
Stiffness is the incorrect term to use. Elasticity would be the correct term to use,and guess what MH,i used that very word to explain your questions many many posts back lol.
You completely failed to answer the two questions, mister "resonance researcher." You were all pumped up with attitude at the beginning of this thread about resonance and as it turned out your puffed up chest was a fake because you could not articulate how a wine glass resonates, or how its resonant frequency is determined.
Sorry MH,but myself,smokey and others gave more accurate descriptions than your big reveal did,as we included energy received,and energy dissipation,and used correct terms like elasticity in stead of !!stiffness!!.
Based on what we have seen, you would be the laughing stock on any serious electronics forum. The Tinman is only cool when he is in his cocoon on this forum. You would be eaten alive elsewhere. That's the harsh truth.
Based on what we have seen,you are delusional.
This thread is full of your mistakes,and i bet you are hard pressed to find one instant where you have had to correct me,as most of the thread is me correcting you--and even you correcting your self lol.
You have your self a nice day now MH.
Brad
-
Brad:
Stiffness is the better term to use, look it up.
This thread showed the darker side of your character and it's not pretty at all. You did not answer the questions properly, but hopefully now you are wiser. You lied continuously, it was just gross and dispiriting to see that happening. Somebody spoke the truth to you and didn't stroke you and you had one good crazy-ass freakout. You are so sloppy that your latest attempt at the rotor diagram still has two mistakes in it.
When you went nuts on me and tried to claim I was wrong all the time, then you got me getting really real about you.
You go and open a book Brad and have a nice day. At least now you know what resonance is, and you keep on keeping yourself happy by making flaky sloppy clips about energy from magnets. "More alligator clips," that's what I heard Will Ferrel say. Stay comfortably numb. Stay perfect.
MileHigh
-
Webby:
You turned dark and creepy quite a while back in this thread.
Wattsup:
You will be fantasizing about your stuff for a long long while. And you got some push back. "Half-coil syndrome" is simply ridiculous.
The discussion about the resonating wine glass was useful. The delay was to see if anybody was up to figuring it out themselves and it was also Brad's karma getting back to him.
Anybody that says disparaging comments about the wine glass explanation is just caving into peer group pressure because you know it is right. And that's pretty sad.
-
Tensile strength I believe is the proper term.
Mags
-
Miles
How does your whineglass Karma lesson change Tinman's methods for tuning to resonance ?
How could this lesson improve or change his technique ??
??
-
Tensile strength I believe is the proper term.
Mags
No, it is elasticity as Brad has said...measured by Young's Modulus.
Bill
-
Miles
How does your whineglass Karma lesson change Tinman's methods for tuning to resonance ?
How could this lesson improve or change his technique ??
??
You have to be aware that there are always two components to think about when it comes to resonance. Just saying "it resonates" doesn't cut it. Maximum resonance amplitude when you factor in losses equals a maximum power burn-off. Where and why is the energy being lost, by what method?
Smoky talks about "making your Joule Thief resonate at the same resonance frequency of the toroid." How does the toroid resonate, what are the two components? What are the magnitudes of the variables associated with the two components? If one of the components is a five nanofarad capacitance, how much energy can be realistically stored in a five nanofarad capacitor? If the resonant frequency is very high, that will naturally filter out any amplitude in the variables because all components eventually become subject to low pass filtering which reduces all high frequency amplitudes. So how much energy can realistically be stored in a self-resonating toroidal core that forms part of a Joule Thief? Then if the Joule Thief itself is "supposed" to resonate, and that is supposed to be at the same resonant frequency of the toroid and that is a very high frequency, then this is what follows out of that: There are two energy storing components and two variables associated with the toroid, and two energy storing components and two variables associated with the Joule Thief windings. Those four components and four variables that are supposed to "sing together." How do you measure them, how do you see them interacting? Take one step back, plot the four variables for the four components on a timing diagram by hand and try to construct your "magic resonance." How much energy is there in each tank and why should two resonant tanks do something special? Assuming the two tanks are running at a very high frequency, will they spontaneously gen-lock or will they just beat? If they just beat then "making the two resonant frequencies the same" will be impossible for all practical intents and purposes.
The point of the exercise is to be conscious that there isn't "just 'resonance.'" There are two energy storage components and two variables and you have to be aware of what is going on. Just twirling pots and "looking for a big increase in amplitude" is not going to cut it. Prove me wrong if you disagree.
Resonance is an explicit physical process and on your bench if you are going to be "researching resonance" then you should be aware of all aspects of that physical process. Clearly, everyone that tried to answer the two questions either only got half an answer, or they said nonsensical gibberish, or they wrote a small book that was ridiculously complicated and philosophical. Nobody just laid it on the line for the wine glass because they clearly did not understand the simple process that was taking place, and it is the same simple process that takes place for all forms of resonance. It always has the same signature.
Instead, we saw a grotesque spectacle of ignorance, stupidity, lies, anger, willful ignorance, willful stupidity, gross exaggeration, misdirection, and petty bullshit. We saw everything except a nice clear answer to the two questions that demonstrated that the person answering had a clear understanding and a command of the subject matter. Instead of a fun challenge and an opportunity to learn, we saw garbage and the worst behaviours coming out in people.
MileHigh
-
Webby:
As far as your lame attempt at answering your own questions without repeating what had already been posted,,, just have another googlegasm.
Lame my ass, you are still being an ass and not telling the truth about my answer. Go find a single posting from someone that answers both questions correctly. Like I already said before, just a Google copy/paste does not count.
The first person to go to the dark side was Brad. If you had a spine you would have called him out for his outrageous behaviour a long time ago.
MileHigh
-
No, it is elasticity as Brad has said...measured by Young's Modulus.
Bill
Stiffness factors in the shape and size of the object being considered. The correct word is stiffness.
But in this case, just getting the concept across is what counts, that's what's important. In that sense the choice of term, springiness, stiffness, elasticity, is not so critical, understanding what is going on with resonance is what is critical.
How does a bell resonate, what is the mechanism?
Answering, "You hit a bell at it's resonant frequency and it starts to resonate" is not an answer. It's a bloody joke that shows that you have no clue what you are talking about.
-
No, it is elasticity as Brad has said...measured by Young's Modulus.
Bill
Ah. I was thinking of the old modulus. ;) Im sure everything has elasticity by some measure. But isnt it the tensile strength that determines that measure? Just of the top of my head here, not looking anything up on that. Yet. ;)
Mags
-
That glass in the glass breaking video had shown some 'extraordinary' elasticity. ;D
Mags
-
Just a comment on Brad's post #1807.
I said, "As I alluded to before, the "phase shift" is not even real - there is no phase shift. It's just an abstraction we use to make it easier to describe sinusoidal-type waveforms you see on your scope display."
Brad thinks this is really funny and makes a long posting mocking me for several times where I mention "phase shift" in my postings.
Read again, "As I alluded to before, the "phase shift" is not even real - there is no phase shift. It's just an abstraction we use to make it easier to describe sinusoidal-type waveforms you see on your scope display."
I am clearly stating that the term is in use and I clearly have no problem with it because I use it myself. The point being that if you scope the current through the primary of a transformer and then look at the open circuit voltage on the secondary, the voltage on the secondary is instantaneous relative to the "excitation signal" of the current in the primary and happening in real time. There is no true "phase shift" if you interpret "phase shift" as meaning "shifted in time." We only describe the voltage output on the secondary as "appearing to be shifted in time" but in fact the output is an instantaneous output and not shifted in time.
That's just a subtlety that I wanted to mention because I thought it might add some value to the PW/EMJ discussion.
MileHigh
-
Ah. I was thinking of the old modulus. ;) Im sure everything has elasticity by some measure. But isnt it the tensile strength that determines that measure? Just of the top of my head here, not looking anything up on that. Yet. ;)
Mags
No, tensile strength is measured by pulling. Then, there is torsional strength which is measured by twisting, and compressive strength measured by pushing together. Elasticity is the ability/property of a material to resist distortion under stress and to return to its original shape after that stress is no longer present. That stress can come in the form of the above mentioned pulling, twisting and compressing or a combination thereof.
Bill
-
No, tensile strength is measured by pulling. Then, there is torsional strength which is measured by twisting, and compressive strength measured by pushing together. Elasticity is the ability/property of a material to resist distortion under stress and to return to its original shape after that stress is no longer present. That stress can come in the form of the above mentioned pulling, twisting and compressing or a combination thereof.
Bill
Ok. sounds right
I was thinking like this....
If we had a thin layer of carbon fiber strip, resin and cure. It would be a bit bendable as the thickness from side to side is thin. The thicker the lairs become, the stiffer the strip will be due to the outside bend would need to stretch for the bend to occur. And the carbon doesnt want to stretch due to tensile strength. So higher freq. But you are right. Carbon has very little elasticity, but still necessary for it to bend.
Hmm. just a thought. If we had a 1/8in strip of layers of carbon fiber resin cured, it will bend, but very little before it breaks. Like glass or the wine glass. So as we had seen in the vid, that wine glass had some crazy amount of distortion for glass, as we know it in normal life. So, maybe that 1/8in carbon strip would also bend a lot further when bending at say its resonant freq before breaking. If so, could we say that at resonance we can enhance elasticity? It would certainly seem so with the wine glass. Just try to physically distort it that much at any freq other than the resonant freq. I wonder if the wine glass gets warm oscillating like that?
Mags
-
Just a comment on Brad's post #1807.
I said, "As I alluded to before, the "phase shift" is not even real - there is no phase shift. It's just an abstraction we use to make it easier to describe sinusoidal-type waveforms you see on your scope display."
Brad thinks this is really funny and makes a long posting mocking me for several times where I mention "phase shift" in my postings.
Read again, "As I alluded to before, the "phase shift" is not even real - there is no phase shift. It's just an abstraction we use to make it easier to describe sinusoidal-type waveforms you see on your scope display."
I am clearly stating that the term is in use and I clearly have no problem with it because I use it myself. The point being that if you scope the current through the primary of a transformer and then look at the open circuit voltage on the secondary, the voltage on the secondary is instantaneous relative to the "excitation signal" of the current in the primary and happening in real time. There is no true "phase shift" if you interpret "phase shift" as meaning "shifted in time." We only describe the voltage output on the secondary as "appearing to be shifted in time" but in fact the output is an instantaneous output and not shifted in time.
That's just a subtlety that I wanted to mention because I thought it might add some value to the PW/EMJ discussion.
MileHigh
Wrong again.
There is such thing as phase shift,and i gave you pacific meanings for the term phase shif-which happens to fit perfectly with transformer voltage and curret relationships.
You need some schooling MH- truly you do.
More garbage from you in order to cause incorrect understandings of simple actions.
Brad
-
Wrong again.
There is such thing as phase shift,and i gave you pacific meanings for the term phase shif-which happens to fit perfectly with transformer voltage and curret relationships.
You need some schooling MH- truly you do.
More garbage from you in order to cause incorrect understandings of simple actions.
Brad
You are going to play the wrong again game again when you are wrong again?
Yes indeed, a signal can truly be phase shifted and truly displaced in time by things like delay lines and other stuff. In the digital domain it can be done with shift registers. In the ancient computer days it was done with a long horizontal tube half-filled with mercury. Or if the same signal travels through one meter of coax and 20 kilometers of coax, then there will be a phase shift between the two signals where they are truly displaced in time relative to one another.
But when you look at the secondary output of the transformer as compared to the primary current when the primary current is a sinusoidal waveform, then the secondary signal is not displaced in time. If the primary current waveform is a sine wave then the secondary voltage waveform will be an instantaneous cosine wave. They are not displaced in time at all, they are just different waveforms where it is convenient to say that they are "phase shifted" relative to each other.
All that I am saying is that there are two meanings for "phase shift" but like the brutal abrasive wanker you are, you have another good wank and say that I am "wrong again." Between the two postings I made about this topic I suggest that you reread both of them enough times so that it sinks in and you understand what I am saying.
MileHigh
-
The tinman knows that I haven't got a clue
and I know the tinman hasn't got a clue.
John.
-
(http://overunity.com/Themes/default/images/post/xx.gif) Re: Joule Thief 101 (http://overunity.com/8341/joule-thief-101/msg480441/#msg480441) « Reply #1876 on: April 12, 2016, 10:51:30 PM » Quote (http://overunity.com/8341/joule-thief-101/1875/post/quote/480441/last_msg/480510/)
Hope I get you before, Get rid of the stopper block and let it rotate. Stopping the magnet like that changes everything.
I think that you have to bounce it back and forth.
Thanks for the video , To me it shows only a quarter of the wave?
artv
Tinman, I want to apologize for this post ,I made it without viewing the whole video. I was interrupted by a surprise visit from the grand kids.
Thank-you for the demo it seems the most drastic change occurs just between in front of TDC and just after.
My current setup is 2 horizontal magnet rotors spaced apart to allow me to insert a coil. Also when the coil is in place the lower rotor has a north pole magnet centered on one side of the coil, while the upper rotor is a north pole centered over the other side of the coil.(eliminates the drag effect)
Do you think this will still be the same wave form?
Thanks artv
-
You are going to play the wrong again game again when you are wrong again?
But when you look at the secondary output of the transformer as compared to the primary current when the primary current is a sinusoidal waveform, then the secondary signal is not displaced in time. If the primary current waveform is a sine wave then the secondary voltage waveform will be an instantaneous cosine wave. They are not displaced in time at all, they are just different waveforms where it is convenient to say that they are "phase shifted" relative to each other.
All that I am saying is that there are two meanings for "and say that I am "wrong again." Between the two postings I made about this topic I suggest that you reread both of them enough times so that it sinks in and you understand what I am saying.
MileHigh
but like the brutal abrasive wanker you are, you have another good wank
Well i can see that you did not agree to Bills request to stop with the vulgarity--you really are a disgusting old man. You really do turn into something else when you are wrong.
Yes indeed, a signal can truly be phase shifted and truly displaced in time by things like delay lines and other stuff. In the digital domain it can be done with shift registers. In the ancient computer days it was done with a long horizontal tube half-filled with mercury. Or if the same signal travels through one meter of coax and 20 kilometers of coax, then there will be a phase shift between the two signals where they are truly displaced in time relative to one another.
This is what i mean--your limited understanding regarding phase,and what it is.
There dose not have to be an overall time difference for each cycle for one thing to be out of phase with another. You need to go back to basics MH--perhaps review two children swinging on two swings of the same kind,but where one child starts swinging first,and the second starts when the first has reached the point of 1/2 a cycle. The child that started his swing first will always be say 2 seconds in front,and there phase can be said to be 180* out,but where there cycle time is still the same for each cycle. When the first child stops swinging at his starting point,the second child will not reach that point for another two second,but still there cycle were exactly the same.
You say there is no time difference,and so there is no real phase shift--well that is just plain wrong--incorrect MH--try again.
P.S--Is minnie your son?--just asking :D
Brad
-
The tinman knows that I haven't got a clue
John.
The tinman knows that I haven't got a clue
This much is true.
and I know the tinman hasn't got a clue.
Lol-again minnie ;D ::)
All you have to do now,is find something in this thread that i was wrong about.
As you have admitted to not having a clue,how will you know i was wrong when you find it?.
No point in asking daddy(MH),as he has got almost everything wrong in this thread--he even managed to balls up his resonant wine glass fiasco that we all waited 4 to 8 weeks for :D
I was actually expecting something good,but it was a big let down when i read his answer's,and it seems so for most everyone else here on this thread.
It's all good to say some one dosnt have a clue,but you have to back up your claim--as i have with MHs mistakes in this thread.
Brad
-
(http://overunity.com/Themes/default/images/post/xx.gif) Re: Joule Thief 101 (http://overunity.com/8341/joule-thief-101/msg480441/#msg480441) « Reply #1876 on: April 12, 2016, 10:51:30 PM » Quote (http://overunity.com/8341/joule-thief-101/1875/post/quote/480441/last_msg/480510/)
Hope I get you before, Get rid of the stopper block and let it rotate. Stopping the magnet like that changes everything.
I think that you have to bounce it back and forth.
Thanks for the video , To me it shows only a quarter of the wave?
artv
Thanks artv
Tinman, I want to apologize for this post ,I made it without viewing the whole video. I was interrupted by a surprise visit from the grand kids.
All good Shylo--i have many grand kids of my own lol.
Thank-you for the demo it seems the most drastic change occurs just between in front of TDC and just after.
With a single magnet like in the setup,where the field is very concentrated ,then yes,we will see very sharp rises and falls in the wave form. If we have a rotor with nice wide fields with even transitions,then we will get a nice AC wave form.
My current setup is 2 horizontal magnet rotors spaced apart to allow me to insert a coil. Also when the coil is in place the lower rotor has a north pole magnet centered on one side of the coil, while the upper rotor is a north pole centered over the other side of the coil.(eliminates the drag effect)
Do you think this will still be the same wave form?
If your coil is nice and evenly wound,and your magnets are of the same size and strength,and pass the coil at the same speed and at the same distance away from the coil,then there will be no wave form --no EMF will be produced across the coil.
Brad
-
I know this is getting stale, but this is laughable:
FIRST THE EGG, THEN THE CHICKEN.
Lol--reverse the red and blue.
It's the same wave form as yours ;D
If mine is wrong,then so is yours MH--Doh.
Brad
-
Dear Bill.
How many more posts are you going to tolerate with the obscene language ?
All should remember that OU. Com is open to all ages, my grandchildren look in from time to time because their " wacky " grandad posts occasionally.
I'm sure dear Groundloop would have stepped in a lot sooner!
I'm no prude but...... Enough is enough.
Kind regards, Grum.
-
@MH
You have no damn clue of what I am talking about yet you have the gal to call it "spintronics magic". So let me see Mr. Reality KnowitAll, provide these 5 simple requirements.
1) Prove to me a magnetic field exists.
2) Prove to me field collapse exists.
3) Prove to me electron flow exists.
4) Prove to me current flow exists.
5) Prove to me flux exists.
So how long or better still how many lifetimes will you need to prove these. But realize that proof has to be irrefutable. So go ahead BigMan with a big stick ready to push it on any who does not concord to your learned illusions of effects. hahaha
Your hell hole is so well furnished you think it's actually a home. It has all the trimmings, all the excuses you have digested and now think is reality is actually a base of illogical constructs that have been sold to you via those "authorities" that you consider to be equal to your own religion. You have sucked it all up and then closed the most important part of your brain, the part that thinks.
It is your Standard EE that is on a partial pass for now. But that pass it about to terminate and soon you will be seeing something that your little brain will not be able to cope with. Truth. Truth that will then confound your existence because you will then realize that all these years you, (even my Dad) and anyone else in the EE spectrum has been sold a bill of lies. Oh the lies work indeed but they were designed to keep us stupid to the real facts. Blind but functional, that's what your EE is today.
So keep sucking on your field and keep encouraging all those electrons to move in that one direction and keep believing that what you are trying to teach is actually real. hahahahaha
But before you take EE to the bank, maybe you should study for yourself how your EE formulas were derived. What brain power was used by the men of those days. What preconceptions were used to become a base of observation of their effects. Of the 5 above, none were left out. All UNPROVEN but all used in every single formula EE has to offer. So what do you say about a science that bases its concepts on so much presumption, yet you treat is more factual then your own life.
You got sucked in. We got sucked in. They got sucked in but all think life is grand. So how many more generations do you want to preserve this illusion we call knowledge. Knowledge of what. Knowledge of lies.
What I am doing now is mountains harder then anything you have ever done. You just keep drinking your EE Kool-Aid and keep thinking you know what our reality is. You have the same lazy mind that only looks to turn to a page in your book, because if it is in your book, it has to be real. You have zero ability to question your truths but that is inbred laziness of the mind because the basic observations have always been right in front of your nose. You just can't see it because your eyes are trained to disregard the same concepts that have been paying for your livelihood for so long. You got paid to dream.
This is supposed to be an OU forum destined to accomplish or design devices producing OU. This will never come from the EE constructs. Nothing in EE will ever bring us closer to OU. It will only distract us and push us further down into a hole of continuous illusions and you are just the perfect vector to keep the hole deep and slippery.
The HCS I put forward was a test. A test to see how sick the EE patients really are. With this one simple observation and your remarks, this is just standard. So show me your bench that proves HCS is wrong. Such a simple effect. Just prove this is wrong. What? Oh I forgot you never do bench work. You only talk and insult your way to push your EE Kool-Aid like a drug pusher. So that is your forté.
Nice model. You take your present construct that has no proof of anything real and you flog this to the masses that work towards OU. F you man. You are the sick one. Don't ever talk to me again. You are just bad news for any OUers alive.
wattsup
-
@MH
You have no damn clue of what I am talking about yet you have the gal to call it "spintronics magic". So let me see Mr. Reality KnowitAll, provide these 5 simple requirements.
So how long or better still how many lifetimes will you need to prove these. But realize that proof has to be irrefutable. So go ahead BigMan with a big stick ready to push it on any who does not concord to your learned illusions of effects. hahaha
Your hell hole is so well furnished you think it's actually a home. It has all the trimmings, all the excuses you have digested and now think is reality is actually a base of illogical constructs that have been sold to you via those "authorities" that you consider to be equal to your own religion. You have sucked it all up and then closed the most important part of your brain, the part that thinks.
It is your Standard EE that is on a partial pass for now. But that pass it about to terminate and soon you will be seeing something that your little brain will not be able to cope with. Truth. Truth that will then confound your existence because you will then realize that all these years you, (even my Dad) and anyone else in the EE spectrum has been sold a bill of lies. Oh the lies work indeed but they were designed to keep us stupid to the real facts. Blind but functional, that's what your EE is today.
So keep sucking on your field and keep encouraging all those electrons to move in that one direction and keep believing that what you are trying to teach is actually real. hahahahaha
But before you take EE to the bank, maybe you should study for yourself how your EE formulas were derived. What brain power was used by the men of those days. What preconceptions were used to become a base of observation of their effects. Of the 5 above, none were left out. All UNPROVEN but all used in every single formula EE has to offer. So what do you say about a science that bases its concepts on so much presumption, yet you treat is more factual then your own life.
You got sucked in. We got sucked in. They got sucked in but all think life is grand. So how many more generations do you want to preserve this illusion we call knowledge. Knowledge of what. Knowledge of lies.
What I am doing now is mountains harder then anything you have ever done. You just keep drinking your EE Kool-Aid and keep thinking you know what our reality is. You have the same lazy mind that only looks to turn to a page in your book, because if it is in your book, it has to be real. You have zero ability to question your truths but that is inbred laziness of the mind because the basic observations have always been right in front of your nose. You just can't see it because your eyes are trained to disregard the same concepts that have been paying for your livelihood for so long. You got paid to dream.
This is supposed to be an OU forum destined to accomplish or design devices producing OU. This will never come from the EE constructs. Nothing in EE will ever bring us closer to OU. It will only distract us and push us further down into a hole of continuous illusions and you are just the perfect vector to keep the hole deep and slippery.
The HCS I put forward was a test. A test to see how sick the EE patients really are. With this one simple observation and your remarks, this is just standard. So show me your bench that proves HCS is wrong. Such a simple effect. Just prove this is wrong. What? Oh I forgot you never do bench work. You only talk and insult your way to push your EE Kool-Aid like a drug pusher. So that is your forté.
Nice model. You take your present construct that has no proof of anything real and you flog this to the masses that work towards OU. F you man. You are the sick one. Don't ever talk to me again. You are just bad news for any OUers alive.
wattsup
1) Prove to me a magnetic field exists.
2) Prove to me field collapse exists.
3) Prove to me electron flow exists.
4) Prove to me current flow exists.
5) Prove to me flux exists.
In all due fairness, i would stand along side MH (and i believe many others),in that the magnetic field dose exist--or a field/flow that we have named the magnetic field.
1) Prove to me a magnetic field exists
You,and all other life here on earth,only live because the magnetic field exist. If it did not,the vast amounts of deadly radiation would have microwaved you into a roast dinner long ago.
Wattsup
I thought we had explained your HCS finding's--i even did the test--in fact,i think i was the only one that carried out the experiment?.
Brad
-
I'll stump Wattsup, go ahead and prove magnetic fields DON'T EXIST.
-
Dear Bill.
How many more posts are you going to tolerate with the obscene language ?
All should remember that OU. Com is open to all ages, my grandchildren look in from time to time because their " wacky " grandad posts occasionally.
I'm sure dear Groundloop would have stepped in a lot sooner!
I'm no prude but...... Enough is enough.
Kind regards, Grum.
I apologize for that. The problem is that Brad's behaviour for a long time has been a complete and total sham and it's fatiguing and it's tempting to call it out sometimes.
-
Well i can see that you did not agree to Bills request to stop with the vulgarity--you really are a disgusting old man. You really do turn into something else when you are wrong.
The arguing from a few here is appalling.
This is what i mean--your limited understanding regarding phase,and what it is.
MH knows what phase is.
You say there is no time difference,and so there is no real phase shift--well that is just plain wrong--incorrect MH--try again.
Is that what he is saying? I don't think so.
Depending on the situation, two signals can be in or out of phase, with or without a discrete time shift. I think you are both correct, but you are seemingly talking different languages to describe the same effect.
The 90 degree phase shift between current and voltage in a capacitor or inductor is not caused by a discrete delay (time shift), but the effect is the same. It is simply differentiation and integration. Same goes for the transformer being discussed.
One can also create a phase shift between two signals by using a true discrete delay (one that is not frequency dependent, and not dependent on the phase relationship between current and voltage in a reactive component).
-
Wattsup:
Your "half coil syndrome" is nothing more than a variation in the strength of the AC electrical field relative to ground as you sweep your tape head from the side of the coil with high AC potential to lower AC potential, and then to ground. The coils you play with on your bench are doing nothing more than acting like AC voltage dividers and your tape head is picking that up. There is no "half coil syndrome." It's a fallacy to say that there is "more energy" on one half of a coil relative to the other half. It's completely ridiculous. Every loop of the coil subtends a magnetic field and all of the magnetic fields add together. When you energize a coll with AC, each loop of the coil is "stacked" on top of the adjacent loop in terms of voltage. When you sweep your tape head back and forth, you are going up and down the AC voltage stack.
That's all there is to it. That's what you are seeing.
Sorry, I am not here to debate the "big issues" that you made your speech about. Believe what you want to believe.
MileHigh
-
author=poynt99 link=topic=8341.msg480530#msg480530 date=1460555997]
Depending on the situation, two signals can be in or out of phase, with or without a discrete time shift. I think you are both correct, but you are seemingly talking different languages to describe the same effect.
The 90 degree phase shift between current and voltage in a capacitor or inductor is not caused by a discrete delay (time shift), but the effect is the same. It is simply differentiation and integration. Same goes for the transformer being discussed.
One can also create a phase shift between two signals by using a true discrete delay (one that is not frequency dependent, and not dependent on the phase relationship between current and voltage in a reactive component).
MH knows what phase is.
Is that what he is saying? I don't think so.
Post 1902-quote: As I alluded to before, the "phase shift" is not even real - there is no phase shift. It's just an abstraction we use to make it easier to describe sinusoidal-type waveforms you see on your scope display There is no true "phase shift" if you interpret "phase shift" as meaning "shifted in time.
Brad
-
Well i can see that you did not agree to Bills request to stop with the vulgarity--you really are a disgusting old man. You really do turn into something else when you are wrong.
This is what i mean--your limited understanding regarding phase,and what it is.
There dose not have to be an overall time difference for each cycle for one thing to be out of phase with another. You need to go back to basics MH--perhaps review two children swinging on two swings of the same kind,but where one child starts swinging first,and the second starts when the first has reached the point of 1/2 a cycle. The child that started his swing first will always be say 2 seconds in front,and there phase can be said to be 180* out,but where there cycle time is still the same for each cycle. When the first child stops swinging at his starting point,the second child will not reach that point for another two second,but still there cycle were exactly the same.
You say there is no time difference,and so there is no real phase shift--well that is just plain wrong--incorrect MH--try again.
P.S--Is minnie your son?--just asking :D
Brad
Well, I was fed up with your nonsense and I used tough language and I won't do it again.
"limited understanding" "just plain wrong"
It just goes on and on and on. What I stated was perfectly correct. You were just spinning the same old lines, it's vulgar and gratuitous and nonsensical. It's behaviour that is beyond ridiculous. You did it just for the sake of doing it when you knew full well that there was nothing "wrong" in what I was stating. You are just uttering propaganda for the sake of uttering propaganda.
The truth is that although you have been slowly getting up the learning curve, there are still many pregnant jaw-dropping pauses where you inadvertently reveal how limited and/or skewed your understanding is. When you started playing your "wrong again" game with me you got the truth from me. You get the truth from me about your limitations because you keep lying about me.
Look at your explanation for the question about how a wine glass resonates and the mechanism for the resonance. To paraphrase, "a wine glass resonates by hitting it at the resonant frequency and it starts to resonate" is a joke. It's a jaw-dropping example of the fact that although you are making progress, sometimes you are still completely clueless. You are in no position to drone on falsely claiming over and over that I don't know what I am talking about. It's grotesque and vulgar behaviour and it's all a lie.
You mocked my answers for the two wine glass questions when the answers that I provided are perfectly correct. You are making a vulgar spectacle of yourself. You were called out early in the thread for mistakes and now you have gone full haywire. It's ridiculous and you have no shame.
So that's why you were called a bad name. You are like the disruptive kid in the class going on and on and on driving all the other students and the teacher nuts. Now when is it going to stop? Your whole "pitch" about me is a complete lie. I might not be perfect, but your little strategy is a dark stain on your character. It's your irrational reaction to being held to a normal standard.
So when is it going to stop?
MileHigh
-
Wattsup:
Your "half coil syndrome" is nothing more than a variation in the strength of the AC electrical field relative to ground as you sweep your tape head from the side of the coil with high AC potential to lower AC potential, and then to ground. The coils you play with on your bench and doing nothing more than acting like AC voltage dividers and your tape head is picking that up. There is no "half coil syndrome." It's a fallacy to say that there is "more energy" on one half of a coil relative to the other half. It's completely ridiculous. Every loop of the coil subtends a magnetic field and all of the magnetic fields add together. When you energize a coll with AC, each loop of the coil is "stacked" on top of the adjacent loop in terms of voltage. When you sweep your tape head back and forth, you are going up and down the AC voltage stack.
That's all there is to it. That's what you are seeing.
Sorry, I am not here to debate the "big issues" that you made your speech about. Believe what you want to believe.
MileHigh
Yes-this is what was explained over at OUR.
We could use a variac as another way of explaing what wattsup is seeing,where the wiper of the variac is the tape head. The voltage across the wiper and ground on the first loop of the variacs windings would be very low,and as you got closer to the live end of the variacs windings with the wiper,the higher the voltage across the ground and wiper would be.
Brad
-
Webby:
stiffness is a property by the way,, in the real world we do not have "stiff" interactions and or reactions,, we have ELASTIC reactions and interactions,, and since this is in reference to a mechanical motion that is limited and RETURNS potential then it is referred to as elastic.
That is absolutely basic stuff MH,, get it correct or do NOT bring things up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffness)
Quote:
Stiffness is the rigidity of an object — the extent to which it resists deformation in response to an applied force.[1]
The complementary concept is flexibility or pliability: the more flexible an object is, the less stiff it
Quote:
(Stiffness and it's) Relationship to elasticity
In general, elastic modulus is not the same as stiffness. Elastic modulus is a property of the constituent material; stiffness is a property of a structure. That is, the modulus is an intensive property of the material; stiffness, on the other hand, is an extensive property of the solid body dependent on the material and the shape and boundary conditions.
There you go, you are wrong.
MileHigh
P.S.: Go find a posting where someone answered both questions correctly. Good luck.
-
Post 1902-quote: As I alluded to before, the "phase shift" is not even real - there is no phase shift. It's just an abstraction we use to make it easier to describe sinusoidal-type waveforms you see on your scope display There is no true "phase shift" if you interpret "phase shift" as meaning "shifted in time.
If my post was fully understood, there would be no need to protest with this quote from MH.
There is an apparent time shift, but it is not caused by a discrete time delay, which is what MH means by "shifted in time".
The example given of two children on swings IS an example of a discrete time shift. The phase shift between current and voltage in a reactive component is due to differentiation or integration, but on the scope it appears as a discrete time shift.
What part do you not understand?
-
Ok. sounds right
I was thinking like this....
If we had a thin layer of carbon fiber strip, resin and cure. It would be a bit bendable as the thickness from side to side is thin. The thicker the lairs become, the stiffer the strip will be due to the outside bend would need to stretch for the bend to occur. And the carbon doesnt want to stretch due to tensile strength. So higher freq. But you are right. Carbon has very little elasticity, but still necessary for it to bend.
Hmm. just a thought. If we had a 1/8in strip of layers of carbon fiber resin cured, it will bend, but very little before it breaks. Like glass or the wine glass. So as we had seen in the vid, that wine glass had some crazy amount of distortion for glass, as we know it in normal life. So, maybe that 1/8in carbon strip would also bend a lot further when bending at say its resonant freq before breaking. If so, could we say that at resonance we can enhance elasticity? It would certainly seem so with the wine glass. Just try to physically distort it that much at any freq other than the resonant freq. I wonder if the wine glass gets warm oscillating like that?
Mags
This reminds me of when we first discovered how to make ceramic springs...real, working coil springs precision machined from zirconium oxide. (A very rigid and non-flexable material) We had to develope a way to get around the property limitations of the materials and still have springs that work like metal ones did...except these springs could take over 1,500 degrees F, were not bothered by acid or corrosive materials, were not changed very much due to temperature extremes (like in space) did not mess up electrical fields, and were non-conducting insulators of electricity. Later, we were able to make them out of aluminum oxides as well.
I still have a few small ones...I should make a video to show how they work.
Bill
-
Well, I was fed up with your nonsense and I used tough language and I won't do it again.
"limited understanding" "just plain wrong"
It just goes on and on and on. What I stated was perfectly correct. You were just spinning the same old lines, it's vulgar and gratuitous and nonsensical. It's behaviour that is beyond ridiculous. You did it just for the sake of doing it when you knew full well that there was nothing "wrong" in what I was stating. You are just uttering propaganda for the sake of uttering propaganda.
The truth is that although you have been slowly getting up the learning curve, there are still many pregnant jaw-dropping pauses where you inadvertently reveal how limited and/or skewed your understanding is. When you stared playing your "wrong again" game with me you got the truth from me. You get the truth from me about your limitations because you keep lying about me.
Look at your explanation for the question about how a wine glass resonates and the mechanism for the resonance. To paraphrase, "a wine glass resonates by hitting it at the resonant frequency and it starts to resonate" is a joke. It's a jaw-dropping example of the fact that although you are making progress, sometimes you are still completely clueless. You are in no position to drone on falsely claiming over and over that I don't know what I am talking about. It's grotesque and vulgar behaviour and it's all a lie.
You are making a vulgar spectacle of yourself. You were called out early in the thread for mistakes and now you have gone full haywire. It's ridiculous and you have no shame.
So that's why you were called a bad name. You are like the disruptive kid in the class going on and on and on driving all the other students and the teacher nuts. Now when is it going to stop? Your whole "pitch" about me is a complete lie. I might not be perfect, but your little strategy is a dark stain on your character. It's your irrational reaction to being held to a normal standard.
So when is it going to stop?
MileHigh
You are a liar MH--plain and simple. I gave many detailed descriptions of how a wine glass resonates,why it resonates,and what determines the resonant frequency of that wine glass.
I will no longer put up with people such as your self trying to belittle me because you think you are better than me.-->Your not,and you found out the hard way when you tried to take me on regarding internal combustion engines--thats when it all started--your first smart ass remark toward me,saying i did not know what i was talking about when it camme to resonant systems in ICEs--BIG mistake MH,as internal combustion engines are my life--i work with them every day,and have been doing so since i was 7 years old.
I have sat back long enough,and listen to others like your self tell me that i was wrong with this,and wrong with that-->well,no longer MH,and you just happened to be the first to start your crap with me once i decided it was time to stop those that think they are better than me,feeding rubbish to others that want to learn the truth.
Time and time you tried to knock me down,and time after time i came back swinging--with the correct answers MH,that showed you were wrong,even to the state of electronic components,when you said my idea of using a J/FET in a low voltage JT type circuit was nonsensical.
And now the latest load of rubbish about phase variations being fictional--when will it stop with you. You spend more time--in fact,let me rephrase that--you spend !all! your time here trying to refute nearly everything anyone says,and it's time it stopped.
So no-i will not stop or bow down to the likes of you when i know i am correct.
Nor will i give up on my beliefs because some one of your !self acclaimed! stature says i am wrong.
You(and others) sit there and try your hardest to get people to believe that the PM can not do useful work,and you are the very same people that have no idea as to what the magnetic force/field actually is,and until you do,then your claim that a magnet can do no useful work is void. The worst part about it,is that some of these people that say a PM can do no useful work,are the very same people that believe in the TPU--but to bloody scared to come forward and say so,as it may damage there reputation both here,and else where.
You never see one guru telling another guru that they are wrong--even when they bloody well know they are,but those very same guru's are happy to jump straight in,and lay the law on those they think are beneath them--no problem there,only take on the weak,as a win is insured,and there stature grows larger. Well you made a big bloody mistake this time MH,and you got caught with your pants down,-you under estimated your opponent. Then-and only then,once that opponent started correcting you-with absolute proofs attached to there counter claims,did you start with your usual abusive tactics--as seen on this forum many times.
You mocked my answers for the two wine glass questions when the answers that I provided are perfectly correct.
You call it what you want--i call it correcting mistakes--something you have no problem doing to others here on this forum.
Example--you used the word !stiffness!,and i said the correct term is elasticity--also backed up by Bill. This is the word i used in one of my given explanations to your questions.
Many correct,and more accurate answers than the ones you provided were given well before your big reveal,and you had to hit the !!automatic! wrong button--to all of them.
And now you sit there and complain when many here(many MH) say that the answers given by others to your questions were more correct than the ones you provided your self.
So stop your bitching and moaning MH when you are corrected--as we have had enough.
Brad
-
I'll stump Wattsup, go ahead and prove magnetic fields DON'T EXIST.
@minnie
Sorry but the onus is on the user to prove their purported construct exists. It is not for me to prove it does not. That is how @MH likes to play the game. This one sided game where any EEer can bullshit his way through life thinking all those 5 items exist when they themselves have never seen one shred of proof except for the brainwash we get in school. @MH wants to enjoy full liberty to abuse an unproven concept while we are supposed to be chastized any time nothing meets with his approval. No more one way street. It's time you guys started talking some responsibility for the things you believe in, because it is just tearing you guys apart slowly but surely while you run in circles.
OU has no more room for maybes. And jerk offs like @MH are just a dime a dozen in this world all around ready to jump at anything out of their box. Their little box where they have all their idols setup for worship because you need absolute faith to believe in the 5. There is nothing scientific about it.
@tinman
Wrong, you did not prove anything but you just got sucked into this B field, E field, Electric field story of EE to try and explain this. HCS exists right in your coils and your electron flow model is the one that prevents you from even considering it. This is not my fault.
You are such a great guy @tinman. I have utmost respect because I see you are trying to push against the grain but you keep falling back in without advancing because of your stuck notions of impossible things. You then get sucked in by @MH who is just playing you like a fiddle. You are basically being called a numbskull based on crap science dished out by @MH. The day you wake up to that is the day you will advance.
wattsup
-
If my post was fully understood, there would be no need to protest with this quote from MH.
There is an apparent time shift, but it is not caused by a discrete time delay, which is what MH means by "shifted in time".
The example given of two children on swings IS an example of a discrete time shift. The phase shift between current and voltage in a reactive component is due to differentiation or integration, but on the scope it appears as a discrete time shift.
What part do you not understand?
The part where an EMF will appear across the primary before an EMF will appear across the secondary. Phase relationships do not occur just between current and voltage,but between primary and secondary voltages. Being in phase will be when the two reach one point at the same time,and out of phase is when the two reach that point at a different time in that cycle. The cycle time can be the same for each potential,but a point in that cycle may be reached at a different point in time for each potential. This means that there is a phase differential between the two potential,when the word !phase! is used as its accurate meaning.
Then we can look at one cycle of a transformer that has a primary and secondary winding.
The primary winding has a voltage placed across it. The secondary winding will not see a voltage until current starts to flow through the primary winding,and where voltage leads current in an inductor. So that there is showing that the two EMFs across the primary and secondary are indeed out of phase due to a physical time difference.
So the primary see's a voltage across it before the secondary winding,but both will have dropped to the 0 volt value at the same time when the current is cut off from flowing through the primary coil.
So there is actually a physical phase difference--not just some mystical thing we see on a scope that we named phase shift for the sake of it.
Brad
-
@minnie
Sorry but the onus is on the user to prove their purported construct exists. It is not for me to prove it does not. That is how @MH likes to play the game. This one sided game where any EEer can bullshit his way through life thinking all those 5 items exist when they themselves have never seen one shred of proof except for the brainwash we get in school. @MH wants to enjoy full liberty to abuse an unproven concept while we are supposed to be chastized any time nothing meets with his approval. No more one way street. It's time you guys started talking some responsibility for the things you believe in, because it is just tearing you guys apart slowly but surely while you run in circles.
OU has no more room for maybes. And jerk offs like @MH are just a dime a dozen in this world all around ready to jump at anything out of their box. Their little box where they have all their idols setup for worship because you need absolute faith to believe in the 5. There is nothing scientific about it.
@tinman
Wrong, you did not prove anything but you just got sucked into this B field, E field, Electric field story of EE to try and explain this. HCS exists right in your coils and your electron flow model is the one that prevents you from even considering it. This is not my fault.
You are such a great guy @tinman. I have utmost respect because I see you are trying to push against the grain but you keep falling back in without advancing because of your stuck notions of impossible things.
wattsup
You then get sucked in by @MH who is just playing you like a fiddle.
This thread alone says that is not the case wattsup.
You are basically being called a numbskull based on crap science dished out by @MH. The day you wake up to that is the day you will advance.
Well lets see what you got then wattsup--where do i sign up--im all ready to go.
Brad.
-
I apologize for that. The problem is that Brad's behaviour for a long time has been a complete and total sham and it's fatiguing and it's tempting to call it out sometimes.
Dear MileHigh.
Apology accepted.
Let's all make the effort to " keep it clean " !!
Kind regards, Grum.
-
Brad:
Go ahead and find anybody's answer to the two wine glass questions that you think are correct. Good luck.
"And now the latest load of rubbish about phase variations being fictional"
Sigh...
"You call it what you want--i call it correcting mistakes"
Sigh again...
"you used the word !stiffness!,and i said the correct term is elasticity"
That's just a crazy debate about semantics, and go take a look at the posting I made to Webby. The funny thing is that in most of the attempted answers to the wine glass questions, nobody mentions stiffness or elasticity and the associated storage of energy. They are mostly blissfully unaware. Any answer that fails to mention this is therefore wrong. The closest you got to that was an extended copy/paste where it was mentioned. But like I said, that was not your answer, that was just a copy/paste. So you posted it, but where unaware of it, it just flew right by.
The wine glass questions were a good exercise and showed how people need to sit down and learn about stuff in a proper step-by-step fashion and then learn how to apply their knowledge. The fact that nobody got it is very interesting. And the chorus of sour grapes about that fact is just showing human nature.
So you are all upset that someone has disagreed with you or pointed out mistakes you have made. From what I can see, it's like it's a phobia for you.
MileHigh
-
Here you go Webby:
http://www.engineering-dictionary.org/Stiffness
This is a general term which may be applied to materials or structures. When a force is applied to a structure, there is a displacement in the direction of the force; stiffness is the ratio of the force divided by the displacement. High stiffness means that a large force produces a small displacement. When discussing the stiffness of a material, the concept is the same, except that stress substitutes for force, and strain substitutes for displacement; see modulus of elasticity
http://www.engineering-dictionary.org/modulus_of_elasticity
The proportional constant between stress and strain for material with linear elastic behavior: calculated as stress divided by strain. Modulus of elasticity can be interpreted as the slope of the stress-strain graph. It is usually denoted as E, sometimes known as Young's Modulus Y, or E-Modulus.
Like I said, I am not all hung up on the exact word here, it's understanding the concept, "energy is stored in the wine glass like a compressed spring" and most of the answers did not state this.
MileHigh
-
Wattsup:
The "crap science" term is laughable, and obviously you are not just addressing me, but you are addressing a substantial number of people on the forum. It makes no sense to dismiss science in the way you are doing. Also, the majority of the electronics bench work done on the forum starts off using basic electronics as the starting point. Those people want to understand and master basic electronics as part of their quest for the out of the ordinary.
Your strategy is to skip over the basic electronics and search for the out of the ordinary from the get-go. And as a result, you look at the ordinary and see it as something out of the ordinary when presumably in all cases so far, that was incorrect.
How does a coil respond when you apply a voltage across its terminals? The response of the coil will be a current flow, where the current flow is determined by integrating on the voltage with respect to time, and the magnitude of the current flow is also inversely proportional to the inductance. This is what you and EMJunkie did not understand. So the question you have to ask yourself is how come both yourself and EMJunkie did not understand this basic fact even though both of you had been on a bench for 10 years? It because both of you seemingly skipped over learning the basic nuts and bolts about electronics. It's like getting into a car and trying to drive without wanting to learn which pedal is for the gas and which pedal is for the breaks.
The moral of the story is to back up and make up for lost ground and start fresh and approach your research as a more informed person.
If you choose to dismiss what I am saying, so be it.
MileHigh
-
The part where an EMF will appear across the primary before an EMF will appear across the secondary.
Under what circuit conditions and measurement points do you see this occurring?
Please illustrate:
a) frequency of operation
b) inductance and resistance of primary/secondary (50mH?)
c) measurement points and phase condition of scope channels and inversion settings.
d) output resistance of FG or signal driver (50 Ohm?)
e) secondary loading (if any)
The phase relationship between primary and secondary voltage is dependent on frequency, inductance, resistance, and coupling factor, so the above parameters are important in determining the phase.
-
Here you go MH:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/elastic (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/elastic)
The stiffness of the nail precludes it from bending when I strike it with a hammer,, but it does not return the nail to its original shape when I bend it.
Resonance is a special condition that happens all over the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance)
Now there you go so that you can learn more about resonance.
Yes Webby, stiffness and elasticity are more or less synonyms, so why are you banging your head against the wall about this?
From your Wiki link, here is the critical phrase that applies to the wine glass:
"Resonance occurs when a system is able to store and easily transfer energy between two or more different storage modes (such as kinetic energy and potential energy in the case of a pendulum)."
And not a single person stated that in their responses to the questions. I was watching carefully. Go find an answer and prove me wrong if you don't believe me.
MileHigh
-
Yes Webby, stiffness and elasticity are more or less synonyms, so why are you banging your head against the wall about this?
From your Wiki link, here is the critical phrase that applies to the wine glass:
"Resonance occurs when a system is able to store and easily transfer energy between two or more different storage modes (such as kinetic energy and potential energy in the case of a pendulum)."
And not a single person stated that in their responses to the questions. I was watching carefully. Go find an answer and prove me wrong if you don't believe me.
MileHigh
So, in a manner of speaking, in elecronics, resonance would be comparable to a battery or capacitor in that, you do not get out any more energy than was put into the system. Would this be more or less correct?
I heard a guy on his youtube video "claim" that when he hits resonance in his circuit, that amps and volts go to infinity. Now, I am not sure just how you could measure infinity amps or infinity volts...he was just using a DMM.
Bill
-
Under what circuit conditions and measurement points do you see this occurring?
Please illustrate:
a) frequency of operation
b) inductance and resistance of primary/secondary (50mH?)
c) measurement points and phase condition of scope channels and inversion settings.
d) output resistance of FG or signal driver (50 Ohm?)
e) secondary loading (if any)
The phase relationship between primary and secondary voltage is dependent on frequency, inductance, resistance, and coupling factor, so the above parameters are important in determining the phase.
Exactly.
It dose exist,and the phase relationship can be changed.
It is not a mythical creature as MH says,nor dose there need to be a difference in time for each cycle of each phase,only a difference between point arrival of each phase at a specific point during each cycle ,where by phases cycle time is the same.
Brad
-
Here you go MH:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/elastic
The stiffness of the nail precludes it from bending when I strike it with a hammer,, but it does not return the nail to its original shape when I bend it.
Resonance is a special condition that happens all over the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
Now there you go so that you can learn more about resonance.
The stiffness of the nail precludes it from bending when I strike it with a hammer,, but it does not return the nail to its original shape when I bend it.
Exactly Webby.
Soft iron may have a high value of stiffness,but a very low value in elasticity.
As i stated in one of my replies to MH-long ago,the makeup of the glass(crystal)will determine the value of elasticity,and it is that value of elasticity that will determine the resonant frequency of the wine glass. Even with keeping to the same size and shape of wine glass,we can raise or lower the resonant frequency of that wine glass by changing the value of elasticity in the glass-change the type of glass used.
Brad
-
So, in a manner of speaking, in elecronics, resonance would be comparable to a battery or capacitor in that, you do not get out any more energy than was put into the system. Would this be more or less correct?
I heard a guy on his youtube video "claim" that when he hits resonance in his circuit, that amps and volts go to infinity. Now, I am not sure just how you could measure infinity amps or infinity volts...he was just using a DMM.
Bill
Resonance !can! increase a systems efficiency--this has been proven many times here on this thread now. In some cases,resonance can also decrease the efficiency of a system,and by researching what and where that !bad! resonance is,we can change things in that system that eliminates the !bad! resonance,and once again increase the efficiency of that system.
To make it clear--when i say increase efficiency,i mean converting one energy source into a wanted second energy source,as we all know-no matter what,each system must run at 100% efficiency-->if we are to believe that energy can not be neither created nor destroyed-but only transformer from one form to another.
Brad
-
Exactly.
It dose exist,and the phase relationship can be changed.
It is not a mythical creature as MH says,nor dose there need to be a difference in time for each cycle of each phase,only a difference between point arrival of each phase at a specific point during each cycle ,where by phases cycle time is the same.
Brad
Since you did not mention anything of the parameters I asked for, do I assume correctly that you do not wish to discuss this any further?
-
Exactly Webby.
Soft iron may have a high value of stiffness,but a very low value in elasticity.
As i stated in one of my replies to MH-long ago,the makeup of the glass(crystal)will determine the value of elasticity,and it is that value of elasticity that will determine the resonant frequency of the wine glass. Even with keeping to the same size and shape of wine glass,we can raise or lower the resonant frequency of that wine glass by changing the value of elasticity in the glass-change the type of glass used.
Brad
In ninth grade our science teacher told us that glass is a liquid. He had shown us the glass panes in the window frames of our classroom and at the bottom the glass was thicker and a bit of a roll to it. It was an old school. Old enough to show over time that the glass affected by gravity will droop over time.
The effect is slower than molasses from the freezer. ;)
Mags
-
Kiss my aura Dora right here on the floora. - Frank Zappa
I'd kiss Frank's aura Dora anytime - if he were still alive.
Your aura Dora however is suitable only for wiping my floora.
Cheers
-
Regarding the question about which wave form was the correct one, I'll go out on a limb and say neither one, because I'm pretty sure you inverted CH2 (the current channel), and I did not see mention of this. Therefore the wave forms could not appear as they do with the probe orientation as depicted.
If CH2 was not inverted, the primary current would be lagging the secondary voltage.
-
I'd kiss Frank's aura Dora anytime - if he were still alive.
Your aura Dora however is suitable only for wiping my floora.
Cheers
Good on the wit, but your comment is still not true.
-
Really MH??? please show me where in stiffness the stiffness returns the system back to its original position or state.
No belief needed MH,, I know what I posted and I know you are incorrect.
So you do not want to worry about the exact term,,, why is it that when some other person uses the incorrect term you worry about it and go on and on until you get the term used that you think is correct?
Look MH,, you made an error and I am only pointing it out,, you may not like it but it is the truth.
If you pulled that quote from the link I provided then maybe you are on the path to increase your understanding.
Here is another for you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym)
http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/stiffness (http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/stiffness)
Now look at the antonym,,
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/antonym (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/antonym) just in case you do not know what an antonym is :)
Webby, there are technical and lay definitions for stiffness and elasticity. I put up a technical definition for stiffness and I am sticking to it. Can we stop this frivolous debate? When terms are critical or not all depends on the context. Duh.
You did not post correct answers. If you believe you did please link to it and I will have another look.
How about stopping the bad boy routine with the antonym crack?
If you pulled that quote from the link I provided then maybe you are on the path to increase your understanding.
You are catching a cold from someone.
-
So, in a manner of speaking, in elecronics, resonance would be comparable to a battery or capacitor in that, you do not get out any more energy than was put into the system. Would this be more or less correct?
I heard a guy on his youtube video "claim" that when he hits resonance in his circuit, that amps and volts go to infinity. Now, I am not sure just how you could measure infinity amps or infinity volts...he was just using a DMM.
Bill
Resonance is a way of storing energy using AC. It was a big fish claim. The only reason you see amplitudes increasing with resonance is if some external source is providing energy, a la pushing a child on a swing. Eventually the supplied power is equal to the burnt off power in the resonance. i.e.; maximum resonant amplitude in an resonating electrical circuit typically means maximum power burn-off.
-
Good on the wit, but your comment is still not true.
You are of course entitled to your opinions, just as I am entitled to ignore, disagree or agree with them.
-
Exactly Webby.
Soft iron may have a high value of stiffness,but a very low value in elasticity.
As i stated in one of my replies to MH-long ago,the makeup of the glass(crystal)will determine the value of elasticity,and it is that value of elasticity that will determine the resonant frequency of the wine glass. Even with keeping to the same size and shape of wine glass,we can raise or lower the resonant frequency of that wine glass by changing the value of elasticity in the glass-change the type of glass used.
Brad
Please go ahead and link to your quote about elasticity because I don't remember anything like that. Feel free to link to your best answer also if you are claiming that you answered both questions successfully.
-
You are of course entitled to your opinions, just as I am entitled to ignore, disagree or agree with them.
Well I have made thousands of postings filled with good solid information and in the earlier days I helped people understand their circuits all the time.
-
MH
I Honestly feel your Big reveal will in no way change any builders resonance hunting technique,
not one Iota .
the builders mentioned many very simple methods they use for this purpose ,and honestly they make perfect sense .
from my perspective having had the privilege of several very good Mentors in this EE field and having witnessed many very good resonant hunting techniques by very experienced persons on threads at this forum and elsewhere.
,I feel your big reveal is a big let down for the builders .
and I strongly suspect your are fetching for any true reason for this fiasco other than some Bragging right and a chance to belittle your foe and others here at the playground !
Honestly I can completely understand your ignorance on ICE science.. its quite understandable.
what I cannot understand is your willingness to open your mouth as an authority when you are completely clueless.
and this is very troubling.. considering where we are ..and the depth of what is touched upon here.
-
Regarding the question about which wave form was the correct one, I'll go out on a limb and say neither one, because I'm pretty sure you inverted CH2 (the current channel), and I did not see mention of this. Therefore the wave forms could not appear as they do with the probe orientation as depicted.
If CH2 was not inverted, the primary current would be lagging the secondary voltage.
How do you get an EMF across the secondary before current flow through the primary?
Brad
-
Please go ahead and link to your quote about elasticity because I don't remember anything like that. Feel free to link to your best answer also if you are claiming that you answered both questions successfully.
And there you go
That proves that you did not even bother to read the answers given-it was just an automatic wrong from you.
Brad
-
Your definition is fine MH,, your usage is not.
I do not care if you think I did or did not answer your questions.
No crack on the antonym,, that is the truth MH,, they are opposites, not basically the same thing.
Show me where stiffness is a property of returning to the original condition after being distorted.
Show me where stiffness is anything other than the resistance to being distorted or changed.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complementary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complementary)
Where does it say that they are basically the same thing within this definition MH,,
The stiffness, or rigidity , will affect the resonant frequency, BUT, it is the elasticity that converts the motion of the system and then returns that conversion back into the system creating motion once again.
Stiffness does not do that, stiffness is more like a one way event.
You did not answer the two questions successfully. If you disagree, then link to your answer because otherwise it looks like you are bluffing.
You can have the rest of this conversation with yourself into the wind.
-
And there you go
That proves that you did not even bother to read the answers given-it was just an automatic wrong from you.
Brad
Just more mean-spirited ugliness. Of course I read the replies and there were quite a few. It would be ridiculous for me not to, therefore your statement is ridiculous. You made several attempts. So do you want to link to the two you are talking about or not?
-
Seem we have some hostile / chicken anonymous Quiz masters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2212335/Jimmy-Savile--abuse-allegations-Radio-1-boss-Douglas-Muggeridge-knew-1970s.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2212335/Jimmy-Savile--abuse-allegations-Radio-1-boss-Douglas-Muggeridge-knew-1970s.html)
-
Seem we have some hostile / chicken anonymous Quiz masters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2212335/Jimmy-Savile--abuse-allegations-Radio-1-boss-Douglas-Muggeridge-knew-1970s.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2212335/Jimmy-Savile--abuse-allegations-Radio-1-boss-Douglas-Muggeridge-knew-1970s.html)
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous and idiotic postings I have ever seen on this forum.
-
MH
I Honestly feel your Big reveal will in no way change any builders resonance hunting technique,
not one Iota .
the builders mentioned many very simple methods they use for this purpose ,and honestly they make perfect sense .
from my perspective having had the privilege of several very good Mentors in this EE field and having witnessed many very good resonant hunting techniques by very experienced persons on threads at this forum and elsewhere.
,I feel your big reveal is a big let down for the builders .
and I strongly suspect your are fetching for any true reason for this fiasco other than some Bragging right and a chance to belittle your foe and others here at the playground !
Honestly I can completely understand your ignorance on ICE science.. its quite understandable.
what I cannot understand is your willingness to open your mouth as an authority when you are completely clueless.
and this is very troubling.. considering where we are ..and the depth of what is touched upon here.
Chet:
You are spinning a tale that doesn't even exist. This is not about "resonance hunting techniques." Just that phrase says so much about your bias. There is resonance gold in them thar hills. This was not done explicitly for the builders. This stems from a discussion between myself and Brad and anyone else was welcome to take a stab at answering also. Brad agreed to the challenge.
I admitted that I was wrong about resonance for an ICE, that's it. Nothing there was directly related to the turning of the main crankshaft, which is what I had in mind. An ICE is really a synchronous machine more than anything.
The issue was for Brad or anyone else to demonstrate that they understood resonance for probably what is the most common cliche when we think about resonance, the wine glass. Nobody got it, and that is food for thought for the resonance researchers. Instead of moaning there should be a desire to learn more and improve your craft. Now they all understand it and they are better off. You are welcome.
MileHigh
-
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous and idiotic postings I have ever seen on this forum.
Thanks for the compliment, time is still at her / your side.
Did learn lots from you, really a big THANKS, thats why we did invite you here, serious!
But: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPtL3S1v4jw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPtL3S1v4jw)
V, is Fem, flirting, botox
I, is Male, doing, going for new worlds
Current world:
Fem, mostly looking for security, digital thinking, demanding,
Male, adventures, looking for a bigger world.
Behind digital, is bit like 4-stroke, but digging in ports from a 2-stroke is analog the artist, thats why Honda did kill the 2-stroke, type's like: Luc and other could beat biggest motor factory named: Honda.
Stap over you're fears, investigate with these GUY's analog resonance, together, not demanding!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc)
See again the supplied patent, nothing to do with CO2, where is SCIENCE, but look again:
-
Johan, your peers should be embarrassed and frankly horrified by your behaviour and you should be flagged for that.
-
If you disagree, then link to your answer because otherwise it looks like you are bluffing.
You can have the rest of this conversation with yourself into the wind.
You did not answer the two questions successfully.
Neither did you--your own questions.
You insist that everyone here use correct and accurate terms used for description's,telling me i need to brush up on my English,and yet you deem it ok to use loose terms when it suits you--such ass stiffness--which is incorrect.
You also clearly state that all the energy is then stored as kinetic energy during 1 part of each cycle.
This is also incorrect,and you too would be booted out of one of your EE forums you speak so much about for saying rubbish like that.
If !all! the energy was stored as kinetic energy in one part of the cycle,and then all that energy was returned during another part of the cycle--where is the energy to create sound coming from?
You wanted so much to be right and accurate,and you wanted to make us wait some 7 odd weeks for the big reveal,and it turned out to be a flop-->wrong-->and you know it.
Of course,once again we do not see any other EE guy here point out your mistake's,there more happy taking on others(hobby bench men),about things like phase shift not being real--another of your rubbish statements MH.
If you want me to post the reply where i stated elasticity,then you go find what number post was your first post of your two questions,as im not going to spend hours looking for something you missed.
Brad
-
Resonance is a way of storing energy using AC. It was a big fish claim. The only reason you see amplitudes increasing with resonance is if some external source is providing energy, a la pushing a child on a swing. Eventually the supplied power is equal to the burnt off power in the resonance. i.e.; maximum resonant amplitude in an resonating electrical circuit typically means maximum power burn-off.
The only reason you see amplitudes increasing with resonance is if some external source is providing energy
Some external source is providing energy ;)
Brad
-
Well I have made thousands of postings filled with good solid information and in the earlier days I helped people understand their circuits all the time.
Indeed you have.
And whether you choose to believe it or not,i am truly grateful for this.
My biggest peeve MH,is you jumping on everything i say,and then try to prove me wrong on it--along with all the un-needed name calling and vulgarity. I will give back what i think i am given unfairly,but i will not go as far as you have. Feel free to call me names,but remember there are youngsters reading these forums.
Brad
-
Neither did you--your own questions.
You insist that everyone here use correct and accurate terms used for description's,telling me i need to brush up on my English,and yet you deem it ok to use loose terms when it suits you--such ass stiffness--which is incorrect.
You also clearly state that all the energy is then stored as kinetic energy during 1 part of each cycle.
This is also incorrect,and you too would be booted out of one of your EE forums you speak so much about for saying rubbish like that.
If !all! the energy was stored as kinetic energy in one part of the cycle,and then all that energy was returned during another part of the cycle--where is the energy to create sound coming from?
You wanted so much to be right and accurate,and you wanted to make us wait some 7 odd weeks for the big reveal,and it turned out to be a flop-->wrong-->and you know it.
Of course,once again we do not see any other EE guy here point out your mistake's,there more happy taking on others(hobby bench men),about things like phase shift not being real--another of your rubbish statements MH.
If you want me to post the reply where i stated elasticity,then you go find what number post was your first post of your two questions,as im not going to spend hours looking for something you missed.
Brad
The questions were answered correctly. It's not my fault that you can't understand or are ignorant of how a simple academic question is typically posed and expected to be answered. Or you do understand and you are just making a fool of yourself. Either option is not good for you, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the first one.
Cite your own postings. We both know I read your postings and you came up short and couldn't answer the questions. And it looks like you embellished the stuff about elasticity and massaged it into something more correct and along the lines of what I wrote. I seriously doubt that you sounded that coherent in your original posting. I am not 100% sure but that's what it feels like to me. I dare you to prove me wrong in both cases.
-
Johan, your peers should be embarrassed and frankly horrified by your behaviour and you should be flagged for that.
Mine SORRY, really, when I did in some way that did hurt you, again SORRY!
But when you talk so about Karma, we all would / did think you understand that part!?
Try, to stand between you're both polarities, and look queer, not for me, for you, ALL, only real loving menthe.
-
Some external source is providing energy ;)
Brad
If you could only understand the concept of an impedance change in the system then you would not be marveling at the "energy from magnets."
-
My biggest peeve MH,is you jumping on everything i say,and then try to prove me wrong on it--along with all the un-needed name calling and vulgarity. I will give back what i think i am given unfairly,but i will not go as far as you have. Feel free to call me names,but remember there are youngsters reading these forums.
Brad
You know that I read your postings where you tried to answer the questions. So why did you accuse me of not reading them?
-
Mine SORRY, really, when I did in some way that did hurt you, again SORRY!
But when you talk so about Karma, we all would / did think you understand that part!?
Try, to stand between you're both polarities, and look queer, not for me, for you, ALL, only real loving menthe.
After doing that, perhaps one day you will see karma. And I don't mean from me. But perhaps one day karma will catch up with you for what you posted.
-
Je suis Charlie.
Meaning this?
-
I am all for freedom of speech.
Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.
-
The questions were answered correctly. It's not my fault that you can't understand or are ignorant of how a simple academic question is typically posed and expected to be answered. Or you do understand and you are just making a fool of yourself. Either option is not good for you, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the first one.
Cite your own postings. We both know I read your postings and you came up short and couldn't answer the questions. And it looks like you embellished the stuff about elasticity and massaged it into something more correct and along the lines of what I wrote. I seriously doubt that you sounded that coherent in your original posting. I am not 100% sure but that's what it feels like to me. I dare you to prove me wrong in both cases.
Unfortunately for you MH,most everyone here is saying the same thing--your answers were not accurate,nor correct.
That may be hard for you to take,but it is the truth.
You simply do not get to change things around to suit your need to be correct.
Brad.
-
If you could only understand the concept of an impedance change in the system then you would not be marveling at the "energy from magnets."
Lol--here we go again.
If you actually new what is required in order for there to be an impedance change,then you would not have made that silly statement above.
I would suggest you do a brush up course on impedance before you go down this road with me.
Take a good look (a good look MH) at the scope shots below,and then have a google on what is needed in order for an impedance change to occur.
Here is a good starting point--oh and look,it has phase shift in there as well.
Quote: Impedance extends the concept of resistance to AC circuits, and possesses both magnitude and phase, unlike resistance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance
Brad
-
MH
You keep quoting Karma
and yet your motives for this entire Wineglass fiasco are quite obvious ,and have zero to do with teaching or doing the right thing
and everything to do with "look at me" and Bow to my superiority ...
as Johan has stated "Your Karma is queer" and just as revolting ...[the Guy in the Pic]
a fraud and a PHONY !!
when you pretend to know something and place yourself in authority [what you seem to live for]
and you tell a man he's stupid and ignorant because he does not understand ,which is EXACTLY
what you did here to Brad ...
and you have no idea what you are talking about ...which is EXACTLY what happened here.
you shovel heaps of Karma
and YOU NO LONGER CAN BE TRUSTED AS AN AUTHORITY !!
and you can take THAT to the bank !!
end of story !!
QUEER KARMA indeed !
and here is one of YOUR favorite quotes
"bow your head in Shame "
But we Must Forgive and move on.....
eventually..
-
I am all for freedom of speech.
Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.
Nicky, We are all kids, in a big plan, without walking no gain, every a different lane, to one united goal, harmony / resonance, just IMAGEN.
Did invite YOU here, to show you here on this beautiful isle, a very good visible a blue light, like a aura / sea of blue light, above the sea and above land, notice in this movie the string around 22-25 sec:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPtL3S1v4jw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPtL3S1v4jw)
Maybe the blue has a certain frequency, we are all walking in that sea? ???
Sorry, for mine hard worth's, nature is a ........... , soft doctors are making stinking wounds.
-
@tinman
So what if you take two identical cores, does not matter the type and wind one coil with 30 feet and another coil with 60 feet (or whatever ratio) of the same wire. Could be one layer versus two layers. Will the peak resonance be the same given they are both the same wire? If they both resonate at the same frequency or very close it will mean one thing and if they are totally different it will mean another thing. The thing is you will learn more about resonance with comparatives. Like the guy playing the wine glass music. More notes. The more the better. By working with only one coil you cannot fully appreciate its reaction since there is no other controlled comparison. It just becomes a unique fact with little relation or correlation to other totally different coils and their particular resonance points.
You already know very well that in a single primary and secondary set-up pulsing the primary to the secondary resonance ups the volts but drops the amps. I explained before that this is because of the atomic nature of copper and their random placement in the wire matrix means some atoms respond to certain frequencies better then others. This is a physical atomic constraint since not all copper atoms are made equal in the functional sense because of simple fabrication.
We also know that on a core with one primary and one secondary of 100 turns versus a same core with same primary and two secondaries of 50 turns each in parallel, what happens to the secondary output. The volts drops by half and the amps will double. So the question is will resonance change that half/doubling effect? What can be done to increase the amps at resonance while still maintaining a good level of voltage?
So here is an alternative I could think of quickly more specifically via my SC model is if it is possible to build a coil as follows;
1) Rod core
2) 1 primary wound 3-6 turns only. P is the pulsed side and C is the always connected side.
3) X number of secondaries all cut to the same length, each one wound with only one turn in contact with the core located at the center of each length of wire, before each end comes together in parallel to thus increase each individual weak amps to a higher amps value while still the the volts the same level.
4) An additional secondary could be wound over the primary as power recapture.
As in the diagram below. Please excuse the drawing came out a bit blurry. Don't know why. With this simple type of set-up you can try maybe only 5 secondaries in parallel then drive the primary with the FG and check secondary output, then add more secondaries one by one and check again as the number increases to see how the effect would influence and increase in amps while still maintaining the same voltage level. That is the key most are looking for. Right?
As well, we already know that any resonance will only happen at higher frequencies so at those frequencies it does not matter if a coil is wound across the totality of the core or just one turn should not make that much of a difference since the output amperage is already very low on each secondary. The idea is to catch the resonance in the secondary and remove it away from any other potentially adverse conditions (like being wound as a single multi-layer secondary coil).
There is another avenue that I have never seen anywhere and that is the use of a combination of a half core half air-core methods where the initial pulsing happens on a core primary and quick coupling to a secondary that feeds an air core primary/multi-secondary. This would enable the power to be extracted from the core environment to be used in a air-core environment that would feed back to the core primary while not having to deal with all the traditional set-backs of a fully occupied core. I need to think about that more but just wanted to mention the angle. Just more ideas for an idea starved OU community.
wattsup
-
How do you get an EMF across the secondary before current flow through the primary?
Brad
I don't know, do you?
If however CH2 on your scope was not set to "INVERT" mode, it would appear that way wouldn't it?
-
Unfortunately for you MH,most everyone here is saying the same thing--your answers were not accurate,nor correct.
That may be hard for you to take,but it is the truth.
You simply do not get to change things around to suit your need to be correct.
Brad.
It's embarrassing how ridiculous and awful your behaviour is. The answers are correct. The answers are perfectly accurate. About half a dozen times I stated the answers had to be short simple answers in four sentences or less. What can't you understand about that?
If you actually new what is required in order for there to be an impedance change,then you would not have made that silly statement above.
I would suggest you do a brush up course on impedance before you go down this road with me.
Take a good look (a good look MH) at the scope shots below,and then have a google on what is needed in order for an impedance change to occur.
Here is a good starting point--oh and look,it has phase shift in there as well.
Quote: Impedance extends the concept of resistance to AC circuits, and possesses both magnitude and phase, unlike resistance.
More embarrassing stuff. Yes phase, but not necessarily phase. Take little tiny baby steps Brad and you will get there.
I told you if you wanted to be serious you would do a full power audit for both cases to understand what was going on but I assume that you didn't.
-
MH
You keep quoting Karma
and yet your motives for this entire Wineglass fiasco are quite obvious ,and have zero to do with teaching or doing the right thing
and everything to do with "look at me" and Bow to my superiority ...
Go jump in a lake as far as I am concerned. Your non-technical colour commentary is useless and if you endorse what Johan did then bow your head in shame, truly.
_You_ are living for _this_ moment. You are a blazing injustice warrior.
-
I don't know, do you?
If however CH2 on your scope was not set to "INVERT" mode, it would appear that way wouldn't it?
Perhaps CH 1 was inverted,or you are looking at the winding directions of the coils in the pic-that may not represent the actual winding direction of the coils,as not dot convention is depicted on the two transformer coils?. Regardless of polarity,it is more associating the rising and falling current value to that of the rising and falling secondaries EMF value. <ost of us here were able to determine that the scope shot was correct-in that it showed that at the point of maximum rate of change in the magnetic field(determined by the current trace at the 0 volt line),we see a maximum EMF amplitude across the secondary coil,and that the phase difference of 90* is correct.
While you are here,could you answer a simple question?.
What is needed in order to cause a change in impedance in a transformer,where that transformer has a primary and secondary winding,and is of an air core type ?.
Brad
-
Please go ahead Brad, I would like you to tell me what you think is wrong with my two answers.
Here they are:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
The wine glass resonates by cycling energy back and forth between two forms, kinetic energy and potential energy. The instant when the glass is not deformed, the glass is moving at a maximum velocity and all of the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the form of a moving mass. The instant when the glass is at its maximum deformation, the glass has stopped moving and all of the energy is stored as potential energy in the form of a compressed spring. In between these two states, the energy is stored as combination of kinetic energy and potential energy.
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by a combination of the effective moving mass of the glass and the effective stiffness of the glass interacting with each other. The higher the effective moving mass of the glass, the lower the resonant frequency. The higher the effective stiffness the glass, the higher the resonant frequency.
-
.[/b] The answers are perfectly accurate. About half a dozen times I stated the answers had to be short simple answers in four sentences or less. What can't you understand about that?
More embarrassing stuff. Yes phase, but not necessarily phase. Take little tiny baby steps Brad and you will get there.
I told you if you wanted to be serious you would do a full power audit for both cases to understand what was going on but I assume that you didn't.
It's embarrassing how ridiculous and awful your behaviour is. The answers are correct
Lets look at your !big reveal! answers then.
Post 1847.--The wine glass resonates by cycling energy back and forth between two forms, kinetic energy and potential energy.
This part is good.
The instant when the glass is not deformed, the glass is moving at a maximum velocity
This is correct as well
all of the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the form of a moving mass
This is incorrect,as some of the energy is dissipated while the mass is moving -in simple terms,in way of sound waves.
The instant when the glass is at its maximum deformation, the glass has stopped moving and all of the energy is stored as potential energy in the form of a compressed spring
Well i see at this !instant! point in time,you have correctly stated that the glass has stopped moving-!BUT! not all of the kinetic energy is stored as potential energy,but more so the remaining kinetic energy is stored as potential energy. But at this very point the glass stops moving,is the very point when a vibrational wave is created,and so at the point of kinetic to potential energy transformation,a small portion of energy is dissipated as vibrations.
It is also funny how you have used the term!compressed spring!,where a spring has very little stiffness,but a high value of elasticity--something to think about ;)
In between these two states, the energy is stored as combination of kinetic energy and potential energy.
Not all the energy is stored,as some is dissipated-as i explained above.
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by a combination of the effective moving mass of the glass and the effective stiffness of the glass interacting with each other.
Almost MH,but you needed to add in the environmental conditions as well--to be accurate,as the wine glass would also have to include the atmosphere that is both inside and around the wine glass as effective moving mass,along with being an effective resistance as well--none of that in space ;)--but we wont get picky now.
The higher the effective moving mass of the glass, the lower the resonant frequency. The higher the effective stiffness the glass, the higher the resonant frequency.
See,now here is where you went from compressed spring to stiffness. The correct term(and this is the scientific term MH)is elasticity of the glass--not stiffness,as when you use the correct term!elasticity!,then the elasticity value has to decrease in order for the resonant frequency to increase,where as your !!stiffness!! has to increase in order for the resonant frequency to increase
These were your answers MH,and you said that all of ours given were wrong,and yours was going to be absolute,and correct.
If you are going to make a claim like this,then you need to be 100% correct-even in a 4 sentence explanation. But as you can see,you were not,and that is fact MH.
If any one of us had of put up answers like that,after dismissing everyone elses,then you would have picked us apart--as you generally do.
So the same applies to you--you were not 100% correct MH,and all that you have provided had been already stated many times in the thread.
Brad
-
"It is also funny how you have used the term!compressed spring!,where a spring has very little stiffness,but a high value of elasticity--something to think about"
Oh yeah, that's really something to think about Brad. The reason you are so freaked out is because I have been calling you out for statements like that.
This time, let's see if any of your peers would be prepared to comment on your statement above about the spring.
I will respond to the rest of your comments later.
-
Please go ahead Brad, I would like you to tell me what you think is wrong with my two answers.
Here they are:
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
The wine glass resonates by cycling energy back and forth between two forms, kinetic energy and potential energy. The instant when the glass is not deformed, the glass is moving at a maximum velocity and all of the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the form of a moving mass. The instant when the glass is at its maximum deformation, the glass has stopped moving and all of the energy is stored as potential energy in the form of a compressed spring. In between these two states, the energy is stored as combination of kinetic energy and potential energy.
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by a combination of the effective moving mass of the glass and the effective stiffness of the glass interacting with each other. The higher the effective moving mass of the glass, the lower the resonant frequency. The higher the effective stiffness the glass, the higher the resonant frequency.
Stiffness only refers to the resisting of a movement in a given direction.
Elasticity refers to both the resistance to the movement AND the returning to the condition/configuration prior to being moved as seen in a resonating glass. They are NOT synonymous engineering terms.
Other than that, I don't see any other real errors here.
Bill
-
Stiffness only refers to the resisting of a movement in a given direction.
Elasticity refers to both the resistance to the movement AND the returning to the condition/configuration prior to being moved as seen in a resonating glass. They are NOT synonymous engineering terms.
Other than that, I don't see any other real errors here.
Bill
all of the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the form of a moving mass ?
If so,then where dose the energy come from that creates the sound ?
-
Stiffness only refers to the resisting of a movement in a given direction.
Elasticity refers to both the resistance to the movement AND the returning to the condition/configuration prior to being moved as seen in a resonating glass. They are NOT synonymous engineering terms.
Other than that, I don't see any other real errors here.
Bill
No, that's not true. I asked that the questions be answered in simple terms. Are you trying to tell me that you can't talk about the stiffness of a spring? Are you telling me that you have never used that term in your life when talking about a spring? Are we all in remedial English class now?
Here, from a spring manufacturer:
http://www.acxesspring.com/spring-stiffness-calculator.html
There are many spring calculators around the internet but none like Spring Creator. This spring stiffness calculator will calculate all of the values required to determine whether the spring will be stiff enough to meet its requirements. The stiffness of your spring depends on the proportion of each spring dimension with all the others. This is where spring index and space between the coils (pitch) comes in. The examples shown below the calculator will explain why your spring is either too stiff or not stiff enough.
A Dummies link:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-calculate-a-spring-constant-using-hookes-la.html
Hooke’s law gives the force a spring exerts on an object attached to it with the following equation:
F = –kx
where the minus sign shows that this force is in the opposite direction of the force that’s stretching or compressing the spring. (k is called the spring constant, which measures how stiff and strong the spring is. x is the distance the spring is stretched or compressed away from its equilibrium or rest position.)
I flat-out refuse to get into another nonsensical debate on this thread.
MileHigh
-
The instant when the glass is at its maximum deformation, the glass has stopped moving and all of the energy is stored as potential energy in the form of a compressed spring.
Wrong. The glass never stops moving. At a point where the glass is at its maximum, there is no maximum because that maximum effect is transferred elsewhere on the glass rim. There is no stopping. This is not like a spring.
You are treating this like it is a pulsed coil. This is not a pulsed coil. It is a closed loop that generates it own internal harmonics and there is no stopping anything during the resonance, just the intensity of the resonance will fluctuate but never stop. Why because the energy used to resonate the glass does not stop as well.
This is just junk though. Again unrelated to coils, cores and the like.
wattsup
-
Wrong. The glass never stops moving. At a point where the glass is at its maximum, there is no maximum because that maximum effect is transferred elsewhere on the glass rim. There is no stopping. This is not like a spring.
You are treating this like it is a pulsed coil. This is not a pulsed coil. It is a closed loop that generates it own internal harmonics and there is no stopping anything during the resonance, just the intensity of the resonance will fluctuate but never stop. Why because the energy used to resonate the glass does not stop as well.
This is just junk though. Again unrelated to coils, cores and the like.
wattsup
You may wish to rethink your response. Clearly the glass resonates in a uniform fashion, and it does experience a maximum deformation point where it stops before being deformed in the other two adjacent quadrants.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE827gwnnk4
-
Here you go MH,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffness)
Now please note that the stiffness is a measure of force required to deform,, it is NOT the force stored and it is NOT the force returned.
The "stiffness" of an object can absorb energy and dissipate it as heat in the process of deforming,, it does not store and return energy.
Elasticity is the property of an item that is able to store and return energy from an outside stimuli.
Without elasticity there would be no spring,, it would just be an energy absorber,, a one shot deal.
Have you never bent a coat hanger back and forth repeatedly and noticed that the point where it bends gets hot??? have you not noticed that the force you put in to bend the coat hanger is not returned to you hands??
Ceramic springs,, now that is a feat,, taking something that has very little to no elasticity and creating a system that can allow a spring action to happen,, I would think that a person who could do that might know a thing or two.
now that we have a resonant condition we can store our external stimuli within that resonance.
Here, this is from your own link:
"The stiffness, k, of a body is a measure of the resistance offered by an elastic body to deformation."
From your own link again:
<<<
Relationship to elasticity
In general, elastic modulus is not the same as stiffness. Elastic modulus is a property of the constituent material; stiffness is a property of a structure. That is, the modulus is an intensive property of the material; stiffness, on the other hand, is an extensive property of the solid body dependent on the material and the shape and boundary conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_and_extensive_properties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_and_extensive_properties)
An intensive property is a bulk property, meaning that it is a physical property of a system that does not depend on the system size or the amount of material in the system. Examples of intensive properties include temperature, T, refractive index, n, density, ρ, and hardness of an object, η (IUPAC symbols[1] are used throughout this article). When a diamond is cut, the pieces maintain their intrinsic hardness (until their size reaches a few atoms thick), so hardness is independent of the size of the system.
By contrast, an extensive property is additive for subsystems.[2] This means the system could be divided into any number of subsystems, and the extensive property measured for each subsystem; the value of the property for the system would be the sum of the property for each subsystem. For example, both the mass, m, and the volume, V, of a diamond are directly proportional to the amount that is left after cutting it from the raw mineral. Mass and volume are extensive properties, but hardness is intensive.
>>>
The wine glass is a system, and therefore the correct technical term is stiffness.
This is all from your own link.
-
Wrong. The glass never stops moving. At a point where the glass is at its maximum, there is no maximum because that maximum effect is transferred elsewhere on the glass rim. There is no stopping. This is not like a spring.
You are treating this like it is a pulsed coil. This is not a pulsed coil. It is a closed loop that generates it own internal harmonics and there is no stopping anything during the resonance, just the intensity of the resonance will fluctuate but never stop. Why because the energy used to resonate the glass does not stop as well.
This is just junk though. Again unrelated to coils, cores and the like.
wattsup
I am not treating it like a pulsed coil and it is not junk at all. There are no harmonics. It is directly related to coils, cores, and the like. I already covered that in a posting.
-
I think he needs to change to Wotsup?
Someone might work it out!
John.
-
Forgive my intrusion, this post sparked my curiosity. I hope you don't mind my asking you a question. Please assume I am ignorant (not very difficult, I am not learned), were I to comprehend the concept of an "impedance change in the system", what would I find that you feel would convince me that marveling over "energy from magnets" is a waste of time?
Regards
Erfinder, there is only so far that you can go with feeling, gut instinct and not wanting to do any measurements. What you would find is that if you could account for all of the power in the system and where it was all going such that the magnets don't contribute so much as a nano-watt to the operating system - provided you do the measurements. Do it again with a different system and find that you arrive at the same conclusion. Do it again for yet another system and find that you arrive at the same conclusion. Then the only question then is how many times you want to continue circling around in the revolving door until you have had enough.
-
I think the resonance thingy reminds me of a brachistchrone.
Any one remember old Frank Grimer?
-
Lets look at your !big reveal! answers then.
Post 1847.--The wine glass resonates by cycling energy back and forth between two forms, kinetic energy and potential energy.
This part is good.
The instant when the glass is not deformed, the glass is moving at a maximum velocity
This is correct as well
all of the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the form of a moving mass
This is incorrect,as some of the energy is dissipated while the mass is moving -in simple terms,in way of sound waves.
The instant when the glass is at its maximum deformation, the glass has stopped moving and all of the energy is stored as potential energy in the form of a compressed spring
Well i see at this !instant! point in time,you have correctly stated that the glass has stopped moving-!BUT! not all of the kinetic energy is stored as potential energy,but more so the remaining kinetic energy is stored as potential energy. But at this very point the glass stops moving,is the very point when a vibrational wave is created,and so at the point of kinetic to potential energy transformation,a small portion of energy is dissipated as vibrations.
It is also funny how you have used the term!compressed spring!,where a spring has very little stiffness,but a high value of elasticity--something to think about ;)
In between these two states, the energy is stored as combination of kinetic energy and potential energy.
Not all the energy is stored,as some is dissipated-as i explained above.
Almost MH,but you needed to add in the environmental conditions as well--to be accurate,as the wine glass would also have to include the atmosphere that is both inside and around the wine glass as effective moving mass,along with being an effective resistance as well--none of that in space ;) --but we wont get picky now.
See,now here is where you went from compressed spring to stiffness. The correct term(and this is the scientific term MH)is elasticity of the glass--not stiffness,as when you use the correct term!elasticity!,then the elasticity value has to decrease in order for the resonant frequency to increase,where as your !!stiffness!! has to increase in order for the resonant frequency to increase
These were your answers MH,and you said that all of ours given were wrong,and yours was going to be absolute,and correct.
If you are going to make a claim like this,then you need to be 100% correct-even in a 4 sentence explanation. But as you can see,you were not,and that is fact MH.
If any one of us had of put up answers like that,after dismissing everyone elses,then you would have picked us apart--as you generally do.
So the same applies to you--you were not 100% correct MH,and all that you have provided had been already stated many times in the thread.
Brad
All of your comments about losses are not applicable. Like I already told you, this is a basic academic approach to understanding what resonance is. This is analogous to telling to you and others that you can discuss an ideal coil that has no electrical resistance and try to understand how it will function in a circuit. I think it took you and your peers a couple of years to come around on that one and accept it. Likewise, this is just a discussion about resonance in a wine glass with the goal of understanding how the resonance actually works, and you don't need to discuss the losses even though you are fully aware that they are there. Therefore all of your comments about losses are dismissed. If you are unable to comprehend this, then that is your problem and you have issues.
The same argument above applies to your comments about environmental conditions.
See,now here is where you went from compressed spring to stiffness. The correct term(and this is the scientific term MH)is elasticity of the glass--not stiffness,as when you use the correct term!elasticity!,then the elasticity value has to decrease in order for the resonant frequency to increase,where as your !!stiffness!! has to increase in order for the resonant frequency to increase
See my post to Webby about "stiffness." The highlighted text in your quote above is an example of your profound words of wisdom.
If you are going to make a claim like this,then you need to be 100% correct-even in a 4 sentence explanation. But as you can see,you were not,and that is fact MH.
In fact my answers to the questions are 100% correct. You are just doing your usual shtick and making a spectacle of yourself.
Please go ahead and link to what you think is your best answer. But like I already told you, all your attempts to answer the two questions were wrong, and you were not going to get any hints. I read every attempt at an answer by everyone and I did it very carefully and nobody answered the two questions successfully.
MileHigh
-
Indeed MH,,
"The stiffness, k, of a body is a measure of the resistance offered by an elastic body to deformation."
The force to deform is only half the answer,, so it is NOT a complete answer,,
Just like your answers to your questions are incomplete.
Remember MH, we are talking about the special condition of resonance,,, NOT just an oscillation.
You have got nothing Webby and you are just irrationally spouting out foolishness.
-
Forget it Webby, you are going nowhere fast. An oscillating spring is a perfect example of resonance. Duh...
If you do not have a grasp on these basic parts and concepts of resonance then anything you have to say is useless.
You have got a serious case of Sn-50 contamination in your brain and it is impairing you. Change your diet.
-
Perhaps CH 1 was inverted,or you are looking at the winding directions of the coils in the pic-that may not represent the actual winding direction of the coils,as not dot convention is depicted on the two transformer coils?. Regardless of polarity,it is more associating the rising and falling current value to that of the rising and falling secondaries EMF value. <ost of us here were able to determine that the scope shot was correct-in that it showed that at the point of maximum rate of change in the magnetic field(determined by the current trace at the 0 volt line),we see a maximum EMF amplitude across the secondary coil,and that the phase difference of 90* is correct.
It is definitely CH2 that is inverted, OR your coils are in opposite phase. Anyway, no big deal, but I would encourage you to note these things on your schematics, because as that scope shot was presented, it does not match up with the probes.
While you are here,could you answer a simple question?.
What is needed in order to cause a change in impedance in a transformer,where that transformer has a primary and secondary winding,and is of an air core type ?.
Sure, what is your definition of "impedance" of a transformer?
Let's start with that.
-
At least I understand resonance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
Yes,i mentioned the external force many times,but it seems that an accurate answer to !what is resonance! needs not to include the actual driving force that provides the energy that is to be stored in the oscillating system. MHs answer to what is resonance,has shown us the leaky storage system,but has left out the provider of the energy that is to be stored.
I mean,there are simple terms,and then there is !half! answers.
How are we to get a JT to oscillate at a resonant frequency if we have no input energy?.
Brad
-
Brad,
You expect to be cut some slack with your incorrectly depicted probe positions and scope traces, so I suggest you do the same for MH for assuming that energy has already been given to a resonant system. In fact a resonant system is resonant regardless if it is resonating or not.
-
It is definitely CH2 that is inverted, OR your coils are in opposite phase. Anyway, no big deal, but I would encourage you to note these things on your schematics, because as that scope shot was presented, it does not match up with the probes.
Sure, what is your definition of "impedance" of a transformer?
Let's start with that.
To Quote-the effective resistance of an electric circuit or component to alternating current, arising from the combined effects of ohmic resistance and reactance.
So as far as i can see,in order for the impedance to change,we either have to change the effective resistance,and/or the reactance.
To change the effective resistance,we either have to physically increase or decrease the turn amount of wire in the transformer,or increase or decrease the frequency at which the transformer operates.
In order to change the reactance,we either have to change the inductance value or the capacitance value-or both. This would show as a phase shift,where the current would be out of phase with the EMF that created it.
1-So how else can the impedance change?
Brad
-
To Quote-the effective resistance of an electric circuit or component to alternating current, arising from the combined effects of ohmic resistance and reactance.
So as far as i can see,in order for the impedance to change,we either have to change the effective resistance,and/or the reactance.
To change the effective resistance,we either have to physically increase or decrease the turn amount of wire in the transformer,or increase or decrease the frequency at which the transformer operates.
Did you mean reactance, not resistance? Resistance doesn't change with frequency, but reactance does.
Is there any other way to increase or decrease (dynamically) the impedance of an air coil at a given frequency?
What kind of test could you conduct to play with the idea?
-
You may wish to rethink your response. Clearly the glass resonates in a uniform fashion, and it does experience a maximum deformation point where it stops before being deformed in the other two adjacent quadrants.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE827gwnnk4
I am not treating it like a pulsed coil and it is not junk at all. There are no harmonics. It is directly related to coils, cores, and the like. I already covered that in a posting.
@MH - @poynt99
You cannot trust your eyes. Saying it stops is specific. It's good to have a fast video capture like in the video but that video cannot show everything since resonance is a succession of micro movements. Why does everything have to be so cut and dry with you guys. IT STOPS. Wow. Ok then it stops. No it does not. As two sides move out, two sides move in and this does not mean anything stops. What you are inferring is at one point that complete wine glass STOPS. No. Impossible. There will always be a part of it in movement. Once it breaks, the broken pieces even move. Just because when two sides move out, of course for it to then move back it has to change direction and during that micro second the outgoing does not stop, it just moves in. THERE IS NO STOP. Move out, move out, move out, move in. It moved out just as fast as it moved in. If you want to call the last increment between the last move out and the first move in as a stop, that's, your business but during that time there are so many other places on the glass that are moving to accommodate that move. There is no stop, cigarette break, recess or any other delay. Maybe a coffee break. As fast as it moved out it moved back and during that time there are other movements in the glass. The glass does not stop. It was resonating even before they started the test. I told you this the first time. Everything resonates to everything especially instruments that are prone to physical resonance like a wine glass. What's the point in resonating if you have to stop. You may as well say marching stops. Making a U turn stops. No it does not. There is a whole wine glass there and not just the rim. Also, did the sound influence ever stop? So why should the wine glass. Oh yeh, then use that sound and blast a coil and see if it resonates. There is no relation there. Physical influences and our coils don't play the same tune. And the audible tones of a pulsed coil is not resonance so do not go there. Now can I go play with the others.
wattsup
-
@MH - @poynt99
You cannot trust your eyes. Saying it stops is specific. It's good to have a fast video capture like in the video but that video cannot show everything since resonance is a succession of micro movements. Why does everything have to be so cut and dry with you guys. IT STOPS. Wow. Ok then it stops. No it does not. As two sides move out, two sides move in and this does not mean anything stops. What you are inferring is at one point that complete wine glass STOPS. No. Impossible. There will always be a part of it in movement. Once it breaks, the broken pieces even move. Just because when two sides move out, of course for it to then move back it has to change direction and during that micro second the outgoing does not stop, it just moves in. THERE IS NO STOP. Move out, move out, move out, move in. It moved out just as fast as it moved in. If you want to call the last increment between the last move out and the first move in as a stop, that's, your business but during that time there are so many other places on the glass that are moving to accommodate that move. There is no stop, cigarette break, recess or any other delay. Maybe a coffee break. As fast as it moved out it moved back and during that time there are other movements in the glass. The glass does not stop. It was resonating even before they started the test. I told you this the first time. Everything resonates to everything especially instruments that are prone to physical resonance like a wine glass. What's the point in resonating if you have to stop. You may as well say marching stops. Making a U turn stops. No it does not. There is a whole wine glass there and not just the rim. Also, did the sound influence ever stop? So why should the wine glass. Oh yeh, then use that sound and blast a coil and see if it resonates. There is no relation there. Physical influences and our coils don't play the same tune. And the audible tones of a pulsed coil is not resonance so do not go there. Now can I go play with the others.
wattsup
I have to agree. The glass is never in a perfect standing shape while ringing. It will always have a distorted shape as compared to if it had 'no input at all' shape and form. And even if it looks and sounds like it has stopped when the ringing can no longer be seen nor heard, it probably rings all the time due to ambient random noises/vibrations, at levels that would need equipment to detect and measure.
Mags
-
Is a resonant system that is not resonating in resonance?
What is your opinion?
-
No, the glass never stops, correct.
What it does do is stop deforming in one direction. At that point, maximum deformation is reached for that half cycle.
Was it really much of a cognitive stretch to make that connection? I think yer gettin a little bit picky and splittin hairs there guys.
-
No, the glass never stops, correct.
What it does do is stop deforming in one direction. At that point, maximum deformation is reached for that half cycle.
Was it really much of a cognitive stretch to make that connection? I think yer gettin a little bit picky and splittin hairs there guys.
Ok. I agree there. Like the peak of a sine wave. Spring fully compressed.
But due to possible imperfections and such, there still may be some inertial motion of some portions of the glass actually moving when at that peak. That one vid had shown some amazing distortions compared to some others. Almost slow motion water balloon looking where it doesnt look like everything stops at any point.
Mags
-
Did you mean reactance, not resistance? Resistance doesn't change with frequency, but reactance does.
Is there any other way to increase or decrease (dynamically) the impedance of an air coil at a given frequency? I am not sure why you say resistance dose not increase woth frequency increase
What kind of test could you conduct to play with the idea?
No i was refering to effective resistace that is related to frequency increase. .i am not sure why you would say that resistance dose not change with a frequency increase,when we know it dose.
You know what -forget it. I just asked a simple question ,and get no answer-but just questions.
Brad
-
No i was refering to effective resistace that is related to frequency increase. .i am not sure why you would say that resistance dose not change with a frequency increase,when we know it dose.
Does it? A pure resistance doesn't change its resistance value with frequency.
If it is how you say "we know it does", kindly demonstrate it or link to an example please.
I just asked a simple question ,and get no answer-but just questions.
Your question provoked me to think about modifying the impedance of a coil or transformer, so I tried to engage you to think about it too, hence the questions. I thought we'd explore the concept in tandem.
-
Does it? A pure resistance doesn't change its resistance value with frequency.If it is how you say "we know it does", kindly demonstrate it or link to an example please.
The skin effect can cause the effective resistance to increase with frequency. The highest current density is at the outer circumference of the conducting wire,and decreases as we near the center of that conducting wire. As we increase in frequency,the skin depth decreases,and so the effective resistance rises.
I have a feeling as to what your answer may be to this,and if you do answer as such,then i will explain as to how my claim of increasing resistance is valid to the question of a change in impedance.
Your question provoked me to think about modifying the impedance of a coil or transformer, so I tried to engage you to think about it too, hence the questions. I thought we'd explore the concept in tandem.
The reason i asked the question,is because there may be some simple way of checking to see if i can get the impedance to change. The question and investigation into this stems from MHs comment in relation to my last video. He seems to think that the drop in input power,and the increase in output power is the result in the change of impedance of the coil. As far as i am aware,everything that is needed in order for the impedance to change,is not there in the circuits operation. There is no change in the phase relationship of primary EMF and current,there is no change in frequency,there is no change in the output load(which is a pure resistive load)and there for there is no change in effective resistance or reactance.
This is the reason for the question,as from what i know,there can be no change in impedance if one or all of the above do not change. So i asked you in case you new of something else that can change the impedance of a coil.
Brad
-
.......It's clear that "reactance" changes with frequency. The easiest and most straight forward means for manipulating the inductance of the primary winding is by placing a load across the secondary. The trick is finding a load for the secondary which varies with frequency, the net effect being that each time the current flows in the secondary, its in such a direction that it "augments" the supply, while at the same time, it drops the inductance of the primary, allowing for more current to be drawn by the primary.
The majority want consumption to drop, I am not a member of that school of logic.
Regards
Why would anyone think that a true pure resistance changes with frequency is beyond me
I did quote effective resistance--poynt quoted pure resistance.
The effective resistance will change in relation to frequency. This is up in the higher frequency ranges where skin effect starts to reduce the effective resistance due to the decrease of skin depth.
Brad
-
The skin effect can cause the effective resistance to increase with frequency. The highest current density is at the outer circumference of the conducting wire,and decreases as we near the center of that conducting wire. As we increase in frequency,the skin depth decreases,and so the effective resistance rises.
Skin effect can certainly play into circuit currents, but since we are dealing with low frequency sine waves here, skin effect can largely be ignored in this case. Skin effect usually pertains to metalic conductors, and I am uncertain as to the effect in resistors themselves. I'll defer to PW on that as he may know the answer.
This is the reason for the question,as from what i know,there can be no change in impedance if one or all of the above do not change. So i asked you in case you new of something else that can change the impedance of a coil.
Brad
I'm willing to explore the possibilities of dynamic impedance changes, but at the moment can't see how it might be accomplished in a simple air core transformer, other than bringing ferromagnetic material near it.
-
You are in an area where I have little to no interest. I have come to understand that when one desires to operate at frequencies that high, its best to let the tank circuit or circuits generate them for you. To the best of my knowledge, "pure" resistors don't change their values, and I find that this is the only measure of safety one has, if they could change like reactances change, we would be in a world of hurt. Ideally, the circuits we should be engineering, have no DC resistance. The resistance aspect should be governed by a reactance.
Effects like the skin effect owe at least part of their existence to the mechanism of opposition to change, being informed of this, we have what we need to eliminate it (the skin effect). That which must be sacrificed is painful for the majority. Do it and reap the reward.
It's about perspective, to me anyway......
Regards
To the best of my knowledge, "pure" resistors don't change their values
That is correct,but an inductor is not a pure resistor.
Brad
-
Skin effect usually pertains to metalic conductors, and I am uncertain as to the effect in resistors themselves. I'll defer to PW on that as he may know the answer.
Skin effect can certainly play into circuit currents, but since we are dealing with low frequency sine waves here, skin effect can largely be ignored in this case.
The exact answer i thought you would post--and this is good.
We can now remove any change in effective resistance from the equation ;)
I'm willing to explore the possibilities of dynamic impedance changes, but at the moment can't see how it might be accomplished in a simple air core transformer, other than bringing ferromagnetic material near it.
What would need to change if a ferromagnetic material was bought close to the air core transformer in order for the impedance to change--E.G,inductance?
Im not sure if you have seen my last video on the experiment,but maybe if you watch it,you will understand as to what it is i am referring to. You may relate this to another experiment,where we did not quite see eye to eye.
So in the video,i do test the difference in inductance with and without the magnet near the coil. I also place a large chunk of laminated steel core inside the air core cavity,so as i can get some sort of reference later on as to how much difference raising the inductance by a large amount makes on the P/in=P/out results. I think it is safe to say that the inductance increase is so small with the magnet in play,that it is not the cause of the effect.
Have a good hard think about it Poynt--about what drives the magnet oscillator,and how it could be possible to get the results shown. I will add that(although mentioned in the video),the input RMS value is kept at a constant throughout the test by the voltage regulation function of the FG--as can be seen in the scope shots below,where Ch1 is the voltage across the primary coil,and CH2 is the current flowing into the coil,measured by way of voltage drop across a 3 ohm CVR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlb79xSh93w
Brad
-
Have a good hard think about it Poynt--about what drives the magnet oscillator,and how it could be possible to get the results shown. I will add that(although mentioned in the video),the input RMS value is kept at a constant throughout the test by the voltage regulation function of the FG--as can be seen in the scope shots below,where Ch1 is the voltage across the primary coil,and CH2 is the current flowing into the coil,measured by way of voltage drop across a 3 ohm CVR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlb79xSh93w
Brad
What is this "voltage regulation function of the FG" you mentioned? Isn't your FG output 50R? Although a bit rare, I have seen some FG's with a very low Z output selection . Perhaps yours has that function as well?
Is the scope CH1 actually across the primary or before the 3R CVR? I thought CH1 was across the 5R secondary load.
A schematic of the setup with probe points would be helpful...
PW
-
Poynt, PW:
I suggest that you don't do anything yet with respect to Brad's question because it appears that Brad hasn't even done the work himself. He believes his little experiment with the oscillating post that has a magnet on it, which is oscillating in front of a coil driven by the function generator, is showing "magical work coming from magnets" once again based on the two scope shots. Now he is coming here asking for a spoon-feeding session and he is expecting, yet again, to see you guys do the work and validate his theory. We all know how that one will end up.
Here is an earlier quote from Brad about his experiment:
Now,lets see your books and laws work that one out MH--and remember,this is a very simple setup that anyone can make,and verify my results-i think Mags already has--not sure on that though.
Your so happy to sit there and criticize my work--point out faults that don't exist ,dismiss PMs being able to do any work--then lets see your books explain the result's.
The P/in for each test-without and with the oscillating magnet are there in the scope shot's. Voltage and current is in phase--easy to calculate P/in.
P/out from the secondary is there in the video for both cases--so work it out MH-give ya books a good work over,and see what you come up with.
The change in inductance test was done in the video,and clearly shows that with the large laminated block increasing the inductance by a huge factor,still did not come close to the results of the oscillating magnet. So we can rule out any inductance increase. Then along with that fact,and there being no phase shift between voltage and current,or no change in frequency,and also the frequency being very low,and resistance staying the same,would take care of any sort of change in impedance or reactance.
So what else do your books have MH?
Well in fact in both of the scope shots there is a slight phase shift between the voltage and the current, and the two phase shifts are not the same. That may or may not be significant in determining what is going on in the experiment.
I also explained to him that when he added the oscillating post and magnet to the system, the electro-mechanical impedance of the setup changed, and that's why he was getting different results. From the quote above, he is saying that he disagrees that the impedance is changing.
So Brad adds the oscillating post and the current draw decreases and If I recall correctly there is also more power being dissipated in a five-ohm load resistor attached to the transformer secondary and the phase on the secondary voltage also changes.
I told Brad before he draws any conclusions to do a full power audit in both cases and see where the input power is going. I also told him that he could use an optical system to understand the phase relationship between the oscillating post and the voltage from the function generator so he could understand what is going on there.
So at least it appears that Brad has done none of this. All that he did was look at a kind of glorified "numbers in boxes" deal and arrive at a conclusion.
So there is no point in doing any kind of analysis for Brad until he actually tries to do the analysis himself first.
MileHigh
-
A schematic of the setup with probe points would be helpful...
PW
What is this "voltage regulation function of the FG" you mentioned? Isn't your FG output 50R? Although a bit rare, I have seen some FG's with a very low Z output selection . Perhaps yours has that function as well?
Yes,mine has that selection--50R or !Z! as you call it,which in my case is 50R or 0-R.
Is the scope CH1 actually across the primary or before the 3R CVR? I thought CH1 was across the 5R secondary load.
The posted scope shots are with ch1 across the coil/resistor combo,and CH2 across the CVR.
They were posted to show MH that there was no phase shift or voltage change(CH1) when the magnet was in play.
In the video,CH1 was across the load resistor on the secodnary,and CH2 across the CVR on the primary.
Brad
-
What would need to change if a ferromagnetic material was bought close to the air core transformer in order for the impedance to change--E.G,inductance?
One would think inductance, yes.
Have a good hard think about it Poynt--about what drives the magnet oscillator,and how it could be possible to get the results shown. I will add that(although mentioned in the video),the input RMS value is kept at a constant throughout the test by the voltage regulation function of the FG--as can be seen in the scope shots below,where Ch1 is the voltage across the primary coil,and CH2 is the current flowing into the coil,measured by way of voltage drop across a 3 ohm CVR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlb79xSh93w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlb79xSh93w)
Brad
I did watch the video a couple of days ago.
An increase in impedance would certainly cause a drop of input current and possibly an increase in output.
What other introduced element can cause the circuit to appear as though the impedance has increased (i.e. a decrease in current)? How about an opposing voltage, i.e. cemf?
The input current is determined by the potential difference across the primary impedance, with the assumption that the opposite end of the primary is at gnd potential (see "normal case"). In this case Vpri is Vfg=3V. Now what happens if another FG is connected to the bottom of the primary? See "cemf case". Now Vpri is Vfg1-Vfg2=2V.
Nothing was changed in terms of the transformer impedance, but the input current is clearly going to be lower in the case when cemf is introduced.
Is this happening here and in the rotor example (pretty much the same in concept)? Is the moving magnet also causing a higher output? I don't know for certain, I'm just speculating at the moment in an attempt to explain the reduced input current without changing the impedance.
-
Yes, increased in-phase CEMF is what I asked him to check for by rigging up a photocell to measure the phase of the vibrating post relative to the function generator EMF. He could then simply move the post in and out on the bare coil and determine the corresponding EMF polarity from the magnet. The two EMFs together may explain the increased power in the load resistor but you have to know the phase. You just have to do the work to find out what is going on.
-
I choose my words carefully....I never stated that an inductor is a pure resistor.
Please do not make the mistake of thinking that I am not informed of the difference between a pure resistor and a reactance, in this particular instance, an inductive reactance.
Regards
And please dont make the mistake that i referred to a pure resistance,as i clearly stated effective resistance.
Brad
-
Brad,
so I suggest you do the same for MH for assuming that energy has already been given to a resonant system. In fact a resonant system is resonant regardless if it is resonating or not.
You expect to be cut some slack with your incorrectly depicted probe positions and scope traces,
OK,lets clear this up first.
To quote PW : TK and Tinman's use of Faraday's law in the most general sense as a way to choose, confirm or, indeed, "predict" which waveform was correct was both elegant and quite simple.Given the information contained in Tinman's schematic, and using only the information in the above paragraph, it is possible to choose, that is, "predict", which of the two scope captures Tinman presented depicts the correct waveform. As per Faraday, the correct waveform would indicate a minimum of induced voltage at the same period in time when the rate of change of the magnetic flux was also at a minimum (as observed by proxy via the primary current).TK (and later Tinman) clearly stated this is how they invoked the use of Faraday's law to "predict" which scope capture was correct and even included an annotated capture to further demonstrate this.
Quote TK ; Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.
The first coil's magnetic field follows, to first order, the current shown on the scope trace. At the peaks of this current, the time rate of change is zero (instantaneous slope is horizontal) -- and so the induced EMF as shown in the second coil's trace is zero (the induced current trace crosses the zero volt baseline at the same time the inducing current peaks.) When the inducing current (magnetic field) is changing at its maximum rate (the place where the instantaneous slope is steepest or most vertical: the zero crossing) the induced current is at its maximum (the peaks).
The original question-post 1531--:@ minnie-or anyone else that cares to have a stab at it.
OK,lets see how your laws of induction skills go. Below is a schematic and scope shot to go with the schematic.
L1 is wound on the former first-this is our primary coil.
L2 is wound over the top of L1.
The CVR is showing the current flowing through L1(the blue trace on the scope shot),and so this should be also indicating the rise of the magnetic field around L1. The current and voltage through and across L1 are extremely close to being in phase at these low frequencies
The yellow trace is showing the open voltage across L2.
Should L2s voltage trace be in phase with L1s current trace,or should it be 90* out of phase as shown in the scope shot?.
So the first scope capture associated with the schematic was correct,in that using faradays law of induction,we could determine if the phase offset between voltage and current is in accordance to faradays law of induction. The question was never about !is the polarity correct!,it was about associating the two traces phase offset with faradays law of induction,and so the scope shot is correct for the question asked.
To say the scope shot is wrong,because the polarity is incorrect,only creates confusion,as the question was not about polarity correctness,it was about phase offset between the primary current,and the secondaries EMF in association with faradays law of induction.
The question was proposed to minnie(who failed to answer)after his comment that i needed to learn the basics of induction,and so ,the scope capture was presented with the associated schematic to test minnie's skills on induction--to see if he had the right to say what he said--which turns out he did not.
To say i am wrong,or that the scope capture was wrong for the question asked,is also to say that PW and TK are also wrong.
So please do not do what MH dose,and add confusion by way of saying things are wrong by pointing out things that were never part of the question.
Brad
-
So please do not do what MH dose,and add confusion by way of saying things are wrong by pointing out things that were never part of the question.
I have to laugh at that one considering the near-insanity with respect to Brad pointing out all sorts of things that were never part of the two wine glass questions and using that as a vehicle to play the "wrong" card on me.
Please cite an example or two of what you are referring to with respect to me Brad.
-
MH:
To be fair, you never specified white wine, or red wine in your question so...I can see how one can become confused. Actually, I think a sparkling wine might hit resonance at a lower frequency due to the air (CO2) in the wine making the fluid less dense.
You also never specified how many glasses of wine we need to drink before answering your question. Personally, I think 3 would be ideal but, others here may disagree with that number. I was going to make a nice video about breaking a wine glass but, as it turned out, I did not need resonance nor sound...just gravity, ha ha.
Bill
-
Bill:
The Budgie from Hell will haunt your dreams for the rest of your life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH7XSX10QkM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH7XSX10QkM)
-
Bill:
The Budgie from Hell will haunt your dreams for the rest of your life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH7XSX10QkM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH7XSX10QkM)
Damn! He really needed to be wearing safety glasses! He was very lucky.
My ex-wife could break them (and mirrors also) by just looking at them.
Bill
-
author=poynt99 link=topic=8341.msg480852#msg480852 date=1460764554]
An increase in impedance would certainly cause a drop of input current and possibly an increase in output
.
Yes it would.
This is why i asked the question as to what can change the value of impedance--other than those i have eliminated so far,which as far as im aware,are what is needed to change in order for the value
of impedance to change.
What other introduced element can cause the circuit to appear as though the impedance has increased (i.e. a decrease in current)? How about an opposing voltage, i.e. cemf?
Exactly :)
Now,if we had a CEMF being produced across the primary coil,which would result in a decrease in current being delivered to the primary coil,what would be the resultant outcome of the secondary coil?.
Nothing was changed in terms of the transformer impedance, but the input current is clearly going to be lower in the case when cemf is introduced.
I couldnt agree more.
Is this happening here and in the rotor example (pretty much the same in concept)? Is the moving magnet also causing a higher output? I don't know for certain, I'm just speculating at the moment in an attempt to explain the reduced input current without changing the impedance.
I agree with your explanation in the reduced P/in to the primary coil. ;)
I would like to confirm the CEMF baing the cause of the reduction of P/in to the primary coil,and then we can move onto the rest of the effect.
Brad
-
Ive been thinking about this also. The magnet on the pendulum driven with a coil could be similar to say a dc motor input, as when it is free wheeling, is the least due to the motor itself coming close to generating an equal opposition to the input.
Mags
-
Yes, increased in-phase CEMF is what I asked him to check for by rigging up a photocell to measure the phase of the vibrating post relative to the function generator EMF. He could then simply move the post in and out on the bare coil and determine the corresponding EMF polarity from the magnet. The two EMFs together may explain the increased power in the load resistor but you have to know the phase. You just have to do the work to find out what is going on.
Lol
You really do crack me up some times MH lol.
Quote post 1971: If you could only understand the concept of an impedance change in the system then you would not be marveling at the "energy from magnets."
Post 2033 from Poynt.
What other introduced element can cause the circuit to appear as though the impedance has increased (i.e. a decrease in current)? How about an opposing voltage, i.e. cemf?
The input current is determined by the potential difference across the primary impedance, with the assumption that the opposite end of the primary is at gnd potential (see "normal case"). In this case Vpri is Vfg=3V. Now what happens if another FG is connected to the bottom of the primary? See "cemf case". Now Vpri is Vfg1-Vfg2=2V.
Nothing was changed in terms of the transformer impedance, but the input current is clearly going to be lower in the case when cemf is introduced.
Then your next post MH :Yes, increased in-phase CEMF is what I asked him to check for
Lol-MH-Its the change in impedance
Poynt-Nothing was changed in terms of the transformer impedance. but the input current is clearly going to be lower in the case when cemf is introduced
Mh-- Yes yes-an increase in phase CEMF .
Lol-like i said before MH,you ride on the back of others to make your self look great--but you will always come unstuck.
Brad
-
Ive been thinking about this also. The magnet on the pendulum driven with a coil could be similar to say a dc motor input, as when it is free wheeling, is the least due to the motor itself coming close to generating an equal opposition to the input.
Mags
Yes Mag's
But what happens when you draw more energy from that motor?--you load the output ?
What happens to the P/in in the oscillating system when a greater load is being dissipated on the output?. ;)
Lets not forget about the PMs pole orientation,where one pole is always facing the transformer,and where that transformers magnetic polarity is alternating--unlike that of a DC motor in relation to the stator magnets.
Maybe the now increase current flow through the secondary is what is inducing a CEMF in the primary,and not the oscillating magnet directly. Look at the scope shot below from the video taken while the oscillating system was in play,and take note of the polarity the scope is showing in the video without the oscillating system in play. As poynt mentioned before regarding the attached scope shot with the schematic regarding my question to minnie,CH2 is inverted,and was inverted to separate the two wave forms to make the scope shot clear . This means that when the oscillating system is in play,the primaries current and secondaries EMF are in phase ,which means the secondaries current is also in phase with the primaries current ;)
Unlike MHs copy cat responce that the CEMF is being produced by the magnet,if he took any kind of notice to the orientation of the PMs field to that of the alternating magnetic field of the primary coil,then he would have worked out that it could not be the PM directly interacting with the primary coil that causes the CEMF in the primary coil.
Guess what happens if the load is removed from the secondary coil? ;)
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg480821#msg480821 date=1460744691]
MileHigh
I suggest that you don't do anything yet with respect to Brad's question because it appears that Brad hasn't even done the work himself.
If anyone wanted your opinion ,they would have asked for it.
He believes his little experiment with the oscillating post that has a magnet on it, which is oscillating in front of a coil driven by the function generator, is showing "magical work coming from magnets" once again based on the two scope shots. Now he is coming here asking for a spoon-feeding session and he is expecting, yet again, to see you guys do the work and validate his theory. We all know how that one will end up.
More trash talk from the trash can.
Well in fact in both of the scope shots there is a slight phase shift between the voltage and the current, and the two phase shifts are not the same. That may or may not be significant in determining what is going on in the experiment.
As i said earlier--you dont have the skill set to work out anything in regards to this experiment--hence me asking Poynt one simple question--?which ended your idiotic reference to impedance change.
I also explained to him that when he added the oscillating post and magnet to the system, the electro-mechanical impedance of the setup changed, and that's why he was getting different results. From the quote above, he is saying that he disagrees that the impedance is changing.
And i still do.
I told Brad before he draws any conclusions to do a full power audit in both cases and see where the input power is going. I also told him that he could use an optical system to understand the phase relationship between the oscillating post and the voltage from the function generator so he could understand what is going on there.
So at least it appears that Brad has done none of this. All that he did was look at a kind of glorified "numbers in boxes" deal and arrive at a conclusion.
Another incorrect assumption -as per usual. ::)
So Brad adds the oscillating post and the current draw decreases and If I recall correctly there is also more power being dissipated in a five-ohm load resistor attached to the transformer secondary and the phase on the secondary voltage also changes.
Still cant put 2 and 2 together.
Secondary voltage !and! current MH.
So there is no point in doing any kind of analysis for Brad until he actually tries to do the analysis himself first.
Says the man who dose no bench work at all ::)
I have asked you before,and will ask again--butt out MH--not interested in your input.
Brad
-
Perhaps PW (and others) will look a little closer at what is happening here-as would some one else that no longer can.
Maybe we can learn from measurement protocols from the past?.
Maybe more attention is required to things i say throughout the thread regarding our little magnetic oscillator--things like how !frequency! increases the effect,how it dosnt matter if the coil is oscillating,while the magnet is fixed,or the coil is fixed while the magnet is free to oscillate.
The fact that an increase in load on the output,increases the magnetic field strength of the secondary coil,which should result in a need for a higher P/in-but dose not.
A primary source-acting on a secondary source-acting on a 3rd source that reacts !!with!! the primary source.
Lights on--lights off.
Brad
-
Lol
You really do crack me up some times MH lol.
Quote post 1971:
Post 2033 from Poynt.
What other introduced element can cause the circuit to appear as though the impedance has increased (i.e. a decrease in current)? How about an opposing voltage, i.e. cemf?
The input current is determined by the potential difference across the primary impedance, with the assumption that the opposite end of the primary is at gnd potential (see "normal case"). In this case Vpri is Vfg=3V. Now what happens if another FG is connected to the bottom of the primary? See "cemf case". Now Vpri is Vfg1-Vfg2=2V.
Nothing was changed in terms of the transformer impedance, but the input current is clearly going to be lower in the case when cemf is introduced.
Then your next post MH :Yes, increased in-phase CEMF is what I asked him to check for
Lol-MH-Its the change in impedance
Poynt-Nothing was changed in terms of the transformer impedance. but the input current is clearly going to be lower in the case when cemf is introduced
Mh-- Yes yes-an increase in phase CEMF .
Lol-like i said before MH,you ride on the back of others to make your self look great--but you will always come unstuck.
Brad
That's a totally pretentious posting with a bunch of fake-ass lols.
There is a big red glow on Poyn't comment about nothing being changed in terms of transformer impedance. Then he says the current will be lower when CEMF is being introduced. You are getting the usual soft treatment. When the input current lowers the impedance does indeed change. What I did was wrap your whole setup in a black box and said that system impedance changes. So your red glow means nothing Brad and there is no opportunity to lol. It's probably the usual issue with you and language again.
"Mh-- Yes yes-an increase in phase CEMF ." - The joke is on you Brad. An increase in in in-phase CEMF will indeed change the impedance of the coil as seen from the point of view of the function generator, you are just being treated with kid gloves.
"Lol-like i said before MH,you ride on the back of others to make your self look great--but you will always come unstuck."
That is just another ridiculous bald-faced lie one more time.
From my post #1838:
"Just set up a photocell and light source and scope it along with your voltage trace and find out what the phase is like for the vibrating post below the resonant frequency, at the resonant frequency, and above the resonant frequency. Then just make a simple test on the EMF generation in the coil for when post approaches the coil and when it recedes away from the coil."
"So if you make your measurements and account for where all of the input power is going in both cases, and if you can demonstrate that the vibrating post is acting like an inductive mechanical reactor that is adding to the inductance of the coil, and you can account for the changes for the load resistor, then you would be in pretty good shape."
There I am telling you to determine what the timing is like for the CEMF in the coil. Unless you can't figure that out for yourself from what I wrote.
I am not riding on anybody's back, you are just shamelessly lying, or, your technical and English comprehension problems resulted in what I quoted in my post #1838 "passing right through you like you weren't even there." If the latter is the case then you have a big fail for not asking me to explain it further so you could understand it.
So your little laughing barrel of monkeys is not there, it's a fake. Like it or not, on this thread you are getting the real deal from me and you are not going to be coddled.
MileHigh
-
Okay, Brad, time for a little bit of repartee.
If anyone wanted your opinion ,they would have asked for it.
Really brilliant. I will restate my opinion: I don't believe that you have done all of the power measurements like you claim. If you did that you would share your findings and you haven't. You should not be helped until you actually demonstrate that you really tried to understand your setup by making all of the power measurements and calculations, and tried to account for any missing power and explain it. You should do the full CEMF phase analysis and plot everything out on a timing diagram and try to understand the timing and the power trail for both setups before you come here with your hands held out looking for a hand-out. There is no reason at all that you can't do that work yourself and document it. Do your work first and then come here to discuss it.
More trash talk from the trash can.
We all really do know how it will end up. Instead of doing the work yourself and giving it your best shot, you are going to be coddled and your hand is going to be held and after you do everything you are told to do, you will prove that in your simple setup, once again that there is no magical work coming from magnets. You will say, "Aw shucks" and move on, or you might even prematurely disappear without saying anything when you sense that once again that you have nothing. This has been going on for years.
As i said earlier--you dont have the skill set to work out anything in regards to this experiment--hence me asking Poynt one simple question--?which ended your idiotic reference to impedance change.
You better damn well believe that I have the skill set to analyze your simple experiment. This is an example of you shamelessly making a spectacle of yourself like clown. You know that I have the skill set to do it, Poynt and PW know it, and everybody knows that you are lying. It's embarrassing.
My reference to impedance change is dead-on accurate. You are just showing your limitations when you state that.
And i still do.
And you still do disagree that the impedance is changing. The bloody power consumption is different between the two setups Einstein, and therefore by definition the impedance is changing.
Another incorrect assumption -as per usual.
My belief is that if you had done the full power audit for both setups then you would have shared that information. We know you and what your behaviour is like when it comes to these things from tons of past experience. Or, right now you are working away furiously after you made your statement in order to deliver the goods. If either one of my beliefs is true, then you are lying through your teeth.
Still cant put 2 and 2 together.
Secondary voltage !and! current MH.
So you are "correcting me" there, about a resistor? You look like a clown stating that.
Says the man who dose no bench work at all
I have asked you before,and will ask again--butt out MH--not interested in your input.
I will repeat it: There is no point in doing any kind of analysis for Brad until he actually tries to do the analysis himself first.
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg480871#msg480871 date=1460784776]
MileHigh
There is a big red glow on Poyn't comment about nothing being changed in terms of transformer impedance. Then he says the current will be lower when CEMF is being introduced. You are getting the usual soft treatment. When the input current lowers the impedance does indeed change.
Absolute rubbish MH,and you know it--or maybe you dont ::)
Impedance-->the effective resistance of an electric circuit or component to alternating current, arising from the combined effects of ohmic resistance and reactance
As neither the ohmic resistance or reactance has changed in the circuit MH,please tell us all here how the impedance has changed.
You have done what you normally do,and associated a drop in current being the result in the change of impedance--which it is not.
You are more than welcome to take another 4 to 8 weeks,and come up with your great reveal on impedance.
"Mh-- Yes yes-an increase in phase CEMF ." - The joke is on you Brad. An increase in in in-phase CEMF will indeed change the impedance of the coil as seen from the point of view of the function generator, you are just being treated with kid gloves.
You are acting like a child your self MH.
Lets have you answer some questions then--shall we?.
1-The drop in current flow through the primary coil(the drop in P/in),means the impedance value of the primary coil went up or down?
2-The increase in current flow through the secondary coil,resulting in a higher power value dissipated across the 5 ohm resistor, means the impedance in the secondary coil went up or down?
3- The combined results of the transformer as a whole,means the impedance went up or down?.
4-The phase relationship between the primary and secondary coils current is bought into phase with each other how?
5-Show another transformer test carried out that shows the EMF and current phase relationship between the primary and secondary coil of a transformer to be in phase.
You want to be part of this MH,then it is your turn to answer some questions.
"Just set up a photocell and light source and scope it along with your voltage trace and find out what the phase is like for the vibrating post below the resonant frequency, at the resonant frequency, and above the resonant frequency. Then just make a simple test on the EMF generation in the coil for when post approaches the coil and when it recedes away from the coil."
From the mechanical resonance thread
Quote: Next i am going to use a laser to find out where the magnet is in relation to the primary coils magnetic field. I want to find out what kind of interaction the PMs field is having with the primaries field. I have this feeling that some how the PMs field is leading that of the primaries field,and this is how the secondaries EMF phase is able to come back into phase with the current of the primary,and not 90* out as it should be --we will see.
"So if you make your measurements and account for where all of the input power is going in both cases, and if you can demonstrate that the vibrating post is acting like an inductive mechanical reactor that is adding to the inductance of the coil, and you can account for the changes for the load resistor, then you would be in pretty good shape."
If you had watch the video carfully,then you would have seen that i increased the inductance of the transformer to a far greater value than the magnet increased it to,and the results were no where near that of when the oscillating magnet was in play.
There I am telling you to determine what the timing is like for the CEMF in the coil. Unless you can't figure that out for yourself from what I wrote.
Lol. I guess you think i have never done this sort of thing before--timing that is ::)
I am not riding on anybody's back, you are just shamelessly lying, or, your technical and English comprehension problems resulted in what I quoted in my post #1838 "passing right through you like you weren't even there." If the latter is the case then you have a big fail for not asking me to explain it further so you could understand it.
As i said,your input is neither wanted or needed,and there is nothing that you could explain to me.
So your little laughing barrel of monkeys is not there, it's a fake. Like it or not, on this thread you are getting the real deal from me and you are not going to be coddled.
Like the resonant systems in and around ICEs?--or perhaps the workings of simple electronic components -like a J/FET ? ::)
Lets see how you go with my 5 question's,and then i may reconsider the value of your word's.
My guess is that you will wait for some one else to answer the question's,and provide the required transformer test,and then you will go--yes yes,that is what i was going to say--just like you said others will do after you handed down your wine glass big reveal.
Brad
-
MileHigh
Okay, MH, time for a little bit of repartee.
Really brilliant. I will restate my opinion: I don't believe that you have done all of the power measurements like you claim. If you did that you would share your findings and you haven't. You should not be helped until you actually demonstrate that you really tried to understand your setup by making all of the power measurements and calculations, and tried to account for any missing power and explain it. You should do the full CEMF phase analysis and plot everything out on a timing diagram and try to understand the timing and the power trail for both setups before you come here with your hands held out looking for a hand-out. There is no reason at all that you can't do that work yourself and document it. Do your work first and then come here to discuss it
.
You are a fool MH.
The very reason i asked Poynt the question about impedance,is because i have already used all that !I! know that would cause a change in impedance. I asked Poynt-what can change the impedance in an air core transformer,so as i could account for things that i may have missed.
But here you are!!you clown!! telling those who we learn from,not to teach--you idiot.
We all really do know how it will end up. Instead of doing the work yourself and giving it your best shot, you are going to be coddled and your hand is going to be held and after you do everything you are told to do, you will prove that in your simple setup, once again that there is no magical work coming from magnets. You will say, "Aw shucks" and move on, or you might even prematurely disappear without saying anything when you sense that once again that you have nothing. This has been going on for years.
You really do talk out of the south end of a north bound camel MH.
There has been nothing but consistent dribble and harassment from you since i taught you all about resonant systems in ICEs,and proved you wrong. That is all this is about. You need to get over the fact that a bench experimenter toasted your ass,and move on.
You better damn well believe that I have the skill set to analyze your simple experiment. This is an example of you shamelessly making a spectacle of yourself like clown. You know that I have the skill set to do it, Poynt and PW know it, and everybody knows that you are lying. It's embarrassing.
MH-you dont even know how a J/FET work's,and you just blasted away,saying that my idea of using a L/FET in a low voltage JT type circuit made no sense. Just another example where you made a mistake of something that is common knowledge -like resonant systems in and around ICEs.
My reference to impedance change is dead-on accurate. You are just showing your limitations when you state that.
Lets see how you go with those questions i asked of you. ;)
And you still do disagree that the impedance is changing. The bloody power consumption is different between the two setups Einstein, and therefore by definition the impedance is changing.
Ah,so power consumption means a change in impedance? ::)
Impedance-->the effective resistance of an electric circuit or component to alternating current, arising from the combined effects of ohmic resistance and reactance.
My belief is that if you had done the full power audit for both setups then you would have shared that information. We know you and what your behaviour is like when it comes to these things from tons of past experience. Or, right now you are working away furiously after you made your statement in order to deliver the goods. If either one of my beliefs is true, then you are lying through your teeth.
I am not a liar MH--thank you very much.
I do not bow down to your(or anyone elses) commands on what,when,and where i should do things.
Please stop blaming your limitations on me ;)
So you are "correcting me" there, about a resistor? You look like a clown stating that.
Oh,so it's not important to know the current phase relationship in the secondary to the rest of the system?--who needs some lessons in !!correct!! measurements now MH?.
Shouldn't we know the secondaries current phase when looking for your !!impedance !!change MH?,or are we just happy to use EMF as a measure of power now?..
I will repeat it: There is no point in doing any kind of analysis for Brad until he actually tries to do the analysis himself first.
You are a true blue hypocrite MH-and you just proved that.
In one breath you are saying--listen to those that can teach you-if you dont know how to do something,just ask-we are here to help.
And in the next breath you say-There is no point in doing any kind of analysis for Brad until he actually tries to do the analysis himself first
You are just pathetic MH.
As i said before-i asked Poynt the question about !what can change impedance in a transformer! ,because i had used all the knowledge i had to find if the impedance could indeed change.
And here you are you !!hypocrite!! telling those here,that can help, not to help at all-->you sad ,sad individual.
Brad
-
Brad, lets not go there.....I know what you said, and you know what I stated as well...leave it at that.
Erfinder
I am not going to tread on rose peddles with you.
I just want it made clear that it was not me that said anything about a pure resistance changing with frequency-i said a effective resistance. Your comment about ! how anyone could think a pure resistance changes with frequency in beyond me!,makes it sound like you were referring to my comment,as we are talking about the resistance changing within an inductor with a change in frequency--nothing to do with pure resistances.
As long as we have that understanding,then yes--lets leave it at that.
Brad
-
Brad:
Read: Impedance is "the effective resistance of an electric circuit or component." Effective resistance is voltage over current.
As neither the ohmic resistance or reactance has changed in the circuit MH,please tell us all here how the impedance has changed.
When the voltage over the current changes, then the impedance changes. Don't tell me you are stuck in another "miscomprehension loop" over what impedance means. You can fight that one out with somebody else and if they win the war of attrition you will get unstuck from the loop.
You have done what you normally do,and associated a drop in current being the result in the change of impedance--which it is not.
Assuming that the voltage is constant, that calls for a LOL infinity.
From the mechanical resonance thread
Quote: Next i am going to use a laser to find out where the magnet is in relation to the primary coils magnetic field. I want to find out what kind of interaction the PMs field is having with the primaries field. I have this feeling that some how the PMs field is leading that of the primaries field,and this is how the secondaries EMF phase is able to come back into phase with the current of the primary,and not 90* out as it should be --we will see.
So you took my advice, did I get any credit?
Lol. I guess you think i have never done this sort of thing before--timing that is
I have seen scope shots from you, but I can't recall seeing any serious timing analysis for a circuit done by you.
As i said,your input is neither wanted or needed,and there is nothing that you could explain to me.
That deserves another lol. The way a person poses a question is a very good way of determining where their knowledge level and competence level is. Questions being posed by someone are often very revealing about the poser.
Have a look at this:
While you are here,could you answer a simple question?.
What is needed in order to cause a change in impedance in a transformer,where that transformer has a primary and secondary winding,and is of an air core type ?.
Poynt was being very polite. But after six years of this, you were not able to pose a question that makes sense and demonstrates competence. It's an amateur vague, undefined question. It's the type of question that would get you eaten alive on a serious electronics forum.
Like the resonant systems in and around ICEs?--or perhaps the workings of simple electronic components -like a J/FET ?
You must be getting sore from that.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
You are a true blue hypocrite MH-and you just proved that.
In one breath you are saying--listen to those that can teach you-if you dont know how to do something,just ask-we are here to help.
And in the next breath you say-There is no point in doing any kind of analysis for Brad until he actually tries to do the analysis himself first
You are just pathetic MH.
As i said before-i asked Poynt the question about !what can change impedance in a transformer! ,because i had used all the knowledge i had to find if the impedance could indeed change.
And here you are you !!hypocrite!! telling those here,that can help, not to help at all-->you sad ,sad individual.
Like I already stated, your question was half-assed. PW politely asked you for a schematic, not for a verbal description from you.
And here you are you !!hypocrite!! telling those here,that can help, not to help at all
I refuse to believe that you can't understand, "There is no point in doing any kind of analysis for Brad until he actually tries to do the analysis himself first."
After six years and loads of help from Poynt, myself, TK, PW and others, you need to respect the time of the people you are dealing with. Do the work first and show your measurements, results, and conclusions and then seek help and advice from others. That is the message for your lazy fat ass. Did you see your laziness biting you in the ass because you could not be bothered to show a dot convention on your transformer and Poynt said your scope probe placement and what was on your schematic didn't match and you made mmmeesttaak-k-k-esssss?
You deserve help but you have to earn it. It shouldn't take three weeks and 15 hours of other people's time to demonstrate to you that your little experiment proves nothing and for the 30th time you deluded yourself. It should tale 2 hours max of other people's time to figure it out. Present your data, show your measurements, show your calculations, show your timing. Get off your ass and improve your game and show respect to the people that want to help you by doing the bloody work and summarizing it in a nice neat informative posting or two or three. I have already told you this before. Don't be a sad sack.
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg480883#msg480883 date=1460793149]
MileHigh
Like I already stated, your question was half-assed. PW politely asked you for a schematic, not for a verbal description from you.
A classic example of your misdirection attempts MH. You wanted proof--here it is right here.
The question was driected to Poynt,and that question was--While you are here,could you answer a simple question?.
What is needed in order to cause a change in impedance in a transformer,where that transformer has a primary and secondary winding,and is of an air core type ?.
I refuse to believe that you can't understand, "There is no point in doing any kind of analysis for Brad until he actually tries to do the analysis himself first.
You MH are against all that this forum stands for--helping others to learn that which they do not know. You truly are !!against!! the heart of this forum,and your very clear attempt to go against what this forum is about is now here for everyone to see. Your true nature and intent is now visible MH-you have been exposed for what you are. You are against experimenter helping experimenter,and you should be ejected from this forum. Your fowl language is also on display here on this forum. You may be able to remove your posts showing such profanities,but you cannot remove my reply's that include your profanities. And then you have the nerve to say--!It's embarrassing how ridiculous and awful your behaviour is!--you really are a hypocrite MH-and that is clear throughout this thread.
After six years and loads of help from Poynt, myself, TK, PW and others, you need to respect the time of the people you are dealing with.
I have the upmost respect for all mentioned !but you! MH. I have zero respect for you,and your sadistic attitude.
Do the work first and show your measurements, results, and conclusions[/b] and then seek help and advice from others. That is the message for your lazy fat ass.
The only one that has a lazy fat ass MH is you--sitting in your little rocking chair,and doing nothing but bringing negativity to this forum. This shows how delusional you are,and you are beginning to believe your own lies.
Did you see your laziness biting you in the ass because you could not be bothered to show a dot convention on your transformer and Poynt said your scope probe placement and what was on your schematic didn't match and you made mmmeesttaak-k-k-esssss?
Second attempt at misdirection by you MH,and in the same thread.
The scope shot is absolutely correct for the question asked,and had absolutely nothing to do with polarity correctness. Lets see you go argue that point with PW and TK,then bring your little self back here ,with your tail tucked behind your leg's,and make another apology for being incorrect again. You will not question what they have to say,because you are a coward-pure and simple.
You deserve help but you have to earn it. It shouldn't take three weeks and 15 hours of other people's time to demonstrate to you that your little experiment proves nothing and for the 30th time you deluded yourself.
The only one that is deluded here MH,is you--that much has become clear in this thread alone.
It should tale 2 hours max of other people's time to figure it out.
Please try and keep your English up to scratch MH,as that makes no sense at all--what go's around,comes around. ;)
Present your data, show your measurements, show your calculations, show your timing. Get off your ass and improve your game and show respect to the people that want to help you by doing the bloody work and summarizing it in a nice neat informative posting or two or three. I have already told you this before. Don't be a sad sack.
Lol--look at you, thinking your all that lol.
You simply do not have the smarts to make demands like that MH.
You really need to get over the fact that i have had to correct you so many times in one thread--so tuffen up princess.
As i stated,i have respect for most here--except you.
You are a true example of those that this forum could do without.
And to finally go as far as to tell one member not to help out another member when they have asked for it,is nothing short of being a true troll/disinformationist--you have proven that beyond doubt now.
I will now repeat my questions to MH.
You are now in the same position you put EMJ in with your coil question.
1-The drop in current flow through the primary coil(the drop in P/in),means the impedance value of the primary coil went up or down?
2-The increase in current flow through the secondary coil,resulting in a higher power value dissipated across the 5 ohm resistor, means the impedance in the secondary coil went up or down?
3- The combined results of the transformer as a whole,means the impedance went up or down?.
4-The phase relationship between the primary and secondary coils current is bought into phase with each other how?
5-Show another transformer test carried out that shows the EMF and current phase relationship between the primary and secondary coil of a transformer to be in phase.
This is the second time i have asked MH these questions.
I ask no more from MH than he did of EMJ.
I also ask no one answer the questions until MH has done so.
Brad
-
Unfortunately I can't see anyone getting anywhere with the tinman.
He won't accept "First Principles" ab initio.
His April 1 post demonstrates this.
Researchers know the electron magnetic dipole moment to an
accuracy of 7.6 parts in 10 to the minus 13.
When you look at induction at a really fundamental level it
is a thing of beauty, one of the wonders of the world.
There is obviously more to discover, but what we do know is
pretty rock solid.
There must have been billions of electric devices built and if there
was a chance of one "running away" it would have surely happened
by accident if it were there.
John.
-
Didn't ask you to, nor did I suggest you tread on rose peddles!
I can read Brad, I know who said what and when. My comment was general, if I were referring to you I would have mentioned your name in the post. However, in light of being accused of something I didn't do, I recommend that if the shoe fits wear it. You didn't find your name in my comment, you therefore assumed that I was referring to you, ego....your mistake.
It would be awesome to see all this going somewhere....as it stands, I have yet to see anything that hasn't been demonstrated countless times already. Where is the real? There is no research taking place here, by the book or otherwise. All that's going on here is position defense, and it matters little to me how you react to this, I stated this before elsewhere, you were a guy that had an eye for certain things, and that guy I have not seen in quite some time. Each time I think its time to show you shit that I have shared with a few of your peers, you show me that it would be a complete waste of time, unfortunate, but it is what it is.
No matter how the magnets are oriented, circuit geometry demands that CEMF limits current. Current is, but should/must not be limited in this manner. You really want to see your magnets do work, rework the circuit, allow for a path from the magnet into the coil and back (this opens the door to 180° shifts, but not like how its being discussed, and when that which is being discussed is applicable, how this understanding is applied is questioned). As long as your current is being limited by CEMF, the magnets will not work with you, nor you with the magnets. When increasing CEMF is of such a direction so as to augment the applied EMF,and thereby, increase consumption, (not covered in the texts books I have read) can one begin to contemplate how the magnets under this new set of circumstances can perform real work in broad sense of the term. The general rule should be that a magnet cannot work for you if its working against you.
How we choose to view coils sets the stage for everything that follows that decision. Part of what I see are flux gates, our collective lack of understanding keep us from using them in a manner which results in the force we call attraction from manifesting between inducer and induced inside generators. Repulsion is a no brainier, for that all you have to do is what you are told, the law takes care of the rest. There is way more going on than these various debates will allow the free thinker to ascertain let alone believe.
Regards
Cheers Erfinder :)
I am always looking/researching,and experimenting with the unknown--of course you know this.
But ATM,i need to take action against that poor excuse for a human being.
There should never come a time where a member of this forum should recommend that one experimenter should not help another,nor should members here be exposed to the profanities used by said member.. This is the very heart of these types of forum's-where those that know could be asked for help by those that are still learning the ways of !!known! science.
I will keep on doing what i am doing,despite having to deal with this fraud.
Meters can't give us any insight into those areas we have yet to consider. Perhaps more time and energy would be better invested in contemplating the ifs, rather than defending a point which, were it self evident, requires no defense.
I totally agree with this Erfinder,but the point i am going to make here,is that we should not stand for--oh that is wrong,but i will not provide any proof to the contrary. To many times we have seen self acclaimed ex-spurts(such as before mentioned) reel out all sorts of rubbish to try and misdirect others from knowing the truth. The !no resonance! in and around the ICE rubbish had to be stopped,and i did that. Now said negative claimant is out to do what he can to once again misdirect and encourage others to avoid helping a fellow member on this FE research forum.
Im sorry,but that stops right here in this thread,and said idiot is now in the spotlight--the very same place he put EMJ in some time back--and continues to gloat about it.
Well now it's his turn--now we get to judge him as he judged EMJ.
Brad
-
.
When you look at induction at a really fundamental level it
is a thing of beauty, one of the wonders of the world.
There is obviously more to discover, but what we do know is
pretty rock solid.
There must have been billions of electric devices built and if there
was a chance of one "running away" it would have surely happened
by accident if it were there.
John.
Oh there you are minnie.
Unfortunately I can't see anyone getting anywhere with the tinman
If MH has his way,then you may actually be correct for once :D
As you are the person that felt he was high enough up the food chain to judge me on my understandings on induction--but of course ,failed to answer a simple induction question,i offer you the same questions i asked MH.
Feel free to answer the questions any time--as long as it's before anyone else dose.
He won't accept "First Principles" ab initio.
His April 1 post demonstrates this.
Researchers know the electron magnetic dipole moment to an
accuracy of 7.6 parts in 10 to the minus 13.
Cool.
So as you feel that you are full bottles on magnetic field's,please tell us all here what it is--what is the magnetic field/force that surrounds a permanent magnet?.
You make lots of comments and determinations minnie--but never can you back them up with your own smart's.
There is a name for that kind of person--what was it again?. ::)
Brad
-
TinMan
Quote
There should never come a time where a member of this forum should recommend that one experimenter should not help another
End Quote
Miles Loves to talk Karma and shame yet has no issue making these DEMANDS. [Sans ..Queer Karma]
calling you Lazy is also weird and confrontational ??
-
To say i am wrong,or that the scope capture was wrong for the question asked,is also to say that PW and TK are also wrong.
The scope capture and schematic would be 100% correct if it was denoted with either dot convention on the transformer, OR stated that CH2 is inverted. What part of that are you having difficulty understanding?
So please do not do what MH dose,and add confusion by way of saying things are wrong by pointing out things that were never part of the question.
Brad
How is it that I am adding confusion? Tell us then, if someone built your circuit and placed the probes precisely as you have, and did not invert their scope channel nor flip the transformer leads, would they produce the same wave form as you showed? Will they not be confused when they see the secondary voltage leading the primary current?
-
author=poynt99 link=topic=8341.msg480910#msg480910 date=1460809484]
The scope capture and schematic would be 100% correct if it was denoted with either dot convention on the transformer, OR stated that CH2 is inverted. What part of that are you having difficulty understanding?
I nor PW and TK any any difficulty using the associated scope shot to answer the question asked. The scope shot presented was correct in that it provided the needed information to answer the question. The question was presented to minnie,in order to determine if he had the smarts to make judgement on me,and my induction skills. CH2 was inverted for this very reason--so once again,the scope shot is correct for the question asked.
How is it that I am adding confusion? Tell us then,
Because the question was aimed to determine whether minnie had the skill set to pass judgement on mine. It was not suppose to show a correct or incorrect polarity of channel inversion. It was set like that as a test,and a question was provided in regards to that test.
if someone built your circuit and placed the probes precisely as you have, and did not invert their scope channel nor flip the transformer leads, would they produce the same wave form as you showed?
No they would not. But if the same question i asked was associated with there wave form,then the very same answer would be correct.
Will they not be confused when they see the secondary voltage leading the primary
current?
Not if they know what they are looking at,which was the very reason i asked minnie the question--to find out if he had the skill set/the right to say i needed to learn basic induction.
This is exactly what i mean by !!adding confusion!! to add something that is not related to the question asked in regards to the scope shot.
Brad
-
Good, thank you for acknowledging that.
For future reference, I strongly encourage you to note scope channel inversions or coil lead flips on your diagrams and/or descriptions, regardless of the purpose of the post.
-
Good, thank you for acknowledging that.
For future reference, I strongly encourage you to note scope channel inversions or coil lead flips on your diagrams and/or descriptions, regardless of the purpose of the post.
As you will see(in most cases),i do exactly that. But if i had done that in this case,then the question is already half answered for the person asked.
Anyway,have you had any more thought toward the effect being seen in my little experiment?.
I in no way can see the change in impedance being the cause for the drop in current(power-as voltage to primary is fixed)to the primary coil. I have used what i know to determine this,and so that is why i asked you the question regarding-what can change the impedance of a transformer,as there may be something i have over looked,or do not know about.
I do not count a CEMF from the secondary reducing primary current as an impedance change,as in most cases,an increase in secondary current would result in an increase in primary current.
Due to the fact that we have a decrease in primary current as we get an increase in secondary current,then a change in transformer impedance would mean some sort of positive outcome impedance increase on the primary,where it has the opposite effect we would think it should have.--what ever that means?,and hence my request for some information.
Brad
-
I haven't got much interest in the circuit, the point I was trying to make was
understanding the very basics of magnetism and induction. Lorentz and Einstein
and that sort of stuff.
You have to accept a lot of that to be right,study "The Moving Magnet and Conductor Problem"
can be found on Wiki.
It's got to be a bit of a joke all this argumentation over a transformer where you
have dots to show the way
Otherwise fritter and waste your life away sniping at MH.
John.
-
Anyway,have you had any more thought toward the effect being seen in my little experiment?.
I would be seeing what polarity emf is induced in both the secondary and primary from the magnet motion alone (you've probably already done that). I'd also be attempting to determine all the phasing and timing, as MH suggested, in order to try and piece together what is happening throughout the process.
Do you think the same effect would be present if your air transformer was just a simple 1:1 ratio? Have you tried it?
-
I would be seeing what polarity emf is induced in both the secondary and primary from the magnet motion alone (you've probably already done that). I'd also be attempting to determine all the phasing and timing, as MH suggested, in order to try and piece together what is happening throughout the process.
Do you think the same effect would be present if your air transformer was just a simple 1:1 ratio? Have you tried it?
I am doing what i can,as i can.
I have the laser setup for the timing relationship test. But at a guess,i would think the timing of the magnet is 90* advanced from that of the current(magnetic field) of the primary,due to primary and secondary phase alignment with the oscillating magnet in play.
I feel that the magnet is not having a primary effect on the primary coil,but a secondary effect arising from the increase in current flow in the secondary,and where the magnets primary induction relationship is with the secondary winding.
So we have a situation where the primary coil is driving the oscillating magnet,and the oscillating magnet is the provider for the increase in the secondaries current /power output. But due to the magnetic field phase relationship between the fixed field orientation of the PM,and that of the alternating field of the primary,some how is allowing the secondaries EMF/current phase to line up with that of the primaries phase.
Anyway--a bit of guessing going on,in way of observation of scope shot's.
Will know more soon.
In the mean time,do you know of any other way that the impedance could be changed,where it would not work against current understandings.?.
Brad
-
In the mean time,do you know of any other way that the impedance could be changed,where it would not work against current understandings.?.
Brad
I don't, no.
How about my 1:1 transformer question?
-
I don't, no.
How about my 1:1 transformer question?
Oh yea--sorry.
I will wind a coil tomorrow with the 1:1 turn ratio,and will give it a go.
I have just shortened the oscillator stem,and managed to increase the resonant frequency to-close to 40Hz. This small increase has made a big difference in the secondaries output,as well as lowering the primaries P/in even further. After some experimenting with the frequency,by adjusting the frequency .01Hz at a time either side of the absolute resonant frequency,i can actually get the secondaries current to lead that of the primaries current,or if i adjust the frequency the other way,i can get the secondaries current to lag the primaries current.
Have you ever seen a transformer where the secondaries current leads that of the primaries?.
Preliminary power measurements.
Without oscillator setup.
P/in 173mW
P/out--5 ohm resistor across secondary= 320 uW-.32mW
With oscillator in play
P/in 147mW
P/out--5ohm resistor across secondary= 7.372mW
That is a 15% decrease in P/in,and a 2300%+ rise in electrical output,as i will be leaving dissipated energy by way of vibrations out of the mix--to hard to measure.
Brad
-
Well, going from 0.18% efficiency to 5.01% efficiency is progress no doubt. Doctor Strangelove would be impressed.
-
Well, going from 0.18% efficiency to 5.01% efficiency is progress no doubt. Doctor Strangelove would be impressed.
Another idiotic comment from the peanut gallery.
No idea at all as to how the transformer is wound,what the turn ratio's are--and so on and so on.
Also pays no attention to details regarding rasing the inductance value far beyond that of what the PM could.
How are those answers coming along MH-- Wouldnt want you in the same boat as EMJ--now would we.
3rd time asking MH 5 questions about transformer impedance.
Oh,and here is a new one MH.
Question 6--provide a link or information on a transformer where the secondaries current leads that of the primaries current.
I will add that one to the list MH.
1-The drop in current flow through the primary coil(the drop in P/in),means the impedance value of the primary coil went up or down?
2-The increase in current flow through the secondary coil,resulting in a higher power value dissipated across the 5 ohm resistor, means the impedance in the secondary coil went up or down?
3- The combined results of the transformer as a whole,means the impedance went up or down?.
4-The phase relationship between the primary and secondary coils current is bought into phase with each other how?
5-Show another transformer test carried out that shows the EMF and current phase relationship between the primary and secondary coil of a transformer to be in phase.
6--provide a link or information on a transformer where the secondaries current leads that of the primaries current.
Lets hope you dont fail like minnie did ,with what you deem !simple questions!
Brad
-
Brad:
So as you feel that you are full rose peddles on magnetic field's,please tell us all here what it is--what is the magnetic field/force that surrounds a permanent magnet?.
MileHigh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_vq7lkdakc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_vq7lkdakc)
P.S. It looks like the girl in this clip is mostly singing phonetically, and most of the time she doesn't even know what she is saying.
-
@MH
As you like pictures so much,i have prepared one just for you.
This is so you dont miss any when going through the answering process,and it will be much quicker for me to post the questions.
Yes,i know you a bit daunted ,but as you claim to be an expert in the subject matter,then we should all expect to see some answers soon ;)
Lets hope you dont end up in the same boat you placed EMJ in--we wouldnt want that.
Brad
-
When MH meets Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDN_EDOOuzA
Brad
-
Wouldn't it be awesome if we were all this damn good....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQGXKHS_r0
4 wheels and a roll cage :D
How about two wheels,and a helmet ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20XsaHpRQC8
-
Ken - Block could probably Kill Darrel Waltrip with out touching him.....[stop his heart ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQGXKHS_r0
-
4 wheels and a roll cage :D
How about two wheels,and a helmet ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20XsaHpRQC8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20XsaHpRQC8)
My 49cc 4 stroke scooter can do that...on ice, ha ha.
Bill
-
Brad:
MileHigh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_vq7lkdakc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_vq7lkdakc)
P.S. It looks like the girl in this clip is mostly singing phonetically, and most of the time she doesn't even know what she is saying.
So as you feel that you are full rose peddles on magnetic field's,please tell us all here what it is--what is the magnetic field/force that surrounds a permanent magnet?.
I have answered this question many times over the years here MH--why do you ask again?--you forget already?.
The song was crap by the way ::)
Brad
-
1-The drop in current flow through the primary coil(the drop in P/in),means the impedance value of the primary coil went up or down?
>>> Irrational question. There is no mention of the voltage. Get help to learn how to compose a coherent sentence from Posters Anonymous.
2-The increase in current flow through the secondary coil,resulting in a higher power value dissipated across the 5 ohm resistor, means the impedance in the secondary coil went up or down?
>>> Irrational question. The impedance of the secondary coil is not discussed in this context. There was no Brad secret decoder ring used in the answering of this question.
3- The combined results of the transformer as a whole,means the impedance went up or down?.
>>> Irrational question. No answer provided, see recommendation in answer #1.
4-The phase relationship between the primary and secondary coils current is bought into phase with each other how?
>>> Use a resistive load.
5-Show another transformer test carried out that shows the EMF and current phase relationship between the primary and secondary coil of a transformer to be in phase.
>>> Irrational question or use a resistive load and rose peddles.
6--provide a link or information on a transformer where the secondaries current leads that of the primaries current.
>>> Irrational question or see Brad's "magnet on a Popsicle stick that wobbles transformer" experiment extraordinaire.
Brad...
I've got something to say...
I really loved the skillful way...
You posed those questions like peddles, touché!
NOW, Brad, dammit, answer the question in posting #2073 about "magnetic field's."
-
I have answered this question many times over the years here MH--why do you ask again?--you forget already?.
The song was crap by the way ::)
Brad
Answer the question again and I am not surprised.
-
Ken - Block could probably Kill Darrel Waltrip with out touching him.....[stop his heart ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQGXKHS_r0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQGXKHS_r0)
Ill agree there. Seen all his vids. Almost unrealistic.
Another talent that Im amazed by is FPV drone racing. Its actually scary how good these guys are.
Mags
-
Miles
Your a heartless Cretan ...
TinMan has probably been at it all night and now the sun comes up down under and your still trying to
Clip his wings..
Don't assume he is unaware of the energy available in his system ,Nor how important it is to account for it all
prior to making claims.
@Mags
Those Drone racers are gonna be a real blast ,and That sport is just getting started !
nothing like sitting in the drivers seat and not having to worry about getting injured .
-
Chet:
Get lost with your mother hen nonsense. You observe Brad act like an irrational beast and you say nothing. Go drown in your sorrows at the bar of the morally bankrupt.
He was asked to do a power audit and he has apparently done nothing. His "work from magnets" is nonsense, and the idea is drowning in a sea of resistive losses. That's the usual for a rank amateur beginner, "forget" about the resistive losses and delude yourself into believing that the magnets are doing useful work.
MileHigh
-
Miles
You walked into class and poked everyman in the room in the Chest [or at least you thought you did]
and said "I'm better than you are at this ,you have no idea what your doing "
"resonance is low hanging fruit and the food of fools"
"you are all ignoramus's and don't even know what resonance is"..
and then you went on some "WhineGlass" ringing Karma trip and got tripped up in your own foolish statements .. calling Brad an Idiot based on your own ignorance.
it went on and on and on. [Nasty from Both sides ]
and Now you like to think Brad moves forward Blindly [not willing to account for all the energy in his Model]
its not his first summer ...does he know it all?
No!
Do you ?
No!
you draw first Blood and then you whine about what happens !
is it fun to look at ..Not for me its not [quite certain that opinion is not unique ]
But Brad has a mission... he has seen something he would like understood ,and honestly there are plenty of people
that are truly interested in what may be possible with magnets ,even the Boss just put up a Link to a new "magnet only" energy Claim here at his forum .
Do I have empathy for Brad and all the Crazy hours he is putting into this .
Yes I do
I also have appreciation for the efforts you and others are putting into this Too.
maybe another attempt at a line in the sand ?
a ceasefire ?
Or I could ask the Boss to Roll out the Steel cage ...
would sell a lot of tickets for sure ??
I think a Ceasefire might be better for the Time being.
just one mans opinion...[the cage always Draws a crowd ...]
-
Here are some quotes from our good man Milehigh, all from just the last 3 days.
So lets summarize....
Get lost with your mother hen nonsense.
You observe Brad act like an irrational beast and you say nothing.
Go drown in your sorrows at the bar of the morally bankrupt.
It looks like the girl in this clip is mostly singing phonetically, and most of the time she doesn't even know what she is saying.
So as you feel that you are full rose peddles on magnetic field's
Doctor Strangelove would be impressed.
So your little laughing barrel of monkeys is not there, it's a fake. Like it or not, on this thread you are getting the real deal from me and you are not going to be coddled.
That's a totally pretentious posting with a bunch of fake-ass lols.
You look like a clown stating that.
So you took my advice, did I get any credit?
The way a person poses a question is a very good way of determining where their knowledge level and competence level is.
Questions being posed by someone are often very revealing about the poser.
But after six years of this, you were not able to pose a question that makes sense and demonstrates competence.
It's an amateur vague, undefined question.
It's the type of question that would get you eaten alive on a serious electronics forum.
You must be getting sore from that.
Like I already stated, your question was half-assed.
After six years and loads of help from Poynt, myself, TK, PW and others, you need to respect the time of the people you are dealing with.
That is the message for your lazy fat ass.
Did you see your laziness biting you in the ass because you could not be bothered to show a dot convention on your transformer and Poynt said your scope probe placement and what was on your schematic didn't match and you made mmmeesttaak-k-k-esssss?
You deserve help but you have to earn it.
Get off your ass and improve your game and show respect to the people that want to help you by doing the bloody work and summarizing it in a nice neat informative posting or two or three. ;) ;) ;)
Don't be a sad sack.
You just have to do the work to find out what is going on. ;) ;) ;)
The Budgie from Hell will haunt your dreams for the rest of your life:
Therefore all of your comments about losses are dismissed.
If you are unable to comprehend this, then that is your problem and you have issues.
You are just doing your usual shtick and making a spectacle of yourself. ;) ;) ;)
You have got nothing Webby and you are just irrationally spouting out foolishness.
You have got a serious case of Sn-50 contamination in your brain and it is impairing you. Change your diet.
It's embarrassing how ridiculous and awful your behaviour is. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
More embarrassing stuff.
Take little tiny baby steps Brad and you will get there.
Go jump in a lake as far as I am concerned.
Your non-technical colour commentary is useless and if you endorse what Johan did then bow your head in shame, truly. ;) ;) ;)
You are a blazing injustice warrior.
The reason you are so freaked out is because I have been calling you out for statements like that.
Are we all in remedial English class now?
A Dummies link:
I flat-out refuse to get into another nonsensical debate on this thread. ;) ;) ;)
Johan, your peers should be embarrassed and frankly horrified by your behaviour and you should be flagged for that. ;) ;) ;)
It's not my fault that you can't understand or are ignorant of how a simple academic question is typically posed and expected to be answered.
Or you do understand and you are just making a fool of yourself.
Cite your own postings.
We both know I read your postings and you came up short and couldn't answer the questions.
I seriously doubt that you sounded that coherent in your original posting. I am not 100% sure but that's what it feels like to me.
You know that I read your postings where you tried to answer the questions. So why did you accuse me of not reading them?
After doing that, perhaps one day you will see karma. ;) ;) ;)
And I don't mean from me. But perhaps one day karma will catch up with you for what you posted.
Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.
How about stopping the bad boy routine with the antonym crack? ;) ;) ;)
It was a big fish claim.
Well I have made thousands of postings filled with good solid information and in the earlier days I helped people understand their circuits all the time. ??? ;) ;) ;)
You can have the rest of this conversation with yourself into the wind.
Just more mean-spirited ugliness.
It would be ridiculous for me not to, therefore your statement is ridiculous.
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous and idiotic postings I have ever seen on this forum.
I admitted that I was wrong about resonance for an ICE, that's it. ;) ;) ;)
If you choose to dismiss what I am saying, so be it. ;D ;)
Mags
-
Chet:
No more straw man and if you can't show any balance what the hell is that?
Magluvin:
A good chunk of those statements are valid, but tough. There is a bit of over-the-top stuff too. But what I don't see you doing is doing exactly the same thing for Brad, and there are a of lot ripe pickings there too. And so there is no balance there also, so what the hell is that?
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous and idiotic postings I have ever seen on this forum.
HEY, that guy posted a picture of a serial s** offender of under-age children and compared that to me. And you take issue with that quote? Bow your head in shame.
And of course, you yourself are one of the worst ever people on this forum for bad bahaviour.
MileHigh
-
Like it or not, if Brad is having a meltdown because he is being given the straight goods, then he needs to have an un-meltdown soon. Brad is going overboard and almost insane when trying to discuss things with me, and if you can't show some reasonable semblance of balance then it's all a joke and a farce.
Take the example of Brad insisting that you had to account for whether or not a car was on a hill to determine it's top speed. Who here commented that that made no sense? Not a single one of you.
Brad said this in posting #1987: "It is also funny how you have used the term!compressed spring!,where a spring has very little stiffness,but a high value of elasticity--something to think about"
I asked if anybody wanted to correct him with respect to that statement and not a single one of you said anything. Not a single one of you!
If any of you showed some balance and were willing to tell Brad when he was making incorrect, crazy or ridiculous statements beyond just myself and Minnie and occasionally Poynt, then perhaps he would not be in meltdown mode. He is obsessively and compulsively telling me I am wrong and impugning my character and none of you have anything to say about it. You are giving him free reign to run wild and go nearly nuts and saying nothing.
And so Brad got some push-back from me, and he had to get a lot more from me because almost none of you would step in and tell him when he was dead wrong and/or out of control. I must have gone through a dozen or more completely out-of-kilter debates with Brad where he stuck to some ridiculous notion. Like when he insisted that a Joule Thief was an RLC circuit when there isn't even a capacitor in the schematic.
I told Brad that I would state the truth as I see it on this thread only and I would not touch any of the development threads that he and Magluvin are on, but I would stand my ground for what is right on this thread. And Brad keeps coming back to this thread and arguing stuff that is sometimes foolish and crazy. I told him I would not fight over the definition of impedance with him, he could take that battle somewhere else.
There are two sides to this ridiculous drama and I am only hearing one side. I don't even want the drama, why is Brad arguing with me about his new little transformer experiment? There is a dedicated thread for that. He can say whatever he wants to say on the build thread and I probably won't even read it.
-
Miles
TinMen don't "Meltdown" so easily. [another attempt at a degrading innuendo on your part ].
As far as Johan Using that very offensive Man to show just how offensive he finds your Constant Holier than thou Karma stuff..
??
he wasn't comparing you to that Man ,just How offensive true believers in such might find a man who fills a whole Page with Bile and nasty in just two days worth of quotes above... yet try's to intimate no culpability in any of it.
Pure as the Purest Karma driven Snow.
NOT.
Honestly
your "WhinyGlass" throw down , did Rub most the wrong way and intimated some higher level of understanding ..and along with your Constant Karma comments
A higher level of behavior...
Brad however claims to be a fire breathing heathen and never professed to hold himself to your alleged higher standards.
those alleged Mile High standards are why I get to point out your deficit's.[a brief 48 hours worth posted by Mags above.
you set the table
so you want to keep up The Karma Nasty for a few more weeks?
no Chillin ?
-
Chet:
No more straw man and if you can't show any balance what the hell is that?
Magluvin:
A good chunk of those statements are valid, but tough. There is a bit of over-the-top stuff too. But what I don't see you doing is doing exactly the same thing for Brad, and there are a of lot ripe pickings there too. And so there is no balance there also, so what the hell is that?
HEY, that guy posted a picture of a serial s** offender of under-age children and compared that to me. And you take issue with that quote? Bow your head in shame.
And of course, you yourself are one of the worst ever people on this forum for bad bahaviour.
MileHigh
" But what I don't see you doing is doing exactly the same thing for Brad"
What? Beating him into submission, with an audience? How many days did you insult and badger him about resonance of an ICE, before you admitted you were wrong?? HOW MANY PAGES?? HOW MANY DAYS??? Go back and look at it! Or I can go back and post it ALL for you and your audience. ;) So now when you argue something you do not know about, until you do, the audience will now be wary of your knowledge, until it is proven you really knew or not. So maybe YOU better get off your ass and do some work bud!!! Screw your demands.
"HEY, that guy posted a picture of a serial s** offender of under-age children and compared that to me. And you take issue with that quote? Bow your head in shame."
Oh. So now YOU KNOW for sure the guy in the picture is a, what? A Serial offender???? And you can show evidence of this???? Is what you are stating here ACTUAL FACT???? Or is it the fiction machine you have in that balloon on your shoulders??? ;) ;) ;) ;) DO IT! I DEMAND THAT YOU PROVE YOUR STATEMENT AS FACT!!! lol Ya cant. You presumed. A word you frequent with. You have imagination! And it shows quite often. ;) ;) ;)
"And of course, you yourself are one of the worst ever people on this forum for bad bahaviour."
Again? Oh really? Go ahead and find the posts that show what you just stated?? Go ahead!!The trouble in doing that is most likely the argument would be with you. And the 'audience' that you direct to those posts you claim of me, will be able to read your posts along side of mine, and judge for themselves. lol So go ahead. Find my potty mouth posts that dont exist. And then we will reminisce some of your gratuitous works. ;) ;) ;) ;)
Magluvin
-
Chet:
I will tell it to you again: Brad and I argued about a "resonant Joule Thief." Then we argued about resonance. He willingly took up the challenge on the wine glass, and he failed to answer either question correctly. The delay was pay-back for him being continuously rude and refusing to tell me where something he had posted was that was buried in the middle of a posting and not properly identified. Brad took pleasure in refusing to tell me where the information was.
He insisted that my answers about the wine glass were wrong but he has since clammed up. So if he stated perhaps 25-35 times that my answers were wrong, well he was wrong stating my answers were wrong and his answers themselves were wrong. He willingly took up the challenge and it is not your place to say anything about that.
And so the drama goes on.
MileHigh
-
" But what I don't see you doing is doing exactly the same thing for Brad"
What? Beating him into submission, with an audience? How many days did you insult and badger him about resonance of an ICE, before you admitted you were wrong?? HOW MANY PAGES?? HOW MANY DAYS??? Go back and look at it! Or I can go back and post it ALL for you and your audience. ;) So now when you argue something you do not know about, until you do, the audience will now be wary of your knowledge, until it is proven you really knew or not. So maybe YOU better get off your ass and do some work bud!!! Screw your demands.
"HEY, that guy posted a picture of a serial s** offender of under-age children and compared that to me. And you take issue with that quote? Bow your head in shame."
Oh. So now YOU KNOW for sure the guy in the picture is a, what? A Serial offender? ??? And you can show evidence of this? ??? Is what you are stating here ACTUAL FACT? ??? Or is it the fiction machine you have in that balloon on your shoulders??? ;) ;) ;) ;) DO IT! I DEMAND THAT YOU PROVE YOUR STATEMENT AS FACT!!! lol Ya cant. You presumed. A word you frequent with. You have imagination! And it shows quite often. ;) ;) ;)
"And of course, you yourself are one of the worst ever people on this forum for bad bahaviour."
Again? Oh really? Go ahead and find the posts that show what you just stated?? Go ahead!!The trouble in doing that is most likely the argument would be with you. And the 'audience' that you direct to those posts you claim of me, will be able to read your posts along side of mine, and judge for themselves. lol So go ahead. Find my potty mouth posts that dont exist. And then we will reminisce some of your gratuitous works. ;) ;) ;) ;)
Magluvin
I admitted that I was wrong about the ICE. I did not "beat Brad into submission" about the ICE, that's ridiculous. Point finale. You haven't seen Brad badgering me?
I guess that you don't listen to the news. The guy was a serial s** offender with underage children.
Oh. So now YOU KNOW for sure the guy in the picture is a, what? A Serial offender?(http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif) And you can show evidence of this?(http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif) Is what you are stating here ACTUAL FACT?(http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif) Or is it the fiction machine you have in that balloon on your shoulders??? (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif) DO IT! I DEMAND THAT YOU PROVE YOUR STATEMENT AS FACT!!! lol Ya cant. You presumed. A word you frequent with. You have imagination! And it shows quite often. (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
So now you have become unglued? What kind of ridiculous point are you trying to make here?
Again? Oh really? Go ahead and find the posts that show what you just stated??
You damn well know it, you harassed and demeaned and degraded me for a FULL YEAR and you enjoyed it. Your partner in crime was Synchro1 and both of you were disgusting in your behaviour.
Take a look at the attached image. That was your tag-team buddy in action.
MileHigh
-
Like it or not, if Brad is having a meltdown because he is being given the straight goods, then he needs to have an un-meltdown soon. Brad is going overboard and almost insane when trying to discuss things with me, and if you can't show some reasonable semblance of balance then it's all a joke and a farce.
Take the example of Brad insisting that you had to account for whether or not a car was on a hill to determine it's top speed. Who here commented that that made no sense? Not a single one of you.
Brad said this in posting #1987: "It is also funny how you have used the term!compressed spring!,where a spring has very little stiffness,but a high value of elasticity--something to think about"
I asked if anybody wanted to correct him with respect to that statement and not a single one of you said anything. Not a single one of you!
If any of you showed some balance and were willing to tell Brad when he was making incorrect, crazy or ridiculous statements beyond just myself and Minnie and occasionally Poynt, then perhaps he would not be in meltdown mode. He is obsessively and compulsively telling me I am wrong and impugning my character and none of you have anything to say about it. You are giving him free reign to run wild and go nearly nuts and saying nothing.
And so Brad got some push-back from me, and he had to get a lot more from me because almost none of you would step in and tell him when he was dead wrong and/or out of control. I must have gone through a dozen or more completely out-of-kilter debates with Brad where he stuck to some ridiculous notion. Like when he insisted that a Joule Thief was an RLC circuit when there isn't even a capacitor in the schematic.
I told Brad that I would state the truth as I see it on this thread only and I would not touch any of the development threads that he and Magluvin are on, but I would stand my ground for what is right on this thread. And Brad keeps coming back to this thread and arguing stuff that is sometimes foolish and crazy. I told him I would not fight over the definition of impedance with him, he could take that battle somewhere else.
There are two sides to this ridiculous drama and I am only hearing one side. I don't even want the drama, why is Brad arguing with me about his new little transformer experiment? There is a dedicated thread for that. He can say whatever he wants to say on the build thread and I probably won't even read it.
" but I would stand my ground for what is right on this thread."
But the problem with that is you 'presume' things as fact until you know otherwise. Like the wine glass. You didnt know much while arguing about it till you said you took some time and came up with a theory and confirmed it in some link. Or all the crap you gave brad about the ice until many many days later you concede. Well isnt that what you beat on people here for, is that you believe their are presuming things in their 'claims' and really not knowing it at all??????? And calling them names and insulting them because of it? Hypocrisy at its best. ;)
Mags
-
EDIT
YIKES !!
I hope you Guys can take a break on Sunday from the Hard stuff....[maybe make it linger.....?
have a good night
-
" but I would stand my ground for what is right on this thread."
But the problem with that is you 'presume' things as fact until you know otherwise. Like the wine glass. You didnt know much while arguing about it till you said you took some time and came up with a theory and confirmed it in some link. Or all the crap you gave brad about the ice until many many days later you concede. Well isnt that what you beat on people here for, is that you believe their are presuming things in their 'claims' and really not knowing it at all? ??? ??? And calling them names and insulting them because of it? Hypocrisy at its best. ;)
Mags
No, I understood how a wine glass resonates the whole time, it's just a bloody mechanical LC resonator, nothing could be simpler. I have an engineering background, remember? What was tough was finding confirmation online in case anybody wanted it.
You must have called me an "idiot" between 300 and 500 times. And you clearly enjoyed it.
MileHigh
-
I admitted that I was wrong about the ICE. I did not "beat Brad into submission" about the ICE, that's ridiculous. Point finale. You haven't seen Brad badgering me?
I guess that you don't listen to the news. The guy was a serial s** offender with underage children.
So now you have become unglued? What kind of ridiculous point are you trying to make here?
You damn well know it, you harassed and demeaned and degraded me for a FULL YEAR and you enjoyed it. Your partner in crime was Synchro1 and both of you were disgusting in your behaviour.
Take a look at the attached image. That was your tag-team buddy in action.
MileHigh
"I admitted that I was wrong about the ICE. I did not "beat Brad into submission" about the ICE, that's ridiculous. Point finale. You haven't seen Brad badgering me?"
Ok. And How long did you argue out of ignorance before that? Shall I go pand grab the tasty nuggets from that time period of you insulting Brad over something you were wrong about??? Oh. I admitted I was wrong. Thats it. ;) Yeah. Move on everyone, thats it. ::)
"I guess that you don't listen to the news. The guy was a serial s** offender with underage children."
Nope. Not a particular thing I choose to read frankly. I have much better things to do with my time. ;) Even writing this is better than reading that... But to each his own. Be my guest. ::)
"So now you have become unglued? What kind of ridiculous point are you trying to make here?"
Naturally in your quote of me there something is screwed up. Here, let me repost it undistorted for you.....
"Oh. So now YOU KNOW for sure the guy in the picture is a, what? A Serial offender? And you can show evidence of this?Is what you are stating here ACTUAL FACT? Or is it the fiction machine you have in that balloon on your shoulders??? DO IT! I DEMAND THAT YOU PROVE YOUR STATEMENT AS FACT!!! lol Ya cant. You presumed. A word you frequent with. You have imagination! And it shows quite often. "
"You damn well know it, you harassed and demeaned and degraded me for a FULL YEAR and you enjoyed it. Your partner in crime was Synchro1 and both of you were disgusting in your behaviour."
And I beat you good too. ;) You deserved it. I was in lockup for some time for beating you to a pulp. lol
"Take a look at the attached image. That was your tag-team buddy in action."
Lol. Yeah. Take a look at that folks. Yeah. Thats not even my post and you put it up as if I had anything to do with writing those words. Your the one thats loosing it bud. Clearly. ::)
Really? ;)
Magluvin
-
Magluvin:
Motorcycle dude crossed a line.
Brad has been going almost nuts and his behaviour is as bad or worse than mine. 98% of the time when he claims that I am wrong, he is wrong. 98% of the time when I claim that he is wrong, I am right.
Oh. So now YOU KNOW for sure the guy in the picture is a, what? A Serial offender? And you can show evidence of this?Is what you are stating here ACTUAL FACT? Or is it the fiction machine you have in that balloon on your shoulders??? DO IT! I DEMAND THAT YOU PROVE YOUR STATEMENT AS FACT!!! lol Ya cant. You presumed. A word you frequent with. You have imagination! And it shows quite often.
Punch the guy's name into Google and you will feel like an ignorant fool for that silly rant.
And I beat you good too. (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif) You deserved it. I was in lockup for some time for beating you to a pulp. lol
You were absolutely disgusting and you never had the character to apologize for it. It's a black stain on your character.
Lol. Yeah. Take a look at that folks. Yeah. Thats not even my post and you put it up as if I had anything to do with writing those words. Your the one thats loosing it bud. Clearly.
You tag-teamed with him for a full year and both of you were over the top. It was truly awful. If you want to gloat over your awful behaviour, go ahead.
Really.
MileHigh
-
No, I understood how a wine glass resonates the whole time, it's just a bloody mechanical LC resonator, nothing could be simpler. I have an engineering background, remember? What was tough was finding confirmation online in case anybody wanted it.
You must have called me an "idiot" between 300 and 500 times. And you clearly enjoyed it.
MileHigh
Ok. Ill be back in a few when I find the post where you say you had taken a little time and came up with a theory THEN, not beforehand. Be right back. Many pages. Ill just go through the list of your posts to make a quicker job of it. Lets see, I click your name Milehigh and enter. Ok. Click Show Posts. Ok Lol eat your words.
Lol. you dont remember saying that before you said you would give the answer in 4 to 8 weeks? Yeah. I remember. ;) But you dont. Ok lets see who is telling fibs, or just has a bad memory. Either way, the readers will know us much better. ;D ;) And the ones that do remember what you said, already know the conclusion. ;)
Magluvingit
-
Ok. Ill be back in a few when I find the post where you say you had taken a little time and came up with a theory THEN, not beforehand. Be right back. Many pages. Ill just go through the list of your posts to make a quicker job of it. Lets see, I click your name Milehigh and enter. Ok. Click Show Posts. Ok Lol eat your words.
Lol. you dont remember saying that before you said you would give the answer in 4 to 8 weeks? Yeah. I remember. ;) But you dont. Ok lets see who is telling fibs, or just has a bad memory. Either way, the readers will know us much better. ;D ;) And the ones that do remember what you said, already know the conclusion. ;)
Magluvingit
I'll qualify that right now. I was 99% sure of myself, after all, it's a just a bloody LC resonator. A level of simplicity that escaped everybody that tried to answer the questions. So the "theory" part was just me thinking about it some more to be 100% certain that I had all my ducks lined up in a row and I would be able to articulate the answers clearly and with no ambiguity. That's why I used the word "stiffness." That's it. I have known the physical/electrical model for a resonating wine glass for the past 35 years.
The real work was like I said, finding references online to back up my answers in case there were any moaners and groaners. And of course it degenerated into a circus with a chorus of people claiming that I got it all wrong and in reality the "wrong" answers that I posted were really right. And the "right" answers that were posted by various people were really wrong. Dr. Strangelove meets Monty Python yet again.
And again, your behavior along with Syncho1 on that stupid "delayed Lenz effect" thread was absolutely disgusting and you should be ashamed and you have a serious dark stain on your character from that awful horrible experience. You couldn't even apologize. The fact that you enjoyed it just makes the stain darker and the level of disgust that much deeper.
MileHigh
-
Magluvin:
Motorcycle dude crossed a line.
Brad has been going almost nuts and his behaviour is as bad or worse than mine. 98% of the time when he claims that I am wrong, he is wrong. 98% of the time when I claim that he is wrong, I am right.
Punch the guy's name into Google and you will feel like an ignorant fool for that silly rant.
You were absolutely disgusting and you never had the character to apologize for it. It's a black stain on your character.
You tag-teamed with him for a full year and both of you were over the top. It was truly awful. If you want to gloat over your awful behaviour, go ahead.
Really.
MileHigh
"Punch the guy's name into Google and you will feel like an ignorant fool for that silly rant."
Its not my claim. It is yours to prove. Maybe it is in your browser history. ::)
"You were absolutely disgusting and you never had the character to apologize for it. It's a black stain on your character."
Lets see. Did you apologize to Brad about the ICE resonance???? Hypocrisy anyone? Here. Have some black stain. ;)
"You tag-teamed with him for a full year and both of you were over the top. It was truly awful. If you want to gloat over your awful behaviour, go ahead"
Playing the victim. Well here is a tune for ya. Performed by Alison Porter on The Voice. This woman can sing. Supposedly was Curly Sue(the movie) back in the days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfWexe28r04&ebc=ANyPxKoEYaXneXUTgLVITQdNauZKv5QOS-zOPxztCdRDz21sY82TIxwrLQFR4fs3p2-qSUvRQScrx7SvBt-czAKPYH6TfiNtzw
Mags
-
I'll qualify that right now. I was 99% sure of myself, after all, it's a just a bloody LC resonator. A level of simplicity that escaped everybody that tried to answer the questions. So the "theory" part was just me thinking about it some more to be 100% certain that I had all my ducks lined up in a row and I would be able to articulate the answers clearly and with no ambiguity. That's it. I have known the physical/electrical model for a resonating wine glass for the past 35 years.
The real work was like I said, finding references online to back up my answers in case there were any moaners and groaners. And of course it degenerated into a circus with a chorus of people claiming that I got it all wrong and in reality the "wrong" answers that I posted were really right. Dr. Strangelove meets Monty Python yet again.
And again, your behavior along with Syncho1 on that stupid "delayed Lenz effect" thread was absolutely disgusting and you should be ashamed and you have a serious dark stain on your character from that awful horrible experience. You couldn't even apologize. The fact that you enjoyed it just makes the stain darker and the level of disgust that much deeper.
MileHigh
99%. Unless you had written that 99% back then, but saying it now after the fact, is not very reassuring. Ill see what you said. Still looking. Back quite a few weeks.
Mags
-
Its not my claim. It is yours to prove. Maybe it is in your browser history.
Even if you don't follow the news, this one was really really hard to miss. That's a deficiency. The other deficiency is not denouncing what motorcycle dude did.
You were the aggressor and I shut you up and shut you down. Then you had a moment of soul searching about your character and about over unity itself. You realized that it was consuming you and you had nothing to show for it for years of work. For all practical intents and purposes you disappeared.
And here you are defending Brad when I am arguing things with Brad like, "No, you do not measure the top speed of a car on a hill." And you are a car guy for Christ's sake!
Turn off the bad boy Magluvin and just go back to being civil again. But I will never forget that one full year of insane vicious harassment from you and the fact that you never apologized for it.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg481008#msg481008 date=146085421
MileHigh
Brad has been going almost nuts and his behaviour is as bad or worse than mine
Well thas easy to prove MH. All you have to do is find posts where i posted profanities such as you have used--and had to apologies for ;)
Can you back up your accusations ?.
98% of the time when he claims that I am wrong, he is wrong. 98% of the time when I claim that he is wrong, I am right.
Again-can you back up your claims? ;)
You were absolutely disgusting and you never had the character to apologize for it. It's a black stain on your character.
Seem to remember a member on this thread acting in the same way not so long ago,to the point where other members of this forum that dont even post on this thread,had to tell you to calm down a bit,as children read these forums.
You tag-teamed with him for a full year and both of you were over the top. It was truly awful. If you want to gloat over your awful behaviour, go ahead.
Well thats the pot calling the kettle black.
Motorcycle dude crossed a line.
Who is motorcycle dude ???
-
1-The drop in current flow through the primary coil(the drop in P/in),means the impedance value of the primary coil went up or down?
>>> Irrational question. There is no mention of the voltage. Get help to learn how to compose a coherent sentence from Posters Anonymous.
Brad...
I've got something to say...
I really loved the skillful way...
You posed those questions like peddles, touché!
NOW, Brad, dammit, answer the question in posting #2073 about "magnetic field's."
Oh,i see lol.
Regardless of the fact that you know the questions are based on my transformer under test--you pull the old !!not enough information !card out . Well that shows a bit of a fail MH,as the 1st question clearly states(in brackets) that the P/in went up-the extra value to make a correct determination of the answer required.
2-The increase in current flow through the secondary coil,resulting in a higher power value dissipated across the 5 ohm resistor, means the impedance in the secondary coil went up or down?
>>> Irrational question. The impedance of the secondary coil is not discussed in this context. There was no Brad secret decoder ring used in the answering of this question.
The secondary coil has current flowing through it,and power being dissipated across a 5 ohm resistor. The secondary coil is wound over the primary coil,and so the question is valid.
3- The combined results of the transformer as a whole,means the impedance went up or down?.
>>> Irrational question. No answer provided, see recommendation in answer #1.
Enough information for those in the know,to provide an accurate answer.
4-The phase relationship between the primary and secondary coils current is bought into phase with each other how?
>>> Use a resistive load.
See question 2-quote: across the 5 ohm resistor
5-Show another transformer test carried out that shows the EMF and current phase relationship between the primary and secondary coil of a transformer to be in phase.
>>> Irrational question or use a resistive load and rose peddles.
See question 2-quote: across the 5 ohm resistor
6--provide a link or information on a transformer where the secondaries current leads that of the primaries current.
>>> Irrational question or see Brad's "magnet on a Popsicle stick that wobbles transformer" experiment extraordinaire.
The extraordinaire will get back to you on this one.
I will add in the spoon feeding information to the questions for you MH.
BRB.
Brad
-
Even if you don't follow the news, this one was really really hard to miss. That's a deficiency. The other deficiency is not denouncing what motorcycle dude did.
You were the aggressor and I shut you up and shut you down. Then you had a moment of soul searching about your character and about over unity itself. You realized that it was consuming you and you had nothing to show for it for years of work. For all practical intents and purposes you disappeared.
And here you are defending Brad when I am arguing things with Brad like, "No, you do not measure the top speed of a car on a hill." And you are a car guy for Christ's sake!
Turn off the bad boy Magluvin and just go back to being civil again. But I will never forget that one full year of insane vicious harassment from you and the fact that you never apologized for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecunQO_uoIg&list=PLq5_IODrGmKgXMn2NrFl8UTpSkrqq0NWh&index=45 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecunQO_uoIg&list=PLq5_IODrGmKgXMn2NrFl8UTpSkrqq0NWh&index=45)
1:05 in the video. Bruce Springsteen's Racing In The Streets. 1978. When reading your post those words jumped out at me...and it bothered me for a while...then I remembered and did a little research. I KNEW I had heard that before. Of course, I was still in college then which might explain my having a hard time remembering, ha ha.
Bill
-
Here you go MH
I have added the requested information in regards to the below questions.
Please read carefully this time,and note that the load !is! resistive.
Brad
-
Just a minor wine glass update: I am assuming that after the big reveal that there will be a lot of challenges, whining, moaning, complaining, resistance, disbelief and showboating. The simple truth is that I did all of the "analysis" in my head - just in my head. I didn't have do any Google searches or do any research at all - I just used my background and my wits. Of course if I said that and just left it at that there would be no end to it, and it would devolve into more reams and reams of trash talk and drive Magluvin nuts. So I did my Googling and after 20 minutes I have a bullet-proof backup for my upcoming reveal, and it is exactly like I knew it would be. That will put a stop to the insanity and shut it down.
Ok. here is the post above. It is an update. Reading it, it is an update that MH had just did a simple analysis in his head, without any google, etc Then did 20 min of google to check himself.
So when exactly did you do it all in your head? 35 yrs ago? Or just then, and put up an update on it? Or was the 'update' intended on letting the readers know that you knew it all along? Looks more like it was a very recent thing. Not as you claim in your recent post. And why is it an update. Update from what and when? And update to tell some 'history'? A history that has no previous article or story to be updated??? Cant you understand that there are people that can remember things and take things in context?
It was 81 pages back
Anyway.... Back to the bench
Mags
-
Even if you don't follow the news, this one was really really hard to miss. That's a deficiency. The other deficiency is not denouncing what motorcycle dude did.
You were the aggressor and I shut you up and shut you down. Then you had a moment of soul searching about your character and about over unity itself. You realized that it was consuming you and you had nothing to show for it for years of work. For all practical intents and purposes you disappeared.
And here you are defending Brad when I am arguing things with Brad like, "No, you do not measure the top speed of a car on a hill." And you are a car guy for Christ's sake!
Turn off the bad boy Magluvin and just go back to being civil again. But I will never forget that one full year of insane vicious harassment from you and the fact that you never apologized for it.
"Even if you don't follow the news, this one was really really hard to miss. That's a deficiency. The other deficiency is not denouncing what motorcycle dude did."
A deficiency? Are you saying that I am deficient in knowledge because I find more important news more worthy of my time? ::) Im not interested in the guy in the pic and Im not going to waste my time on that, you can if you like :-* . So Im not in a position to make any comments on the guy based on what you say about him. It was up to you to prove your statement and it seems you wish to talk about it more than just proving what you said. So your story is deficient on proof so far.
'You were the aggressor and I shut you up and shut you down. Then you had a moment of soul searching about your character and about over unity itself. You realized that it was consuming you and you had nothing to show for it for years of work. For all practical intents and purposes you disappeared."
Anyone can click on your name Milehigh, then click on 'Show posts' and do the same for me and compare. I win, you loose. Simple Maybe you can remember that we were both on moderation at the same time. So your no sweetheart my friend. I suppose only I deserved the punishment and you were framed. What ever.
"Turn off the bad boy Magluvin and just go back to being civil again. But I will never forget that one full year of insane vicious harassment from you and the fact that you never apologized for it."
Bad boy? And you are a good boy? ??? ? Just always sooo nicy nice. ::) Barf bag please. You just dont want anyone calling you out on your hypocrisy. You cant function without it. Playing the victim card
Mags
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg481008#msg481008 date=146085421
MileHigh
Well thas easy to prove MH. All you have to do is find posts where i posted profanities such as you have used--and had to apologies for ;)
Can you back up your accusations ?.
Again-can you back up your claims? ;)
Seem to remember a member on this thread acting in the same way not so long ago,to the point where other members of this forum that dont even post on this thread,had to tell you to calm down a bit,as children read these forums.
Well thats the pot calling the kettle black.
Who is motorcycle dude ???
"Seem to remember a member on this thread acting in the same way not so long ago,to the point where other members of this forum that dont even post on this thread,had to tell you to calm down a bit,as children read these forums."
Lol. He screams I was disgusting. Bet he cant find anything that I wrote that compares to what he writes. ;) ;) ;) ;)
It was disgusting to him because I was able to use his own words against him and he couldnt take it. Thats a fact. ;)
"Well thats the pot calling the kettle black."
Exactly. ;)
"Who is motorcycle dude"
Who cares? ;) I dont think you dont want to be in that club that supposedly does. :-* ;D
Mags
-
Magluvin:
You damn well know it's true. People can sense that's it's true. Many people were witness to it. It was a shameful episode in your life and when you make light of it here you are just bluffing and you are just shaming yourself some more. We both know the truth.
I have talked tough to Brad. I don't know why Brad can't seem to understand basic things that we should all take for granted. Take the example of determining the resonant frequency of a wine glass. First, he insisted that he had to have specifics, and there was no other possible way to answer the question. So are we supposed to believe that Brad can't understand what a conceptual question is or how to answer it? So then I told him to create his own specific parameters and answer the question. He clammed up and said nothing. Then I answered the questions and he went on a tirade saying repeatedly that the answers were wrong. Then I rebutted that and then he clammed up and said nothing. That can be taxing, believe me, and the arguments can get heated.
Why don't you take up the issue of determining a car's top speed and argue with him that it has to be done on a flat surface and not a sloped surface? Go ahead, what is stopping you?
Believe me, if you are going to stand your ground and argue common sense against nonsense, it's going to get heated. And just the fact that you sit there with your own mouth clammed shut says a lot. You are fully aware that for every one of the "main battles" if the arguments were set on a mainstream science forum Brad would be sliced to pieces. And I am pretty sure for most of them you agree with me.
And ultimately I am trying to help Brad. Why should he just do his thing in an artificial world that is fake, only to arrive at a rude awakening in the real world one day? Why can't we argue things out with some kind of normal frame of reference, a commonly understood general understanding?
And that artificial world extends beyond Brad. Look at the ridiculous nit-picking over the way the wine glass resonated. Has it really stopped or are there still micro-movements in the glass? If you stood up in your grade 11 Physics class and tried to challenge the teacher that the glass did not _really_ stop moving, how do you think that would come across? The other students would look at you like you were nuts or just being a pain in the ass and disrupting the class.
Let me put it this way to you: If the group scrutinized and nit-picked Brad the way I have been scrutinized and nit-picked, then Brad would be totally out of it, he would be a basket case.
A ridiculously permissive environment for Brad only ends up hurting Brad. You know, the knowledge base around here that advances like a slow moving glacier, and half or perhaps more than half the time the glacier is melting.
I am really here for the next Wayne Travis or John Rohner or Naima Faegin. Note that two out of three of them are under investigation by the FBI. In the mean time, I came here in this thread to say, "What the hell do you mean by a 'resonant Joule Thief,' the Joule Thief is a pulse circuit and it does not resonate."
And it would appear after the initial buzz the "resonant Joule Thief" is going nowhere, there is nothing. Smoky2's big talk was all smoke and mirrors. A "resonant Joule Thief" doesn't even make sense and it would garner laughs and snickers on a real electronics forum.
The "resonant Joule Thief" evolved into a discussion about resonance and then a wine glass. Brad puffed out his chest and we all know where that one went. I don't even know why I am debating a little transformer with a wobbling magnet with him, it's not even supposed to be on this thread.
For all the grief and crap that has taken place, a wise person will realize that I got into heated debates with Brad to bring common sense and truth to the table. The wine glass example did that. I am sorry that Brad went haywire, but if you forget about this forum and the crazy bias towards Brad and against me, and look at what really was taking place in the discussions, I was trying to help Brad by standing my ground. If you are just an enabler and just basking in the alternative reality around here and think that I am a bad guy then you are just hurting Brad.
And if you really want to split hairs, the first person to use nasty words like "stupid" or whatever was Brad. I make it a policy to never to be the first to start anything like that. And I am human and I can only tolerate so much nonsense from Brad, and from others. I figure that the majority of you know that this is an "alternate reality" and if the same debate took place between myself and Brad on a "normal" forum, the results would be totally different. Most of you would probably take off right away and disappear from a "normal" electronics forum.
So I said something to Brad that was "bad" and Grumage objected to it and it has been milked several times. But what did Brad do to elicit that response from me? I can't remember offhand, but it must have been something pretty outrageous, or something really bad that he said for the thirtieth time. Don't pretend that Brad is an innocent angel. His behavoiur has been outrageous, all stemming from me deciding to give him the straight goods and stand my ground.
I am really waiting for the next Wayne Travis deal to show up. You know, people that steal millions of dollars from gullible people? That's what I am interested in. I tried, but ultimately I couldn't care less if I haven't changed Brad by one iota.
MileHigh
-
Here Magluvin, it's wake-up time for you.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/13/jimmy-savile-clunk-click-safety-ads-ejected-national-archives (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/13/jimmy-savile-clunk-click-safety-ads-ejected-national-archives)
Note it's from just four days ago.
<<<
The “clunk click for every trip” public information films presented by Jimmy Savile have been removed from the National Archives as official bodies seek to erase from history records of Britain’s most notorious child abuser.
Savile made 20 clips in the 1970s warning of the dangers of driving without seatbelts. The “clunk click” films, which were repeatedly broadcast in the 1970s, were seen as playing a key role in reducing road deaths before seatbelts were made compulsory in 1983.
One of the adverts featured in a collection of public information films issued by the National Archive in 2006. But a spokeswoman has admitted that the film was quietly removed from the National Archive’s website in 2014 after the extent of Savile’s child abuse became clear.
She said: “It was on our website as part of a selection of public information films that we curated there to mark the 60th anniversary of the Central Office of Information. We took it down in July 2014. We just felt with the current climate it wasn’t the best choice and it was perhaps ethically wrong to highlight it. So we removed it from the selection.
“We didn’t say anything about it at the time.”
Savile’s once ubiquitous public information films, which also include a series of adverts promoting train travel for British Rail, are available online. But they are absent from the British Film Institute’s online archive.
>>>
How would you like it if Johan_1955 compared you to Charles Manson, or to Marilyn Manson?
Johan_1955 did a sick twisted thing and he should come here and make a public apology to everyone on this forum.
MileHigh
-
Here Magluvin, it's wake-up time for you.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/13/jimmy-savile-clunk-click-safety-ads-ejected-national-archives (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/13/jimmy-savile-clunk-click-safety-ads-ejected-national-archives)
Note it's from just four days ago.
<<<
The “clunk click for every trip” public information films presented by Jimmy Savile have been removed from the National Archives as official bodies seek to erase from history records of Britain’s most notorious child abuser.
Savile made 20 clips in the 1970s warning of the dangers of driving without seatbelts. The “clunk click” films, which were repeatedly broadcast in the 1970s, were seen as playing a key role in reducing road deaths before seatbelts were made compulsory in 1983.
One of the adverts featured in a collection of public information films issued by the National Archive in 2006. But a spokeswoman has admitted that the film was quietly removed from the National Archive’s website in 2014 after the extent of Savile’s child abuse became clear.
She said: “It was on our website as part of a selection of public information films that we curated there to mark the 60th anniversary of the Central Office of Information. We took it down in July 2014. We just felt with the current climate it wasn’t the best choice and it was perhaps ethically wrong to highlight it. So we removed it from the selection.
“We didn’t say anything about it at the time.”
Savile’s once ubiquitous public information films, which also include a series of adverts promoting train travel for British Rail, are available online. But they are absent from the British Film Institute’s online archive.
>>>
How would you like it if Johen_1955 compared you to Charles Manson, or to Marilyn Manson?
Johan_1955 did a sick twisted thing and he should come here and make a public apology to everyone on this forum.
MileHigh
Well there ya go. Ya proved it. Im satisfied with that.
So maybe we can just all chill. I mean you say you have helped a lot of people. But helping generally isnt just making people figure things out on their own and calling it help.
Like in school, if they ran the classes like this, very little learning of a lot of things wont get accomplished. Gees. If ya have the answer, spit it and test at the end of the week to see if it sank in.
If someone asks for my help, I help. I dont put them through the figure it out yourself game with some hints or guide them on an easter egg hunt. We are getting no where fast.
Im goin home. Tired.
Mags
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg481025#msg481025 date=1460864612]
MileHigh
You damn well know it's true. People can sense that's it's true. Many people were witness to it. It was a shameful episode in your life and when you make light of it here you are just bluffing and you are just shaming yourself some more. We both know the truth.
Doh--careful with that English MH,people may not understand you. ;)
It would appear that you had several of those shameful episodes on this thread MH ;)
I have talked tough to Brad. .
LMAO. You call that !tough! talk MH?--where do you hide?.
I don't know why Brad can't seem to understand basic things that we should all take for granted
Like resonant systems in ICEs,and simple electronic components like the J/FET ;)
Take the example of determining the resonant frequency of a wine glass. First, he insisted that he had to have specifics, and there was no other possible way to answer the question. So are we supposed to believe that Brad can't understand what a conceptual question is or how to answer it? So then I told him to create his own specific parameters and answer the question. He clammed up and said nothing.
Your question has two correct answer MH,as it !CAN! be taken in two ways !correctly!.
I give you a wine glass--how are you going to determine the resonant frequency of that wine glass? When you start on your quest to answer that,you will now be determining the resonant frequency of that wine glass.
I give you a length of 2x4 timber--how are you going to determine the length of that piece of timber?.
I !!DID!! provide you with a correct answer to that question.
So you saying i was wrong--well in actual fact i was correct ;)
Determine--ascertain or establish exactly by research or calculation.
Oh-could they mean !measure it ! ?
Then I answered the question and he went on a tirade saying repeatedly that the answers were wrong. Then I rebutted that and then he clammed up and said nothing. That can be taxing, believe me, and the arguments can get heated.
You should go back and read my answers again MH--to your big reveal results that is.
I clearly state that !some! of your given answers are correct,and some are wrong--like !all! the energy is stored as kinetic energy. That is wrong,and you know that. ;)
Why don't you take up the issue of determining a car's top speed and argue with him that it has to be done on a flat surface and not a sloped surface? Go ahead, what is stopping you?
Yes Mag's-do that. I can show you how they determine the top speed of a car--without using HP or frictions as factors as MH states. We can look at torque V HP. Is it an uphill race car,or a flat track race car,the family car maybe?.
Believe me, if you are going to stand your ground and argue common sense against nonsense, it's going to get heated.
Or vulgar when the blood pressure rises--hey MH :D
And just the fact that you sit there with your own mouth clammed shut says a lot. You are fully aware that for every one of the "main battles" if the arguments were set on a mainstream science forum Brad would be sliced to pieces.
Wonder how a bloke that dosnt know what a simple electronic component !like a J/FET ! is--wonder how he would go?. Or makes claims on something he knows very little about--like resonant systems in and around ICEs-wonder how he would go?. Or maybe by claiming that !!all!! the energy is stored as kinetic energy in a vibrating wine glass--wonder how he would go?.
And I am pretty sure for most of them you agree with me.
;)
And ultimately I am trying to help Brad.
post 976-is you making a complete and utter idiot of yourself
post 977- you have some serious limitations
post 982-An ICE itself excluding the intake and exhaust doesn't make use of resonance.Stop making a complete fool of yourself.
post 1000-What you say in that post is utter rubbish. There is no such thing as a "flow of charge into a magnetic center
That must be where you have worked out what the magnetic field/force is,as i know you wouldnt post something like that if you did not know what the magnetic field/force is :D
post 1003-That posting of yours is complete and utter rubbish
post 1008-Sure Brad, "charge flows into magnetic centers." That's a new one for the "Bizarro World Book of Brad's Electronics
MH is full bottles on the magnetic field now ;)
post 1017-So, you are exposed as a fraud and a BSer.
post 1023-You are like a really bad actor in a really bad 1952 sci-fi movie
post 1025-Stop being a clown.--well that one was short and sweet lol.
post 1054-Have you ever heard the expression, "Do stupid things, win stupid prizes?" Your stupid prize is the four to eight week delay,--Holly S--t,i won a prize :)
post 1059-My ass, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
post 1081- You don't really know how a transistor works. Well that is odd,coming from some one that dosnt know how a J/FET works :o
post 1081-you are as fake-ass as a three-dollar bill
post 1090-This is just you demonstrating your limitations again .Lowering the value of the base resistor will not fundamentally change the brightness of the LED because it's the battery voltage itself that is the primary factor in determining the brightness of the LED
Oh dear :o
post 1093-So how lost are you Brad when it comes to the Joule Thief?
Apparently not as lost as you,looking at your above statement.
post 1101-No Brad, it's very clear now that a lot of your thoughts about how the Joule Thief operates were delusional.-Says he who thinks voltage is power.
post 1104-The clip is awful, an embarrassment.
post 1119-so why is your setup running somewhere between 20 kHz and 30 kHz Well your the ex/spurt on JTs MH--why is it?.
post 1135-That's it Brad, be a clown one more time and make a fool of yourself
post 1136-I am going to have to take my statement back and qualify it. On closer inspection of your scope shot I can see that indeed the base waveform is showing that the transistor is ON and you are correct that the level is 800 mllivolts.
Doh ::)
post 1137-When you decrease the base resistance the operating frequency lowers and thus the energizing time for the main L1 coil increases - obviously that can lead to a brighter LED
Hang on a minute ???-post 1090-This is just you demonstrating your limitations again .Lowering the value of the base resistor will not fundamentally change the brightness of the LED because it's the battery voltage itself that is the primary factor in determining the brightness of the LED
There were calls of yes/no/yes/no,and finally MH came to the conclusion that !as tinman said! decreasing the base resistance will indeed make the LED brighter. This should then answer the continual asking of the question by MH !!why is there a need for a base resistor!!
But MH is never wrong about how a JT operates.
post 1138-So you can't claim any "victory" because your light meter can detect increasing brightness in the LED. You just stumbled upon this effect, and your theory for why the LED was supposed to get brighter makes no sense at all.
Doh-back to the same old MH.
Post 1139-bill disagrees with MH--MHs response to bill-It's a great issue you raised and I don't have an answer
Well at least you can treat some people with respect when they disagree with you MH--aint that a hoot ;)
post 1165-Junction capacitance my ass Lol.
post 1209-Find the information yourself.
Claim made my MH in this reply--Quote: And ultimately I am trying to help Brad
Wow,not even half way there yet--think it will need another post to finish. But what an insight when you go back--way back,and re read the thread ;)
I dont think im liking your !!help!! so much MH.
Oh,and dont forget them questions MH--i have added the information you required.
Brad
-
And ultimately I am trying to help Brad. Why should he just do his thing in an artificial world that is fake, only to arrive at a rude awakening in the real world one day? Why can't we argue things out with some kind of normal frame of reference, a commonly understood general understanding?
post 1232-The Night of the Living Joule Thief Zombies" - featuring the infallible Dr. Brainfry. Coming to a theater near you. Just remember it's all fantasy.
post 1240-No, you are wrong. The standard Joule Thief circuit is more efficient than the second circuit.
It turns out that the second circuit(one with the LED across the L1 coil) is more efficient,as it removes the batteries internal resistive losses from the circuit during the off time of the circuit.
post 1253-garbage-in-garbage-out and clearly your statements are garbage without any substance behind them.
post 1253-Most of your experiments, after six years of working on the bench, are amateurish.Your presentation skills are almost non-existent.
Keep pushing that propaganda Big Brother.
post 1255-Ha ha ha... The drama queen is making yet another hasty exit.The infallible Dr. Brainfry
post 1259-Kiss my butt Smoky2-->smokey receives a kiss :D
MH hits the next gear.
Post 1285-There you go you pathetic sleazy little weasel. Why should anybody trust you at all?
The revenge of Dr. Brainfry, his head is turning bright purple
post 1287-Here you weasel
post 1290-I think it could be an indication that you have some serious psychological problems.
post 1293-Dr. Brainfry is having a brain seizure.
post 1294-And lo and behold it turns out that Dr. Brainfry can't answer two simple questions
post 1305-I am getting exhausted with the stream-of-consciousness/churning spaghetti/brain-ricochet talk from you. It's like you need a bloody Google translator just for you. Throw in the ridiculous immature trash talk that is embarrassing and you are left with Dr. Brainfry on overload.
This was due to MHs screw up about the spike traveling through the collector to base junction. Latter on he realized his mistake,and worked out that it should have been through the !emitter! base junction-and not through the collector/base junction.
post 1317-Did you see Brad repeatedly attacking me with a bunch of unwarranted nonsense?.Don't you give me your crap without looking at the other side
Maybe it was lost in all your abuse MH>?
post 1318-Yes, I was part of the mass confusion here and I looked back in the thread. In post #1191 I speculated that there was a collector-base breakdown. Then in post #1199 PW confirms an emitter-base breakdown. Only much more recently did I start thinking about a possible emitter-base junction breakdown
Well at least on a couple of occasions you have admitted you were wrong.
post 1340- But the actual engine itself, the pistons, the valves, the camshaft, the crankcase, the ignition, etc, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with resonance.
Opps-MH having another go at resonant systems of an ICE. We all know what the outcome was there ;)
post 1349-That's just silly nit-picky BS because I am using common vernacular to describe the combustion in the cylinder. It's gratuitous nonsense. Why are you ignoring what is actually being stated, that resonance inside the cylinder is no good?
But i thought it did not exist?.
post 1370-The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is
Post 1389-Both EMJunkie and Wattsup could not answer the very same simple question that I posed to them about a coil.
OH yea-thanks for reminding me about those questions MH ;)
The J/FET saga.
Post 1339-Me-->Yes,and my idea using a J/FET never came from any book.
Common sense say's that if there is not enough voltage to switch on a transistor or mosfet,then you use one that is already in an on state,and boost the voltage via a step up transformer to switch the fet off.
Post 1450-by our resident guru-->Yeah well I would have to say that that doesn't make any sense at all. But don't let that stop you since this whole thread is filled with nonsensical statements by you and just about nobody says anything about it.
Post 1456-Thanks, and I made a mistake an assumed that a JFET required some Gate-Source voltage to be ON, when that is not the case. So I retract my statement to Brad in post #1450 about it "not making any sense at all" because clearly I was wrong.
Cheers MH :D
post 1484-You have been treated normally by me
Hell MH,i'd hate to see your !treating people badly! then.
Post 1484- And there is no fucking apostrophe in "questions." Demonstrate that you can learn something.
Now the bad language has kicked in. :(
same post-And there is no fucking apostrophe in "yours.
You can kiss my ass with your bullshit statement
Yuk
The main operation on an ICE is a synchronous machine and has nothing whatsoever to do with resonance.Screw you with your Brad's Bizarro World of anti-logic
Kiss my ass Brad with your stupid-ass gratuitous nonsense
You have buried yourself into your own deep dark chasm, you are one creepy dude that can't handle things and you lose your composure and throw away all of your personal integrity.
I have lost composure? lol. Well much said in that post.
post 1507-Beyond that, your argument that you "proved there is resonance" in an ICE is so absolutely ridiculous that you have to wonder what planet you are on.You can go back to your deluded fake-ass dream world .
post 1507- You should hook up with EMJunkie and you two can stroke each other up
More profanities MH?.
post 1510-I don't know if the quote above is due to your complete and total lack of critical thinking skills and total blindness to any kind of context, or, if it is just more completely useless trash talk. Either way, it is a total fail.
post 1534-Good, so that patent shows a resonant cavity in the combustion chamber can be used to improve the performance of a two-stroke engine.
Oh-bet that one hurt MH. ::)
post 1535-So you are the very definition of stupidity in this case.
???
post 1569-His brain started frying at the beginning of the thread because he was in shock when someone actually started telling him that he was wrong. Now he has turned himself into The Infallible Doctor Brainfry like some character right out of a comic book.
Post 1574-MHs attempt at a redirection--No way, it's a tie. You were supposed to show how resonance improved the combustion process
No,i was showing you were wrong again when you stated-->But the actual engine itself, the pistons, the valves, the camshaft, the crankcase, the ignition, etc, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with resonance
So yes-proven wrong.
Post 1577-Bla bla my ass Dr. Brainfry.
Post 1581- At least on this thread you will get the truth from me :D
Yes, I was unaware that there are ways to take advantage of resonance in a cylinder during combustion, and also for getting better air flow into and out of the cylinders. I never claimed to be an expert in engines.
post 1562-You're a whack job.-oh ,that was to another member of the forum.
post 1588-Have you turned into a borderline psycho person because of this thread? The answer is yes.Keep on repeating I am wrong until you are blue in the face and your brain sizzles and smoke starts rising
post 1594-You are so crippled in your communications skills it's almost unbelievable
Post 1695-this thread has turned you into a borderline psycho person
post 1612-Look up "spaghetti brains" in the visual dictionary and you will find a picture of yourself. LOL You need to go back to school and take some courses in English
post 1616-Your credibility is destroyed, poor Brad on a brain fry from hell.
post 1617-Nope, I speak the truth but ever since your brain started to fry you have been shamelessly bullshitting like crazy.More shameless lying and you are off in dreamland with your incorrect belief that magnets can do useful work
Post 1618-At this point, it's time for this to stop.
This is good :)
Post 1652-Brad: I really don't give a rat's ass.
Oh bugga.
Post 1619 is interesting,as here are the two original questions about the wine glass
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
!how! is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?.
Post 1739-Said from the Choir of One Hand W***ing.
And that is where it starts getting bad.
And ultimately I am trying to help Brad
Thanks-but no thanks MH.
Brad
-
There were calls of yes/no/yes/no,and finally MH came to the conclusion that !as tinman said! decreasing the base resistance will indeed make the LED brighter. This should then answer the continual asking of the question by MH !!why is there a need for a base resistor!!
But MH is never wrong about how a JT operates.
That says it all right there. I tried to impress upon Brad that the basic Joule Thief is supposed to have a fixed value for the base resistor and varying the value of the base resistor makes no sense on a fundamental level. Nor does it change the brightness of the LED for reasons that were explained multiple times, all in the context of the normal operation of the device.
But Brad would have none of it. From what I can remember he made no attempt to understand any of this. This manic scanning through all of the postings shows how it is pretty much hopeless.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg481035#msg481035 date=1460881284]
That says it all right there. I tried to impress upon Brad that the basic Joule Thief is supposed to have a fixed value for the base resistor and varying the value of the base resistor makes no sense on a fundamental level.
Well as we are on a thread that is devoted to improving the JT,why would we be sticking to the MH JT?. On a fundamental level,decreasing the base resistance as the battery voltage drop's makes perfect sense,as it insures that the base of the transistor receives the required amount of current to switch on properly as the battery voltage drops below the switch on voltage of the transistor. This also in turn allows the current in the :1 winding to keep to a higher level,and thus the LED will remain !to some what! the same brightness as the batteries voltage drop's.
We have been through this before MH,and i posted video's showing the very principle of being able to reduce the base resistance as the battery voltage drop's. So this makes your above statement non sensible.
Nor does it change the brightness of the LED for reasons that were explained multiple times, all in the context of the normal operation of the device.
And your reasons were !once again! proven wrong--my video's clearly showed that.
Bench work MH--thats what it's all about when we need the truth. ;)
But Brad would have none of it. From what I can remember he made no attempt to understand any of this.
Brad tested your !theory!,and found it to be wrong.
We seen it on the scope,and we seen it by way of the light meter.
This manic scanning through all of the postings shows how it is pretty much hopeless.
All of the post MH--this is a lie.
I only got half way through them--and what a great bit of research it was :)
I was looking for this !help! you said you were trying to give me,but as it turns out,through the half of the thread i reviewed,i was the one helping you out most of the time.
You now know resonant systems around ICEs,help increase both efficiency and power.
You now know that internal resonant systems exist in ICEs that also improve engine performance.
You now know that a J/FET requires no gate voltage to conduct.
You now know that current can flow from the emitter to the base,and not from the collector through to the base as you had thought--once again,my bench experiments showed this.
You now know that reducing the base resistance on your JT circuit,dose indeed make the LED brighter--once again,shown by way of my bench experiments.
You now know that your question !how is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined!! has to very correct meanings--1 of which i answered correctly.
In fact MH,i have taught you many things on this thread,and we are starting to sort out your Theory from actual fact by way of bench experiments. This is a great day for the forum :)--it's what it's all about--helping others to learn. Encouraging other to help those that ask for it,and not telling other members not to help a fellow experimenter--that would be against the good will of this forum-now wouldnt it ;)
And your welcome--glad i could help.
Now,about those questions ?
Are you happy that the required information needed is there?
Brad
-
You just don't get it Brad, not in the least bit.
-
You just don't get it Brad, not in the least bit.
Hey look MH
The secondary current leads that of the primary.
Magnet is doing work on the secondary,before the primary is doing work on the magnet
And just by adjusting the frequency by .01 of a Hz at a time,i can place the secondaries current anywhere i like in relation to that of the primaries current.
Brad
-
In all seriousness MH,how are those answers to the questions below coming along?.
We wouldnt want you in the same boat that you place EMJ in--that sort of thing never seems to go away ;)
Brad
-
Well
I asked Stefan if we still have that white Flag [ceasefire flag]
" "it usually just gives everyone a chance to look for More "throwing" Stones ""
so he used it as a rag on his last Motor home oil change ["caravan" for the front siders and across the pond].
So its laying in some Ditch next to a "Scenic Fiord" in Norway or something..??
However ..
This observation about the magnetic interaction needs Clarity .
Just one mans opinion.
-
A quick update to end the day;
@ poynt
Didnt get time to build the 1:1 coil today. Wife wanted to do a yard clean,and so most of my day was spent with her in the gardens. Will get it done ASAP.
Got about an hour in the workshop tonight,and shot a short video showing how i can shift the secondaries current phase from 90* lagging the primaries current,to !around! 30* leading the primaries current--with a frequency shift of only .6 of a Hz.
Video is uploading now,but seems very slow tonight. So will post tomorrow morning before work,as it's time for me to hit the hay soon.
Brad
-
Well
I asked Stefan if we still have that white Flag [ceasefire flag]
" "it usually just gives everyone a chance to look for More "throwing" Stones ""
so he used it as a rag on his last Motor home oil change ["caravan" for the front siders and across the pond].
So its laying in some Ditch next to a "Scenic Fiord" in Norway or something..??
However ..
This observation about the magnetic interaction needs Clarity .
Just one mans opinion.
I think if you are going to make !claims! against or on some one elses work,then you need to back up them claims,in the way of being able to answer questions based around those claims.
MH has made the claim that it is impedance only that is reducing the primaries current in my DUT,and so i ask him to supply information to back up that claim ,in the form of questions.
If he actually tries to answer the question's,then he may see why it is not impedance that is causing the current drop in L1-the primary coil.
He asked EMJ about a voltage being supplied to a coil,and he expected answers,and so i expect nothing more from him than he did from EMJ. He has made a claim,and now he will back it up with evidence--no more !arm chair! claims that are left at that--time to back them up. ;)
Brad
-
A quick update to end the day;
@ poynt
Didnt get time to build the 1:1 coil today. Wife wanted to do a yard clean,and so most of my day was spent with her in the gardens. Will get it done ASAP.
Got about an hour in the workshop tonight,and shot a short video showing how i can shift the secondaries current phase from 90* lagging the primaries current,to !around! 30* leading the primaries current--with a frequency shift of only .6 of a Hz.
Video is uploading now,but seems very slow tonight. So will post tomorrow morning before work,as it's time for me to hit the hay soon.
Brad
No problem, thanks for the update.
-
Hahahahaaa. Wow so many more pages. Must be chock full of good information for the OUers on this forum but the weirdest thing is I can't find anything helpful at all. I did find some good information on how to continue arguing. For that, there is a real goldmine. But substance, totally lacking. Just an eternal quagmire staring @MH who has managed to transform(er)(hichic) himself into a full fledged jerkoff and his cast of merry jerk junkies. So you guys just enjoy the froth and maybe one day you will learn.
I am just amazed how you guys just love to turn in circles every day thinking you are actually putting one foot forward to advance when there is no advancement at all. You suck on @MH's crap all day long and wonder why. I mean how many damn posts do you guys post in one day. Don't you have your own bench works to do? How do you find the time to partake in such insignificant dribble and expect to learn anything is beyond me.
So I will not partake anymore in these threads because I realize you are just a bunch of low levels seeking to join some type of EE jamboree for the blind. So follow everything @MH tells you because deep down he knows how our effects work and how to arrive at OU. Just always listen to what he says and be grateful that he is endowing all of you with his anointed knowledge of nature and it's biggest secrets of effect. He knows everything. He knows when to interject his fat ass into a thread, he knows exactly how to pull your stings, he knows precisely how to disrespect OU benchers. He will always make sure you keep asking the wrong questions while he makes sure you ignore the pertinent ones. Typical.
@tinman
I tried and tried but you missed the boat. Soon you will be able to catch me on my locked thread. No more open discussion with you guys. It's pointless. I just cannot stomach all this crap everyday. Good luck. I'm out of here.
wattsup
-
Wattsup:
Not every thread has to be about OU and this thread was about resonance.
Brad:
I see the same questions but I'll wing it.
1. Up.
2. No change.
3. Down.
4. Resistive load.
5. Transformer driving a resistive load.
6. Your test.
-
That says it all right there. I tried to impress upon Brad that the basic Joule Thief is supposed to have a fixed value for the base resistor and varying the value of the base resistor makes no sense on a fundamental level. Nor does it change the brightness of the LED for reasons that were explained multiple times, all in the context of the normal operation of the device.
But Brad would have none of it. From what I can remember he made no attempt to understand any of this. This manic scanning through all of the postings shows how it is pretty much hopeless.
A "fixed base resistor" in any transistorized circuit, particularly a "switching
circuit" is an industrial trade-off for ease of maintenance. It is an operational
compromise which is reasonably close to but not at the point of maximum
efficiency. :(
Experimenters always use a variable base resistor to enable "tuning" of
the circuit under evaluation in order to attain the best possible operational
mode. The variation in transistor characteristics from one to the next
makes it very difficult to come up with fixed values of resistance. :o
The Original Joule Thief circuit was made as simple as possible in order to
appeal to the vast audience of technically limited amateur "builders." ::)
Then the Experimenters took up the challenge to make it better. 8)
-
Maybe better but not OU or self running. Isn't that the point of experimenting with a simple JT on this thread?
Just what is the point? Or perhaps there is no point, anymore?
-
A "fixed base resistor" in any transistorized circuit, particularly a "switching
circuit" is an industrial trade-off for ease of maintenance. It is an operational
compromise which is reasonably close to but not at the point of maximum
efficiency. :(
Experimenters always use a variable base resistor to enable "tuning" of
the circuit under evaluation in order to attain the best possible operational
mode. The variation in transistor characteristics from one to the next
makes it very difficult to come up with fixed values of resistance. :o
The Original Joule Thief circuit was made as simple as possible in order to
appeal to the vast audience of technically limited amateur "builders." ::)
Then the Experimenters took up the challenge to make it better. 8)
Indeed.
But of course since the base resistor is just for switching, and assuming that the real challenge is to choose the right fixed value for the base resistor, then indeed there are compromises to consider. A lower value of the base resistor will allow for normal Joule Thief operation to a lower battery voltage, but considering the high proportion of time that the transistor remains switched ON, then a lower value for the base resistor will increase the drain on the battery. Normally you might say, "Choose the right value of the base resistor to ensure proper Joule Thief operation with a battery voltage range from 1.5 volts down to say 0.75 volts." Now, if you choose that base resistor value and throw in the usual 10% margin of safety, then perhaps doing some analysis on paper would make sense. How much energy is drained from the battery for that value of base resistor per hour? Perhaps it would make more sense to choose a base resistor value to ensure proper Joule Thief operation from 1.5 volts down to 1.0 volts instead, and the power savings associated with that higher value of base resistor will more than offset the reduced battery voltage range.
You could do some intelligent analysis along these lines and then perhaps try three base resistor values, low, medium, and high. Then build three identical Joule Thieves except for the different base resistors, and then get three identical fresh batteries, and then run a test with all three at the same time. At the end of that experiment you would end up picking the best value of base resistor with a high degree of confidence and the experiment would arrive at a successful conclusion. More importantly, you analyzed the trade-offs and compromises and made some intelligent decisions and did the testing and analysis like a successful experimenter.
But of course with Brad that discussion never even had an opportunity to take place.
-
P.S. - Wattsup: Ten years from now you will not have moved one inch, not even a millimeter, and the iPhone will be obsolete and everybody will be using something ten times better than an iPhone. Then you can make the same posting but just worded differently and scowl at all the people that make the world work and keep 120 VAC humming in your wall outlets.
-
The phase shift video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpP7Bmcwhs
Brad
-
Indeed.
But of course since the base resistor is just for switching, and assuming that the real challenge is to choose the right fixed value for the base resistor, then indeed there are compromises to consider. A lower value of the base resistor will allow for normal Joule Thief operation to a lower battery voltage, but considering the high proportion of time that the transistor remains switched ON, then a lower value for the base resistor will increase the drain on the battery. Normally you might say, "Choose the right value of the base resistor to ensure proper Joule Thief operation with a battery voltage range from 1.5 volts down to say 0.75 volts." Now, if you choose that base resistor value and throw in the usual 10% margin of safety, then perhaps doing some analysis on paper would make sense. How much energy is drained from the battery for that value of base resistor per hour? Perhaps it would make more sense to choose a base resistor value to ensure proper Joule Thief operation from 1.5 volts down to 1.0 volts instead, and the power savings associated with that higher value of base resistor will more than offset the reduced battery voltage range.
You could do some intelligent analysis along these lines and then perhaps try three base resistor values, low, medium, and high. Then build three identical Joule Thieves except for the different base resistors, and then get three identical fresh batteries, and then run a test with all three at the same time. At the end of that experiment you would end up picking the best value of base resistor with a high degree of confidence and the experiment would arrive at a successful conclusion. More importantly, you analyzed the trade-offs and compromises and made some intelligent decisions and did the testing and analysis like a successful experimenter.
But of course with Brad that discussion never even had an opportunity to take place.
This is exactly why most of my JT circuits, including the high voltage units, all have a VR on the base. I tried to explain this earlier in the topic but, it really does work well for what you want to get out of the circuit.
Lidmotor even used this method on his replication of the Jeanna Light if I am not mistaken. I actually used 2 VRs in that project...I think he used a rheostat if I remember correctly.
Bill
-
Its smart to use the VR. When using a regular resistor, once the battery wears down the light becomes less useful, and there is still usable current in the battery. So adjusting along the way is more bang for the buck. Err penny. ;D The VR compliments the Joule Theif and enhances its purpose. I wonder if there could be a simple transistor circuit that could replace the resistor and adjust the base automatically with the input voltage. TK used germaniums in one of his latest. Maybe those would be good to try on that idea.
Mags
-
This is exactly why most of my JT circuits, including the high voltage units, all have a VR on the base. I tried to explain this earlier in the topic but, it really does work well for what you want to get out of the circuit.
Lidmotor even used this method on his replication of the Jeanna Light if I am not mistaken. I actually used 2 VRs in that project...I think he used a rheostat if I remember correctly.
Bill
Well if you are following along with what I am saying, then it means that you start your Joule Thief with the base resistor at the higher value to keep the power drain to a minimum, and then some time later when the battery voltage has decreased to a certain value you lower the value of the base resistor by perhaps 10%-25% to ensure reliable switching to a lower battery voltage.
That's it, there is no brightness control, no twirling of pots to look for a bright spot, just a controlled decrease in the base resistor value to ensure that the switching can operate properly at a lower battery voltage. There is no "sweet spot" at all.
However, this leads to a question, is it even worth it to go to this kind of trouble? How much power can you really save compared to your nominal running power using a fixed resistor and how much proportionally longer a run time can you get when you do this? What if changing the value of the resistor in two steps only saves you 2% on your nominal running power and gives you 2% more run time? You have to think about it and crunch some numbers for that.
Supposing you crunch the numbers and a variable resistor solution only gives you a 3% overall improvement? Most people would then say forget it, it's not worth it. It's not worth the extra complexity or the trouble. The better solution is to do your experimenting and analysis and determine the optimal resistor value. The next step is to decide what standard resistor value or combination of standard resistor values to settle on for the final design.
That's the real deal - the real, serious experimentation and analysis and evaluation of the various trade-offs and design choices to arrive at a final Joule Thief design. From what I can tell, you have never seen anything like that done on this forum.
-
Well if you are following along with what I am saying, then it means that you start your Joule Thief with the base resistor at the higher value to keep the power drain to a minimum, and then some time later when the battery voltage has decreased to a certain value you lower the value of the base resistor by perhaps 10%-25% to ensure reliable switching to a lower battery voltage.
That's it, there is no brightness control, no twirling of pots to look for a bright spot, just a controlled decrease in the base resistor value to ensure that the switching can operate properly at a lower battery voltage. There is no "sweet spot" at all.
However, this leads to a question, is it even worth it to go to this kind of trouble? How much power can you really save compared to your nominal running power using a fixed resistor and how much proportionally longer a run time can you get when you do this? What if changing the value of the resistor in two steps only saves you 2% on your nominal running power and gives you 2% more run time? You have to think about it and crunch some numbers for that.
Supposing you crunch the numbers and a variable resistor solution only gives you a 3% overall improvement? Most people would then say forget it, it's not worth it. It's not worth the extra complexity or the trouble. The better solution is to do your experimenting and analysis and determine the optimal resistor value. The next step is to decide what standard resistor value or combination of standard resistor values to settle on for the final design.
That's the real deal - the real, serious experimentation and analysis and evaluation of the various trade-offs and design choices to arrive at a final Joule Thief design. From what I can tell, you have never seen anything like that done on this forum.
I follow along with what you are saying, I just totally disagree with it. I have easily seen 3 times the running time using a vr on the base as without. I have JT lights here that will run for months using this method.
All of this was discussed years ago in the main JT topic area. You can unsolder and replace as many resistors as you want during the runtime and I will just turn the vr a little bit. This method takes less than 1 second and allows you to milk every drop of energy from the battery which was one of the purposes for this circuit to begin with.
No compromises needed...just an adjustment now and then.
Bill
-
The phase shift video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpP7Bmcwhs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpP7Bmcwhs)
Brad
If you block the magnet (but don't change anything else) and run through a wide frequency sweep in the same area, what do you see in terms of the phase relationship?
-
I follow along with what you are saying, I just totally disagree with it. I have easily seen 3 times the running time using a vr on the base as without. I have JT lights here that will run for months using this method.
All of this was discussed years ago in the main JT topic area. You can unsolder and replace as many resistors as you want during the runtime and I will just turn the vr a little bit. This method takes less than 1 second and allows you to milk every drop of energy from the battery which was one of the purposes for this circuit to begin with.
No compromises needed...just an adjustment now and then.
Bill
What you are saying is not incompatible with what I am saying. I am just talking about a Joule Thief in normal operating mode. I don't know how much energy is left in a battery when the voltage falls below the minimum voltage for normal operating mode and for all I know you can still get a lot of light out of the device in that range. It just requires more measurements and investigation.
-
The phase shift video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpP7Bmcwhs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpP7Bmcwhs)
I just got a PM from one of my "fans" directing me here because you are vibrating some ferromagnetic materials near coils, which is a well known pet peeve of mine ;)
I never looked in here before because I expected this thread to contain some boring Joule Thief circuits - not an off-topic device like that.
I am too lazy to read the entire thread, so could you summarize for me what is your investigation about and what are you trying to determine?
-
The phase shift video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpP7Bmcwhs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpP7Bmcwhs)
Brad
Hey Brad
Just thinking. Would the L2 trace lead if its peak is offset to the left of L1 trace peak? Maybe Im wrong. Just thinking that leading is ahead of others in time. If the trace is left to right, then the L2 peaks before L1. Either way though, you have shown the shift due to the magnet interaction. ;)
Mags
-
I just got a PM from one of my "fans" directing me here because you are vibrating some ferromagnetic materials near coils, which is a well known pet peeve of mine ;)
I never looked in here before because I expected this thread to contain some boring Joule Thief circuits - not an off-topic device like that.
I am too lazy to read the entire thread, so could you summarize for me what is your investigation about and what are you trying to determine?
Just have an oscillating magnet in front of an air core transformer,where i can shift the current phase relationship of the primary and secondary to a state where the secondaries current can lead that of the primaries current. Once at the magnets resonant oscillating frequency,the primaries P/in drops while the secondaries P/out increases by over 2000%
Just looking into the effect ATM
See the mechanical resonance thread for the un/cluttered version of the topic
Brad.
-
If you block the magnet (but don't change anything else) and run through a wide frequency sweep in the same area, what do you see in terms of the phase relationship?
I have only tried raising the frequency with the magnet away from the coil,never with the magnet in position -but held still. Without the magnet there ,i see little to no change in phse relationship up to 10khz,but do see amplitude changes.
I will try with the magnet in place when i get home from work tonight.
Brad
-
Hey Brad
Just thinking. Would the L2 trace lead if its peak is offset to the left of L1 trace peak? Maybe Im wrong. Just thinking that leading is ahead of others in time. If the trace is left to right, then the L2 peaks before L1. Either way though, you have shown the shift due to the magnet interaction. ;)
Mags
The leading trace/phase is to the right-is it not? as the trace starts from the left of the screen,and travels to the right of the screen. So the one furtherest to the right is the one that started to the left first.
---OR i have been looking at scope traces wrong all this time lol.
Brad
-
The leading trace/phase is to the right-is it not? as the trace starts from the left of the screen,and travels to the right of the screen. So the one furtherest to the right is the one that started to the left first.
---OR i have been looking at scope traces wrong all this time lol.
Brad
Lol. I havnt dealt with phase of 2 signals for 25yrs. Hadnt the need to. But was hoping I was wrong and you could let me know. I might have mistaken you in the vid.
Mags
-
Like I said, either way you still show the phase shift.
Also, is it possible the difference in the 2 scope trace freq numbers, maybe the pendulum is trying to hold its resonant freq while the func gen is over or under that freq?
Mags
-
The leading trace/phase is to the right-is it not? as the trace starts from the left of the screen,and travels to the right of the screen. So the one furtherest to the right is the one that started to the left first.
---OR i have been looking at scope traces wrong all this time lol.
Brad
It is not... The left most trace is the "leading" trace.
For example, at around 8:46 in your last video, the scope "appears" to be telling you that the yellow trace is lagging the blue trace.
I say "appears" because there are a few issues. The first is verifying how the transformers are connected phase wise (dot convention) and second, I would want to use the second channel of the FG to generate a marker pulse, modified half cycle, etc, to confirm who is leading who...
I believe using a marker was touched on during discussion of your flywheel version of this setup, which was never instrumented as suggested to observe acceleration and deceleration of the flywheel. Although possible, it would be a bit more difficult to do so with this new "waving wand" version.
PW
-
Measure with a micrometer.
Mark with chalk.
Cut with an axe.
-
Measure with a micrometer.
Mark with chalk.
Cut with an axe.
There is no doubt about ya MH--->you are the king clown,and a liar.
And ultimately I am trying to help Brad.
Brad
-
It is not... The left most trace is the "leading" trace.
For example, at around 8:46 in your last video, the scope "appears" to be telling you that the yellow trace is lagging the blue trace.
I say "appears" because there are a few issues. The first is verifying how the transformers are connected phase wise (dot convention) and second, I would want to use the second channel of the FG to generate a marker pulse, modified half cycle, etc, to confirm who is leading who...
I believe using a marker was touched on during discussion of your flywheel version of this setup, which was never instrumented as suggested to observe acceleration and deceleration of the flywheel. Although possible, it would be a bit more difficult to do so with this new "waving wand" version.
PW
I will be winding a new 1:1 coil tonight,as requested by Poynt,and will be able to supply the dot convention.
I cannot determine the winding direction of the primary winding of the transformer,as it is taped and lacquered,and the wire very fine. Guess i could use a compass and DC current to work it out.
Also remember the secondary winding is on top of the primary winding--not along side it as with a normal E core type transformer. So in this case,at the 8.46 minute mark,the yellow trace is actually leading the blue trace,as it was lagging at the start without the magnet in play,and thus show's the 90* phase shift as expected.
Brad
-
Chet you are not even at the table, you are calling some new fake-ass nutcase that wants to suck money from gullible people.
Again half information, who is blaming who?
Who are you calling here, speak out and prove solid you're point or you're proven a nickname chicken.
-
@ MH
As requested.
https://www.google.ch/patents/US4969425 (https://www.google.ch/patents/US4969425)
This patent is accepted, also by nicky?? Grumage, will not say what I think, but you should? ???
A second cavity in the combustion camber, beside the Sqaush-band combined with LeanBurn / HOT wil create a not wanted second fire / detonation, and EAT in short time the piston roof, creating a hole in the AluCap from ...............
Proof mostly Japan bikes: GT 380 / 550 3 cilinders, why are the motorheads so quit here, EE illuminatie indoctrination?
-
You can never really trust anything. We've got a new saw,Stihl 4mix, it runs on
2stroke mix and sounds like a 4stroke....who'd a thought it?
Knowing the stupid thing, John, did you purchase it?, and voluntarily?
Where is knowledge so called payed science, 2-Stroke MIX in a more heavy 4-Stroke and that in CO2 times, this is what KIDS should not read, this is ................ as looking for love in red-light district!!!
http://www.stihl.com/4-mix-engine-lightweight-and-with-good-lugging-power.aspx (http://www.stihl.com/4-mix-engine-lightweight-and-with-good-lugging-power.aspx)
-
Again half information, who is blaming who?
Who are you calling here, speak out and prove solid you're point or you're proven a nickname chicken.
I am blaming YOU.
Johan, you should apologize to me and to everyone on this forum for your absolutely disgusting behaviour. You have some nerve posting that picture and trying to make a comparison to me.
You are disgusting and you should apologize.
We are now in our manufacturing phase and our product will be available mid 2016.
-
Brad:
I am no liar.
Just get off your butt and deliver the goods.
I cannot determine the winding direction of the primary winding of the transformer,as it is taped and lacquered,and the wire very fine. Guess i could use a compass and DC current to work it out.
? ? ?
Also remember the secondary winding is on top of the primary winding--not along side it as with a normal E core type transformer. So in this case,at the 8.46 minute mark,the yellow trace is actually leading the blue trace,as it was lagging at the start without the magnet in play,and thus show's the 90* phase shift as expected.
? ? ?
-
I am blaming YOU.Johan, you should apologize to me and to everyone on this forum for your absolutely disgusting behaviour. You have some nerve posting that picture and trying to make a comparison to me.You are disgusting and you should apologize.
The info was all over TV, opensource, so sue the Royal-BBC also?
Will spell it for you dear:
Its not in a way meant comprising to you, no idea who you are, so how could I or where did I write it?
It was a plane test, how you are looking / observing to supplied information, what you did make you're self out of it, maybe insecure, or your finger-print style, but that connection is in you're own head, can't do that only you.
----------------
But after the half informed Churchill pic, did we give you this as a Test-Case, to see how you gather out of the presented your ............. own soup.
Its the hole bunch of slaves around HIM, keeping it secret, meaning thousand of Lickers keeping it secret while HE could go on, for many years and thousand of our KIDS and loving Parents involved!
So proven not only Church, but maybe on every level its going on, this when the people, collages are keeping quit out of chicken fear, and those type's are going on with our KIDS, its all about whats around people with power, and CAN continuous because of ....................... ?
--------------
For now to the circuit again, hole weekend also with Electro. But you're original reaction from you about "Money sucking", thanks, but later!
Maybe a bit more clear, incase of other doubts ask, please: PM or what ever!!
-
@ Poynt and all.
I will be shifting my experiments to the mechanical resonance thread,as it is nothing to do with a JT-as this thread was intended for.
Tonight i have confirmed that the bulk(close to all)of the current through the secondary winding is being produced by the oscillating magnet.
All of the work on this experiment will now be posted there.
Brad.
-
Brad:
I am no liar.
Just get off your butt and deliver the goods.
? ? ?
? ? ?
How about you get of your ass,and do something useful for a change.
You are disgusting and you should apologize.
Like you did to me? after your vulgar statements toward me.
Your pathetic MH--you really are.
Oh,and by the way--you were wrong with your resonant wine glass saga.
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by a combination of the effective moving mass of the glass and the effective stiffness of the glass interacting with each other. The higher the effective moving mass of the glass, the lower the resonant frequency. The higher the effective stiffness the glass, the higher the resonant frequency.
Sorry,but that is wrong.
That is !!what! determines the resonant frequency of the wine glass--not how.
How you determine something, is by measuring it-ascertain or establish exactly by research or calculation.
So,your answer is !!what!! determines the resonant frequency of the wine glass-->not how.
How is-
How is the length of a piece of wood determined
How is the weight of a bowling ball determined.
Yes,thats right--that means you screwed up your top speed of a car rubbish as well,as it should have been !what! determines the top speed of a car--not how is it determined.
You should go to English school MH.
Big fail.
Brad
-
The info was all over TV, opensource, so sue the Royal-BBC also?
Will spell it for you dear:
Its not in a way meant comprising to you, no idea who you are, so how could I or where did I write it?
It was a plane test, how you are looking / observing to supplied information, what you did make you're self out of it, maybe insecure, or your finger-print style, but that connection is in you're own head, can't do that only you.
----------------
But after the half informed Churchill pic, did we give you this as a Test-Case, to see how you gather out of the presented your ............. own soup.
Its the hole bunch of slaves around HIM, keeping it secret, meaning thousand of Lickers keeping it secret while HE could go on, for many years and thousand of our KIDS and loving Parents involved!
So proven not only Church, but maybe on every level its going on, this when the people, collages are keeping quit out of chicken fear, and those type's are going on with our KIDS, its all about whats around people with power, and CAN continuous because of ....................... ?
--------------
For now to the circuit again, hole weekend also with Electro. But you're original reaction from you about "Money sucking", thanks, but later!
Maybe a bit more clear, incase of other doubts ask, please: PM or what ever!!
It is obvious that English is not your first language. Nonetheless, you say many strange things that are somewhat confusing.
But this is not confusing and you understand my message to you: Your behaviour was disgusting and you should apologize.
-
Brad:
You were just as vulgar towards me in your own way and I did not use "extra naughty" words. Don't play the victim. If I did to you what Johan_1955 did to me you would be freaking out and the usual commentators would be up in arms and freaking out themselves. Witness the hypocrisy in action.
How about you get of your ass,and do something useful for a change.
From this point on use the dot convention and draw up a schematic and you will be doing something useful.
Sorry,but that is wrong.
That is !!what! determines the resonant frequency of the wine glass--not how.
How you determine something, is by measuring it-ascertain or establish exactly by research or calculation.
So,your answer is !!what!! determines the resonant frequency of the wine glass-->not how.
How is-
How is the length of a piece of wood determined
How is the weight of a bowling ball determined.
Yes,thats right--that means you screwed up your top speed of a car rubbish as well,as it should have been !what! determines the top speed of a car--not how is it determined.
Are you trying to tell us you can't understand these two sentences, "How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?" and "The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by two factors." You have comprehension difficulties with the meaning of those two sentences?
The truth is you don't have any difficulties understanding those two sentences and therefore your whole pitch above is silly and moot.
However, your issues with the English language are well known and well documented and all that you do above is confirm the issues once again. The reason it is an issue is that it bleeds over from normal conversation into your technical descriptions. I couldn't really care less about the normal conversation, but when you discuss your technical presentation and the people reading have to compensate all the time it gets annoying. Especially when there is no clear path out of an ambiguity or something critical is completely missing. Seemingly, you don't want to put any effort into using the dot convention, drawing up proper schematics, and describing your setup and what you are doing in a coherent, comprehensible, and complete way. You need to work on all of that to present yourself properly to your peers.
MileHigh
-
Brad,
For the record, I will review your last attempt at answering the two wine glass questions in your posting #1696.
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?
Answer: "The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by the shape,size,and structure of the glass.
We can find out what the resonant frequency is by vibrating the glass using sound waves and raising the frequency of those sound waves until the vibrations of the wine glass reach a maximum amplitude."
>>> You are wrong because you did not identify the two parameters that determine the resonant frequency, the effective mass and the effective stiffness. The second part of your answer is just silly, describing how to test for the resonant frequency by trial and error. You are expected to have an innate understanding and the intellectual prowess to know that the question is not looking for that type of "answer."
How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
Answer: "It resonates due to the deformation and reformation of the wine glass from it's rest shape,where the resonant frequency of this deformation and reformation is determined by the shape,size and structure of the wine glass. This causes pressure wave's that can be heard-->sound waves."
>>> You are wrong because you make no mention of the energy cycling back and forth between kinetic and potential energy where the kinetic energy is in the form of the moving effective mass of the glass and the potential energy is in the form of the glass acting like a compressed spring. You aren't even close.
MileHigh
-
Webby:
The wine glass _is_ the resonating system.
In physics, resonance describes when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.
All that quote does is describe a property of a resonating system, that being that it will oscillate at a higher amplitude when stimulated at its natural resonant frequency by an external source. It's to help you identify a resonant system.
What that quote does not do is describe the mechanism for how the resonance actually works or how the resonant frequency is determined.
MileHigh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance)
-
No, there is no external system, or external force. It is not within the definition of resonance and it is not a required part of the answer.
You have seen video of skyscrapers oscillating back and forth after an earthquake. The skyscrapers are resonating. I think we have seen that a few times from earthquake events in Japan over the past 20 years.
How does a skyscraper resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a skyscraper determined?
Give it a shot. You don't have to say an earthquake has to happen first, I assure you.
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg481255#msg481255 date=1461000397]
MileHigh
[/quote]
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/healthy-eating/a10847/body-weight/
Quote: What determines my weight?
There are a number of factors that contribute towards your weight:
hereditary factors
hormonal abnormalities
lack of exercise
diet
lifestyle.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16494.0
Quote: Iron is a lot heavier than, say, lithium. But what determines its weight? Is it purely the number or nucleons, or does how closely packed the atoms are also have a bearing?
How is the weight of an object determined
Quote wikipedia: Typically, in measuring an object's weight, the object is placed on scales at rest with respect to the earth.
https://www.ups.com/content/us/en/resources/ship/packaging/dim_weight.html
Use a scale to determine the weight of the package.
Are you trying to tell us you can't understand these two sentences, "How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?" and "The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by two factors." You have comprehension difficulties with the meaning of those two sentences?
No,it is !what! determines the resonant frequency--not !how! is the resonant frequency determined.
However, your issues with the English language are well known and well documented and all that you do above is confirm the issues once again.
Reading the last few pages,it would seem that you think many people have trouble with the English language,but it looks like it is you MH that has the problem here.
You were just as vulgar towards me in your own way
Another lie.
From this point on use the dot convention and draw up a schematic and you will be doing something useful.
From this point on,i will do what i like,and if you dont like it--to bad :D
Brad
-
Webby:
All that quote does is describe a property of a resonating system, that being that it will oscillate at a higher amplitude when stimulated at its natural resonant frequency by an external source. It's to help you identify a resonant system.
MileHigh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance)
The wine glass _is_ the resonating system.
The wine glass is 1/2 of the resonating system.
Without the other half of the system,there is no resonance.
What that quote does not do is describe the mechanism for how the resonance actually works or how the resonant frequency is determined.
I have corrected the above sentence so as it is correct.
What that quote does not do is describe the mechanism for how the resonance actually works or what determines the resonant frequency.
Brad
-
Wrong and wrong.
The skyscrapers are oscillating,
again for you to read,
In physics, resonance describes when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.
So,, let me help you.
resonance describes when a vibrating system drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.
or
resonance describes when an external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.
This is what separates resonance from an oscillation,, all things can oscillate at any frequency short of destruction,, but each one can only resonate at ONE frequency,, it can be driven by many appropriately applied inputs and when the input is driving the oscillator correctly then they,, that is the system,, are in resonance.
Webby
No point in flogging a dead horse.
MHs car would still travel down the road at 110KPH after the aliens had teleported his engine from his car,where ours would roll to a stop.
Brad
-
Webby:
You are simply not getting it and you are hung up on "drives another system" and forgetting that resonance is energy transferring back and forth in the resonant system itself. You do not need inputs in the way you are stating it, you just need some sort of energy process to put some initial energy into the resonant system.
The skyscrapers are resonating and oscillating. Can you answer the two questions?
Brad:
From this point on,i will do what i like,and if you dont like it--to bad
Try learning "to" and "too" and "new" and "knew" and "theirs" and "there's" and "dose" and "does."
The wine glass is 1/2 of the resonating system.
Without the other half of the system,there is no resonance.
Nonsense.
What that quote does not do is describe the mechanism for how the resonance actually works or how the resonant frequency is determined.
I have corrected the above sentence so as it is correct.
What that quote does not do is describe the mechanism for how the resonance actually works or what determines the resonant frequency.
More English comprehension issues that you need to work on. The two sentences can mean exactly the same thing and in this context they do mean exactly the same thing.
If you guys want to be willfully ignorant, that is your choice.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Try learning "to" and "too" and "new" and "knew" and "theirs" and "there's" and "dose" and "does."
Nonsense.
More English comprehension issues that you need to work on. The two sentences can mean exactly the same thing and in this context they do mean exactly the same thing.
If you guys want to be willfully ignorant, that is your choice.
MileHigh
Its you who is disgusting. Its you that had to go down that road for sake of insult. You know exactly what brad is saying just as I do, Picowatt does and Poynt does, and everyone else here does. But you have to be the only one that needs to point things like that out just in hopes of making brad look bad. That is your goal. Just a nasty troll of the worst kind.
I suppose you should get a thumbs up from the readers for all that, heh? ::) You are a lousy human being. ;) The worst.
Mags
-
Mags.
Yes it was a scrap. Brad walked into it because of his comment about my English skills. Yes I fully understand him, but the underlying point is that when he does a technical description then it's a real problem and many times it is not understandable. So a little sting to get him to motivate himself is his just dessert and it has merit. He does need to improve himself yet you don't see him stating that, all you see is bad attitude and defiance for a common sense request that was asked politely several times before.
I don't want a thumbs up or a thumbs down, it's time for Brad to pursue his experiment on the thread that is dedicated to that project. I already stated that I have no intention of going there.
Brad kicked up a lot of sand and some went back into his face. He has been insulting me continuously for two months, did you see? That's what you get when you go haywire.
I don't take any gratuitous pleasure in this whatsoever but you did. You are the worst, lousiest most disgusting human being I have ever seen on this forum and we both know exactly why that is. You out-trolled everybody.
MileHigh
-
Mags.
Yes it was a scrap. Brad walked into it because of his comment about my English skills. Yes I fully understand him, but the underlying point is that when he does a technical description then it's a real problem and many times it is not understandable. So a little sting to get him to motivate himself is his just dessert and it has merit. He does need to improve himself yet you don't see him stating that, all you see is bad attitude and defiance for a common sense request that was asked politely several times before.
I don't want a thumbs up or a thumbs down, it's time for Brad to pursue his experiment on the thread that is dedicated to that project. I already stated that I have no intention of going there.
Brad kicked up a lot of sand and some went back into his face. He has been insulting me continuously for two months, did you see? That's what you get when you go haywire.
I don't take any gratuitous pleasure in this whatsoever but you did. You are the worst, lousiest most disgusting human being I have ever seen on this forum and we both know exactly why that is. You out-trolled everybody.
MileHigh
B O L O G N A!
You are the one that began making it a point of Brad misspelling a ways back here. And I had found shortly after that, that your grammar had some sufferings. Shall I go back and find that also? The only reason Brad makes mention of your mistakes is because you use it against him by trying to make a public spectacle of it. Like it wouldnt be in your 'good' nature to maybe send him a pm about it, so that you may 'understand' him better being you made a point of that 'today'. ::)
Nah. your here for the fight. You start it and it never ends...
Nearly every day.....
Where are my answers about the wine glass?
Where are my answers about the wine glass?
Where are my answers about the wine glass?
Where are my answers about the wine glass?
Your insane. lol
Man. You really know how to knock yourself off the hill you think your on top of. ;) ::) Its your best work.
"I don't take any gratuitous pleasure in this whatsoever but you did. You are the worst, lousiest most disgusting human being I have ever seen on this forum and we both know exactly why that is. You out-trolled everybody."
Yeah. Didnt mean to 'hurt your feelings' err nuthin. ::) Yer so sensitive. Even seeing your own words reposted gets you down. ::) ;) ;)
Mags
-
Mags:
It's over now, time to move on. But the dark stain of your gratuitous gleeful continuous attacking and degrading of me for a full year rests within you. Yer attempts to brush it off just make you look even worse. What a horrible, horrible thing you did, it was truly disgusting.
Where are my answers about the wine glass?
Where are my answers about the wine glass?
Where are my answers about the wine glass?
Where are my answers about the wine glass?
That's just a foolish fake characterization.
Yeah. Didnt mean to 'hurt your feelings' err nuthin. Yer so sensitive. Even seeing your own words reposted gets you down.
It's a deep dark ugly stain on your character. Do you think anyone on this forum would like to be continuously attacked without merit by some psycho out-of-control thug for a full year? Don't apologize, be half a man, be a fake.
MileHigh
-
Mags:
It's over now, time to move on. But the dark stain of your gratuitous gleeful continuous attacking and degrading of me for a full year rests within you. Yer attempts to brush it off just make you look even worse. What a horrible, horrible thing you did, it was truly disgusting.
That's just a foolish fake characterization.
It's a deep dark ugly stain on your character. Do you think anyone on this forum would like to be continuously attacked without merit by some psycho out-of-control thug for a full year? Don't apologize, be half a man, be a fake.
MileHigh
Yeah. Its done. Time to move on Master of the dark stain. ::)
Fake Characterization? ::) How many times have you asked or made a statement about someone answering your win glass question 'just' in the last 2 weeks? Do you know that number? Its not fake. Your audience knows. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D They are not just meat with eyes. ;)
Just keep hugging on to your dark stain. ::) What, is that the new talking points term from the weekly book of how to troll, For Dummies? ;) You are familiar with the term Dummies, as we have 'witnessed' here recently. So I figured it wouldnt bother you much. :P
Mags
-
Mags.
Yes it was a scrap. Brad walked into it because of his comment about my English skills. Yes I fully understand him, but the underlying point is that when he does a technical description then it's a real problem and many times it is not understandable. So a little sting to get him to motivate himself is his just dessert and it has merit. He does need to improve himself yet you don't see him stating that, all you see is bad attitude and defiance for a common sense request that was asked politely several times before.
I don't want a thumbs up or a thumbs down, it's time for Brad to pursue his experiment on the thread that is dedicated to that project. I already stated that I have no intention of going there.
Brad kicked up a lot of sand and some went back into his face. He has been insulting me continuously for two months, did you see? That's what you get when you go haywire.
I don't take any gratuitous pleasure in this whatsoever but you did. You are the worst, lousiest most disgusting human being I have ever seen on this forum and we both know exactly why that is. You out-trolled everybody.
MileHigh
More lies i see MH
You just cant help your self. Your english is no better than mine.
Good thing i dont write in short hand-hey.
Brad
-
Webby:
You are simply not getting it and you are hung up on "drives another system" and forgetting that resonance is energy transferring back and forth in the resonant system itself. You do not need inputs in the way you are stating it, you just need some sort of energy process to put some initial energy into the resonant system.
The skyscrapers are resonating and oscillating. Can you answer the two questions?
Brad:
Try learning "to" and "too" and "new" and "knew" and "theirs" and "there's" and "dose" and "does."
Nonsense.
More English comprehension issues that you need to work on. The two sentences can mean exactly the same thing and in this context they do mean exactly the same thing.
If you guys want to be willfully ignorant, that is your choice.
MileHigh
And Bingo
In this context ,the two can mean the exact same thing.
There for my answer about how you determine the resonant frequency of the wine glass was correct,when i stated that-you measure it,along with the methods i provided.
Every one here was always going to be wrong in your eyes MH,but just another dose of your self delusion.
Brad
-
Since MH does not know the difference between resonance and oscillation,, he can not answer the questions correctly.
Any one who at least reads the links provided will have a better understanding of that difference than MH is willing to acknowledge.
ETA:
Don't forget that there are no solid state switching devices that are normally closed,, that would make no sense at all :)
Yes,it should have been-What determines the natural oscillating frequency of a wine glass,as resonance is a continual oscillation at maximum amplitude at the oscillators natural frequency. And to maintain maximum amplitude,there must be an energy input--the other half of the resonant system.
Brad
-
Webby and Brad:
You two can live in your own reality distortion field as far as I am concerned. Resonance was explained and you can leverage that knowledge and apply it to other stuff, or do whatever it is that the two of you are doing. I honestly find it sad to see this display of willful ignorance.
Mags:
Everything I said is true.
MileHigh
-
Webby and Brad:
You two can live in your own reality distortion field as far as I am concerned. Resonance was explained and you can leverage that knowledge and apply it to other stuff, or do whatever it is that the two of you are doing. I honestly find it sad to see this display of willful ignorance.
Mags:
Everything I said is true.
MileHigh
The only one living in a distorted reality MH is you.
You explained the oscillation of a wine glass at it's natural oscillating frequency.
Resonance is when that wine glass is oscillating at it's natural frequency at maximum amplitude due to an outside force acting upon it.
It is quite funny watching you nit pick on such small thing's like spelling and comers in the wrong place-or not there at all--everything has to be all so perfect.
But when you make a mistake--it's !near enough is good enough! ::)
Well it's time you got your sh-t together ,like you think everyone else here has to---and get it! RIGHT! No more of this !changing! English to suit MHs definition's.
Oscillation of an object at it's natural oscillating frequency is not resonance--full stop.
So your long awaited answer to your own question was wrong,as you were not describing resonance at all--you were describing the natural oscillation frequency of a wine glass.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound/Lesson-5/Resonance
resonance - when one object vibrating at the same natural frequency of a second object forces that second object into vibrational motion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
In physics, resonance describes when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A-level_Physics_(Advancing_Physics)/Resonance
Resonance occurs when an oscillating system is driven (made to oscillate from an outside source) at a frequency which is the same as its own natural frequency. All oscillating systems require some form of an elastic force and a mass e.g. a mass at the end of a spring. All oscillators have a natural frequency. If you have a mass on a spring, and give it an amplitude, it will resonate at a frequency:
Brad
-
Tinman, I don't think the system needs to be oscillate at maximum amplitude, there just needs to be some excitement of the system at a compatible frequency so that the systems "amplitude" is increased by resonance. eg. a transformer could be excited at the resonant frequency with a small amount of energy, or as much energy as could be applied, as well the exciting frequency could be a lower harmonic or something as long as the resonant rise effect is achieved.
I agree with you that there must be an input for resonance because before "resound" there must first be "sound".
I like the definition you linked below.
Cheers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
In physics, resonance describes when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.
Brad
-
MH
I have re-done your questions and answers so as they are correct.
How does a wine glass oscillate at it's natural !resonant! frequency, what is the mechanism?
The wine glass oscillates at it's natural !!resonant!! frequency by cycling energy back and forth between two forms, kinetic energy and potential energy. The instant when the glass is not deformed, the glass is moving at a maximum velocity and most of the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the form of a moving mass,and some is dissipated as shock waves/sound waves and vibration. The instant when the glass is at its maximum deformation, the glass has stopped moving and most of the energy is stored as potential energy in the form of a compressed spring. In between these two states, the energy is stored as combination of kinetic energy and potential energy.
What determines the resonant frequency of a wine glass ?
The natural resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by a combination of the effective moving mass of the glass and the elasticity value of the glass interacting with each other. The higher the effective moving mass of the glass, the lower the natural resonant frequency. The higher the elasticity value of the glass, the higher the natural resonant frequency.
Brad
-
Brad, you puffed out your chest about resonance two months ago and fell flat on your behind when you tried to answer the two simple questions. The simple questions were posed to make you and others think, and now here you are ending it off with yet another failure of the imagination with your inability to separate resonance from a source of energy for the resonance. Or perhaps it's a new 'hook' that you and Webby have latched onto in order to create yet another farcical spectacle.
-
Here is a true online Big Gun for you poor misguided ones to contemplate:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/reson.html
In sound applications, a resonant frequency is a natural frequency of vibration determined by the physical parameters of the vibrating object. This same basic idea of physically determined natural frequencies applies throughout physics in mechanics, electricity and magnetism, and even throughout the realm of modern physics. Some of the implications of resonant frequencies are:
1. It is easy to get an object to vibrate at its resonant frequencies, hard to get it to vibrate at other frequencies.
2. A vibrating object will pick out its resonant frequencies from a complex excitation and vibrate at those frequencies, essentially "filtering out" other frequencies present in the excitation.
3. Most vibrating objects have multiple resonant frequencies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So all of the nonsense about a "compound" definition for resonance that is tied to the energy source is just pure nonsense, a farce. As the Hyperphysics link states (to paraphrase), "This is what resonance is, and now that we know what it is, let's examine some of the implications. Oh, yes, one of the most basic implications is that if you excite a resonant system at it's resonant frequency you will get a good response from the system."
So you two clowns don't have the common sense to understand that it takes simple common sense to realize that if you excite a resonant system at its resonant frequency then the system will respond and start to resonate and that is just a natural attribute of any resonant system. It's like a common sense double-cross and you yourselves are the hapless victims.
It's real life being stranger than fiction, like a Monthy Python skit for hapless resonance nerds.
-
Oscillation of an object at it's natural oscillating frequency is not resonance--full stop.
So your long awaited answer to your own question was wrong,as you were not describing resonance at all--you were describing the natural oscillation frequency of a wine glass.
-
MH,
I think at this point in time you are fully aware of what your error was, and as such your continuing attempts to hide that error in disregard for the benefit of others that may be reading this thread is sufficient grounds to have you placed on permanent moderation.
Please pay close attention to the ACTION word in 1,, or maybe phrase,, you highlighted it in bold,, "TO GET AN OBJECT TO VIBRATE" <=== INPUT REQUIRED,, EXTERNAL SYSTEM EMPLOYED.
The wine glass is NOT a system it is a material,, it is an oscillator,, your finger can make it oscillate which then will drive it into resonance and as long as your finger is rubbing on the glass it will stay there,, the amplitude of that oscillation being maintained by the input energy from your finger rubbing the rim of the wine glass being sufficient to overcome the internal losses as well as the losses into heat and sound waves and the friction of your finger and the dampening forces that can be introduced in the process of making the wine glass resonate.
Anymore of this nonsense from you MH and I will file a formal complaint,, but I will ask that you be banned for life for your total lack of respect for our fellow readers.
If this was just you Brad and myself I would not be so bothered,, but there are many others who read these forums actually looking for information and trying to get some education,, when they find all of this absolute dribble from you they might get very misguided,, and it is very hard to re-learn something.
I would like it if all of these incorrect posts from you were deleted so as your blatant disregard of what is right and wrong will not jeopardize those that are looking for guidance.
The best way to discribe resonance is this; not in resonance is like pissing into the wind, In resonance is so obvious ;b
-
Brad, you puffed out your chest about resonance two months ago and fell flat on your behind when you tried to answer the two simple questions. The simple questions were posed to make you and others think, and now here you are ending it off with yet another failure of the imagination with your inability to separate resonance from a source of energy for the resonance. Or perhaps it's a new 'hook' that you and Webby have latched onto in order to create yet another farcical spectacle.
I hope this will help you out MH,in being able to define the difference between resonance and oscillations at the items natural resonant frequency.
Resonance is the interaction of two systems MH--yes ,two-not one.
The most important video you might watch MH--it's all about wine glass resonance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPH-JoOtcUo
And some more on resonance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYlpePXdiCg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPXewZYWzYY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY3hB-yH8NU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDnNmLkQ3Bc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nblcKkX0zJo
And the list go's on.
Brad
-
Webby: Your pitch is really bizarre, and you have really gone out on a limb for sure. Take your nasty words and eat them. It's shocking to read what you said. It's horrible to read your hate.
Both of you:
This is an energy research forum and you are supposed to be trying to research energy and understand it at a deeper level. The vast majority of the information on the web is a layperson's description of resonance and they never even discuss the mechanism of the resonance and how the resonant frequency is determined. It's typically only when you look at the electrical definition of resonance will they discuss this stuff in more detail.
The "natural oscillation frequency" and the "resonant frequency" are synonymous. The natural oscillation frequency is the resonant frequency. When you watch a clip where they break a wine glass and say "this is resonance" they are keeping it simple for lay people, and many times they use the same language in a beginner's physics classes. What they are really saying is "This is a demonstration of (the phenomenon of) resonance" where what is actually resonating is the wine glass itself due to external stimulation. If you take away the external stimulation the wine glass continues to resonate.
Yes, you can extend the definition of "resonance" to one system driving another system into resonance because it is being excited at its natural frequency. One word can have multiple meanings. But in the context of this discussion on this forum, we are "smart enough" to understand that we can do away with the classic demonstration of resonance, and the lay person's definition of resonance, because we want to look at what resonance really is, not how you demonstrate the phenomenon to an introductory junior college science class.
You look at the vast majority of these resonance demonstration clips and they do not discuss the actual mechanism of the resonance, or how the resonant frequency (a.k.a. "natural oscillation frequency") is actually determined. All that they do is sweep a frequency to find the resonant frequency, or show how driving a resonant system at the resonant frequency elicits a resonant response from the system. But in this thread we took the fact that the wine glass was resonating as a given, something struck it before we started looking at it and observing it in resonance, and we are trying to understand the how and why of the resonance itself, not that you can demonstrate it by stimulating the wine glass at the right frequency or striking it.
To quote Poynt99 from posting #2009, "In fact a resonant system is resonant regardless if it is resonating or not."
So you two guys have to put your thinking caps on. I don't have any issue with the definition of "resonance" as the lay's person's definition which is a demonstration of the phenomenon of resonance by making a wine glass shatter or even for introductory physics demonstrations where "resonance" is defined as when one tuning fork induces "natural frequency oscillations" in a second tuning fork. But the true definition of "resonance" or a "system in resonance" is exactly like I defined it, and even my definition was only very basic and not hard-core technical with equations and all that stuff.
Now if you guys are going to disagree with all of this and stick to the layperson's definition of resonance (or you can call it another definition in the list of meanings of the word "resonance") then you are missing the boat and being willfully ignorant of another more scientific and precise definition of resonance. And that was the whole point of this exercise, to get into a more detailed understanding of what a resonating wine glass is really doing so that you could apply that knowledge elsewhere and in your bench experiments. If you guys continue on along these ridiculous lines are going to shout out "MileHigh is wrong!" then you are just going to continue to be foolish proverbial strutting peacocks that are morally bankrupt that can't see the true answer in front of your noses.
So true resonance has been defined and you should be able to apply that knowledge if you understand it. You should be able to take the same two wine glass questions and apply them to the swaying skyscrapers after an earthquake or to the Tacoma Narrows bridge. If you can't do that, then you have simply not gotten it and you should review the wine glass answers and all of the supplementary material that came up in this thread and try to do it for your own benefit.
That's it, I won't be "defending" the definition of resonance anymore or how a wine glass resonates. You either get it or you don't or you continue with this insane line of "reasoning" and make a spectacle of yourselves.
MileHigh
-
Miles
It is good that you attempt to put an end to this [at least the thought is there]
however by implying that TinMan will be a better "resonator" as a result of your
semantics lesson ??
ridiculous
he fully understands how to resonate anything he choses [this thread is a good example of his resonance skills]
and I have no doubt he has the skills to Take down a skyscraper or Bridge or whatever .
he could do this with out any help in any way shape or form from your "big Reveal" .
Your Big reveal was not meant as a Bench tool ,it was meant to ridicule embarrass and draw some unnecessary
imaginary line between the layman and the learned .
your big reveal was a big Backfire.
and no amount of eloquent prose Nor manufactured intentions of goodwill
is gonna change that .
you just wanted to try and rub TinMan's nose in your superiority [and many other noses too ..Sans Your "I can't wait to Shut it down " comment ,about this forums general interest in resonance as it applies to Over unity .
which you apparently find appalling!
" the truth will set you free "
stop trying to put a shine on your Nasty intent.
Your "Whineglass" contribution was never meant to be of any value on TinMan's bench !
it was all about You ... and trying to put him in his "Place" .
big fail !!
but we sure did learn a lot about You .
-
Thanks for your colour commentary but the intentions were good and Brad got a lesson in what resonance really is as evidenced by the fact that he was unable to answer the two questions. The sheer "misery factor" when trying to do a thread like this is too much. I probably will never do anything like this again as I have clearly stated what I am really here for. A bird's eye view of this thread and the dynamics behind it are truly staggering from a normal frame of reference. Don't be surprised if many outsiders view it all as as high comedy.
Going back to the roots, the "resonant Joule Thief" thread will never happen and as we can see so far mum's the word. In this thread we looked at what resonance really is, and compared and contrasted it to a Joule Thief which is a pulse circuit that has nothing to do with resonance. If you are going to investigate a "resonant Joule Thief" now you know what to look for.
Keep on with that doting. For sure you are going to hit the jackpot and change the world and your name will get into the history books.
-
The first full definition of "resonance" is "the quality or state of being resonant."
Example: After you strike a wine glass, it will be in a state of resonance.
The first full definition of "resonant" is "continuing to sound : echoing"
Example: After you strike a wine glass, it will be resonant and continue to sound a tone for several seconds.
So you have been contradicted and defeated by the very first full definitions listed in your Mirriam-Webster dictionary links. The definitions are listed by priority where naturally the first definition is the most popular or commonly understood definition.
Like I said, this whole thread is like Dr. Strangelove meets Monty Python.
-
Yes indeed. I stand by what I am saying and it is correct and it is backed up by your dictionary links. Why you have an obsession to disagree with the common sense things I am saying is a mystery that you can deal with yourself.
-
The answers to my questions are absolutely correct.
-
... oscillating at the natural frequency
Can be replaced by a single word; "resonating".
-
Thanks for your colour commentary but the intentions were good and Brad got a lesson in what resonance really is as evidenced by the fact that he was unable to answer the two questions.
Another lie.
In fact,i answered the questions in a more correct manor than you did MH. I used the !correct! scientific definition,while you were happy with your !laypersons! terms.
I probably will never do anything like this again as I have clearly stated what I am really here for.
Yes-to spreed dis/info,and tell other members not to help a fellow member when he requests it.
In this thread we looked at what resonance really is
,
Yes,we did. It is when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.
If you are going to investigate a "resonant Joule Thief" now you know what to look for.
Yes-look for MHs JT,as it requires no external force (E.G-battery) for it to resonate.
Keep on with that doting. For sure you are going to hit the jackpot and change the world and your name will get into the history books.
Well,maybe not the history book's MH,but you could dust off your old book's,and pop in a note or two on the resonant systems that exist in and around the ICE to increase efficiency and power. Maybe make a small note on what a J/FET is while your at it.
I re-read Poynt's post 2009-
Quote: You expect to be cut some slack with your incorrectly depicted probe positions and scope traces, so I suggest you do the same for MH for assuming that energy has already been given to a resonant system. In fact a resonant system is resonant regardless if it is resonating or not.
So i will dismiss the fact that the probe positions were exactly where i wanted them to be,and there for correct for the experiment,and i do understand that a resonant system is a resonant system regardless of whether it is resonating or not(a car is a car whether it is moving or not). But as long as you insist that my !!English!! has to be 100% perfect,i will insist that such a simple concept as resonance is presented correctly by you MH.
A wine glass will only resonate while the external force is acting upon it. If that primary part of the system is missing,then the wine glass will oscillate,and ring down until it is at it's rest state.
Brad
-
You are hopeless Brad and I don't know if it is because you are clueless or malevolent or a combination of the two. You certainly have an issue with mendacity.
-
Thats it. Ive had it. I quit. Im handing in my resination. ;D
Mags
-
:o
that was a good one !!
Are you being mendacious ??
-
I suppose that I could go out and get a post and a magnet and wrap a coil and make the magnet wobble on the post and get all excited and convince myself that I am doing stuff that is "not in your books." ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Good luck on your little junior college Physics 001 summer school lab experiment. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
P.S.: If you get close, then watch out for the dreaded "MIBeach Ball." 8) ;) ;) ;) ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Ffr1U7KMY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Ffr1U7KMY)
-
Bah, the mib already has the ou resonance ball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfu1Ux1tX6A
Mags
-
Bah, the mib already has the ou resonance ball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfu1Ux1tX6A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfu1Ux1tX6A)
Mags
That Great Attractor was a real card was he not? Got to love an alien with a sense of humor.
Bill
-
Was a great movie. Lots of neat little doo daas in Tomorrowland also. Project Almanac was cool. Off topic, lol, American Ultra was real cool.
Mags
-
If one places a wooden instrument, such a violin, guitar, etz... a couple of feet of even some yards away from another such instrument. Then play a note on the first instrument, the second instrument will resonate (re-sound), even if only slightly, at the same note, or frequency. Right? Now, If you play a chord, instead. The second instrument will again resonate same as the chord played by the first one. All of the notes of the chord will resonate same as the first instrument.
Therefore, resonance and it's harmonic overtones, is a fairly complicated subject to discuss, or argue if you must.
However, Tesla's ideas about "resonance" are not the same, as what we are taught even today on the subject.
And had more to do with the unimpeded flow, from one thing to another. But, I'm not good at trying to explain it, like he did.
Sorry, I'll leave it at that.
I'm Not trying to ruffle any ones feathers.... Just tossing out some ideas.
Thanks for listening.
-
I suppose that I could go out and get a post and a magnet and wrap a coil and make the magnet wobble on the post and get all excited and convince myself that I am doing stuff that is "not in your books." ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Good luck on your little junior college Physics 001 summer school lab experiment. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
P.S.: If you get close, then watch out for the dreaded "MIBeach Ball." 8) ;) ;) ;) ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Ffr1U7KMY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Ffr1U7KMY)
Whats the matter MH?; still got your knickers in a twist because i proved you wrong on many occasions in this thread.
Well i dont really care how you try and twist things around to try and correct yet another mistake,the fact is-you are wrong,resonance is not the wine glass oscillating at its natural resonant frequency --resonance is an interaction between an outside force acting on another component where the outside force causes that component to oscillate at its natural resonant frequency.
What poynt said was wrong. A wine glass oscillating at its natural resonant frequency is 'not'resonance',as there is no outside force interaction,and there for there is no resonance. We tap the wine glass,it will oscillate and ring down to a stop.
Resonance is not oscillation-period.
Brad
-
I can tell you what I think Brad although I am not educated in these matters: It's the Dunning-Kruger effect combined with a strong OCD related to being wrong and perceived as being wrong.
-
I can tell you what I think Brad although I am not educated in these matters: It's the Dunning-Kruger effect combined with a strong OCD related to being wrong and perceived as being wrong.
Sorry to hear, but that is Karma, mirror was working!
But very good that you did find it out, is there a cure, are you're kids affected!
Strength, and fast healing progress to you, we need you're old one back!!
Hugz, Johan
-
I can tell you what I think Brad although I am not educated in these matters: It's the Dunning-Kruger effect combined with a strong OCD related to being wrong and perceived as being wrong.
It is so funny to watch you scramble to find a way out of !yet! another blooper MH.
So ofter you guys(the guru's) tell us experimenters to go read book's,and search the web for correct answers,and when we do,and those answers are not what you want it to be,the bullshit starts---happens all the time.
Well here is the true definition of resonance as physics see it.
Definition of Resonance - "The increase in amplitude of oscillation of an electric or mechanical system exposed to a periodic force whose frequency is equal or very close to the natural undamped frequency of the system.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound/Lesson-5/Resonance
Resonance
As was mentioned in Lesson 4, musical instruments are set into vibrational motion at their natural frequency when a person hits, strikes, strums, plucks or somehow disturbs the object. Each natural frequency of the object is associated with one of the many standing wave patterns by which that object could vibrate. The natural frequencies of a musical instrument are sometimes referred to as the harmonics of the instrument. An instrument can be forced into vibrating at one of its harmonics (with one of its standing wave patterns) if another interconnected object pushes it with one of those frequencies. This is known as resonance - when one object vibrating at the same natural frequency of a second object forces that second object into vibrational motion.
The word resonance comes from Latin and means to "resound" - to sound out together with a loud sound. Resonance is a common cause of sound production in musical instruments. One of our best models of resonance in a musical instrument is a resonance tube (a hollow cylindrical tube) partially filled with water and forced into vibration by a tuning fork.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
In physics, resonance describes when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/resonance
the state of a system in which an abnormally large vibration is produced in response to an external stimulus, occurring when the frequency of the stimulus is the same, or nearly the same, as the natural vibration frequency of the system.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A-level_Physics_(Advancing_Physics)/Resonance
Resonance occurs when an oscillating system is driven (made to oscillate from an outside source) at a frequency which is the same as its own natural frequency.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Wave+resonance
Physics The increase in amplitude of oscillation of an electric or mechanical system exposed to a periodic force whose frequency is equal or very close to the natural undamped frequency of the system.
(General Physics) sound produced by a body vibrating in sympathy with a neighbouring source of sound.
http://www.ldoceonline.com/Physics-topic/resonance
technical sound that is produced or increased in one object by sound waves from another object
http://physicsnet.co.uk/a-level-physics-as-a2/further-mechanics/forced-vibrations-resonance/
If an object is being forced to vibrate at its natural frequency, resonance will occur and you will observe large amplitude vibrations. The resonant frequency is fo.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/resonance
reinforcement and prolongation of a sound or musical tone by reflection or by sympathetic vibration of other bodies
the current or voltage flow is at maximum amplitude, produced when the frequency of the electrical source is varied, or
the current or voltage is in phase respectively with the applied current or voltage, or
the natural frequency of the circuit is the same as that of the incoming signal
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/resonance
Physics The reinforcement or prolongation of sound by reflection from a surface or by the synchronous vibration of a neighbouring object.
Mechanics The condition in which an object or system is subjected to an oscillating force having a frequency close to its own natural frequency.
And the list go's on and on--and they all say the same thing.
Hooray for your books MH,they just proved your ass wrong.
And do you know what that means MH--yep,thats right,my answers were correct MH,and yours were not-->aint that a hoot ;)
So no-resonance is not an object oscillating at it's natural frequency.
Resonance is as stated above-in every link.
Go and do your home work MH--get into them beloved book's ,and do some reading of your own---and stop leading people down your garden path--as all your flowers are dead.
Brad.
-
Brad:
Yes I know, there is a level of subtlety there in what you are linking to that escapes you. All of those links use the most readily understandable way of describing resonance to effectively get the idea across, that being that "resonance" is the response of a resonant system to an external stimulating frequency. It is the way to get the concept across to someone that has never used the word before and does not understand what in means. In fact, it is obvious that "resonance" can indeed mean just that, "the increased response of a resonant system to an external stimulating frequency at the resonant frequency."
However, like I already told you, words can have more than just one meaning, and latching onto one meaning of a word like you are doing, and then trying to claim or pretend that other related definitions of the word are invalid is a totally ridiculous thing to do. And that's what you are doing right now, and it is clearly not the first time you have attempted to do something like this.
Let's take a look at your first quote:
Definition of Resonance - "The increase in amplitude of oscillation of an electric or mechanical system exposed to a periodic force whose frequency is equal or very close to the natural undamped frequency of the system."
Now let's break it down and simplify it and look into it a bit more deeply.
>>> The increase in amplitude of oscillation of a mechanical system exposed to a periodic force whose frequency is equal or very close to the natural undamped frequency of the system.
Now let's substitute "whose frequency is equal or very close to the natural undamped frequency" for "resonant frequency."
>>> The increase in amplitude of oscillation of a mechanical system exposed to a periodic force at the resonant frequency of the system.
Let's substitute "increase in amplitude of oscillation" for "resonating."
>>> The resonating of a mechanical system exposed to a periodic force at the resonant frequency of the system.
We know that the "mechanical system" is in fact a "resonator."
>>> The resonating of a resonator exposed to a periodic force at the resonant frequency of the system.
The resonator exhibits the property of resonance. We can say that "resonance" is the process where a resonator resonates at the resonant frequency. For example you can say, "the resonator is in a state or resonance" when it is vibrating at the resonant frequency.
So, "resonance" also means "a resonator resonating at the resonant frequency."
Also, "being in a state of resonance" means "a resonator resonating at the resonant frequency."
Notice that there is a no "exposed to a periodic force" anymore. You don't need it.
"Resonance" is a word that describes a mechanical or electrical system resonating at the resonant frequency. A classic example is the wine glass. You strike it once and then it is a resonant system that is resonating at the resonant frequency. You can say "self-resonant frequency" or "resonant frequency" they are synonymous.
A stand-alone wine glass can be a resonator resonating at the resonant frequency - it is in a state of resonance.
So your clinging onto the first definition that you see for "resonance" and pretending that there are no other definitions of the word to "prove me wrong" is ridiculous. It's just one more in a long long list of ridiculous statements that you have made in this thread.
MileHigh
-
Sorry to hear, but that is Karma, mirror was working!
But very good that you did find it out, is there a cure, are you're kids affected!
Strength, and fast healing progress to you, we need you're old one back!!
Hugz, Johan
If you had used that picture and compared it with another member, let's say Ramset as an example, you would have been shamed and destroyed by the other members of this forum and told to apologize. I would have said it myself.
I am a member of this forum just like any other member and your behaviour was disgusting. You should apologize to me and to every member of this forum for your sick and disgusting behaviour.
-
No Webby, I am dead-on accurate.
The guitar string is in resonance with the air while it is making a sound, the air being the outside force that is taking the internal stored energy from the string, change the direction of energy flow and the air can add energy back into the string.
So if the string is oscillating at its preferred frequency with no external interaction it is only oscillating.
Well, thanks for showing the world that you have been bluffing your way through this. Your statement about the guitar string and the air being in resonance is ridiculous.
Can you apply the wine glass questions to the example of the skyscrapers or the Tacoma Narrows bridge and answer them successfully? I somehow doubt it.
-
Brad:
Yes I know, there is a level of subtlety there in what you are linking to that escapes you. All of those links use the most readily understandable way of describing resonance to effectively get the idea across, that being that "resonance" is the response of a resonant system to an external stimulating frequency. It is the way to get the concept across to someone that has never used the word before and does not understand what in means. In fact, it is obvious that "resonance" can indeed mean just that, "the increased response of a resonant system to an external stimulating frequency at the resonant frequency."
However, like I already told you, words can have more than just one meaning, and latching onto one meaning of a word like you are doing, and then trying to claim or pretend that other related definitions of the word are invalid is a totally ridiculous thing to do. And that's what you are doing right now, and it is clearly not the first time you have attempted to do something like this.
Let's take a look at your first quote:
Definition of Resonance - "The increase in amplitude of oscillation of an electric or mechanical system exposed to a periodic force whose frequency is equal or very close to the natural undamped frequency of the system."
Now let's break it down and simplify it and look into it a bit more deeply.
>>> The increase in amplitude of oscillation of a mechanical system exposed to a periodic force whose frequency is equal or very close to the natural undamped frequency of the system.
Now let's substitute "whose frequency is equal or very close to the natural undamped frequency" for "resonant frequency."
>>> The increase in amplitude of oscillation of a mechanical system exposed to a periodic force at the resonant frequency of the system.
Let's substitute "increase in amplitude of oscillation" for "resonating."
>>> The resonating of a mechanical system exposed to a periodic force at the resonant frequency of the system.
We know that the "mechanical system" is in fact a "resonator."
>>> The resonating of a resonator exposed to a periodic force at the resonant frequency of the system.
The resonator exhibits the property of resonance. We can say that "resonance" is the process where a resonator resonates at the resonant frequency. For example you can say, "the resonator is in a state or resonance" when it is vibrating at the resonant frequency.
So, "resonance" also means "a resonator resonating at the resonant frequency."
Also, "being in a state of resonance" means "a resonator resonating at the resonant frequency."
Notice that there is a no "exposed to a periodic force" anymore. You don't need it.
"Resonance" is a word that describes a mechanical or electrical system resonating at the resonant frequency. A classic example is the wine glass. You strike it once and then it is a resonant system that is resonating at the resonant frequency. You can say "self-resonant frequency" or "resonant frequency" they are synonymous.
A stand-alone wine glass can be a resonator resonating at the resonant frequency - it is in a state of resonance.
So your clinging onto the first definition that you see for "resonance" and pretending that there are no other definitions of the word to "prove me wrong" is ridiculous. It's just one more in a long long list of ridiculous statements that you have made in this thread.
MileHigh
Another failed attempt MH.
As the resonator(wine glass) will not gain or maintain maximum amplitude with just one strike,then it is not in a resonant state,it is in a state of oscillation,where the amplitude is decreasing,not increasing to reach it's resonant state.
Being in resonance is to maintain maximum amplitude at a minimum cost to the external force maintaining that resonance.
So it is not the first definition MH,it is the only definition.
You can try and twist things around ,to try and save face,but it is not going to happen,and you will not redefine terms to suit your need to be correct.
You show me your wine glass resonating without an external force acting upon it to maintain that state of resonance,and then i will believe you. Until then,stick with the laws written and defined within the books you preach daily.
Once again--resonance is not oscillation at a resonant frequency.
Brad
-
No Webby, I am dead-on accurate.
Well, thanks for showing the world that you have been bluffing your way through this. Your statement about the guitar string and the air being in resonance is ridiculous.
Can you apply the wine glass questions to the example of the skyscrapers or the Tacoma Narrows bridge and answer them successfully? I somehow doubt it.
The Tacoma Narrows bridge and skyscrapers oscillate due to aeroelastic flutter,the very same way the reed in a mouthpiece for something like a saxophone works.
In both cases,an outside force is needed in order to reach a maximum structural terminal amplitude.
This situation cannot be directly related to the wine glass,as the input force is not a periodic force as such for the wine glass.
Oh look--the boy on the swing.
When a father pushes his kid on a swing, the motion of the swing has a natural frequency. If the swing comes back every 8 seconds, its natural frequency is 1/8 = 0,125 Hertz. Now if the father wants to maintain the motion of the swing, he has to push it each time the swing comes back to him, which means every 8 seconds. The force used by the father to push the swing every 8 seconds is the external force applied with a periodic frequency. If the father does not push the swing at the right moment (i.e. every 8 seconds), he will damp the motion and the swing will not go as high as the kid would wish. However if the external periodic frequency of the father matches the natural frequency of the swing, we get a resonance vibration. The resonance vibration will allow the kid to climb back and forth as high as he wishes with his swing.
Oscillation at the natural resonant frequency is not resonance. ;)
Brad
-
No Webby, I am dead-on accurate.
Well, thanks for showing the world that you have been bluffing your way through this. Your statement about the guitar string and the air being in resonance is ridiculous.
Have you lost your marbles MH.
That statement is absolutely correct.
How do you think one tuning fork can get another tuning fork, that has the same resonant frequency,resonating right along side it if the sound waves are not also vibrating at the same frequency,and at a maximum amplitude determined by the driving tuning fork (the outside force)?.
You really need to brush up on resonance MH.
Brad
-
This is a clear demonstration that you do not understand resonance.
Aint that the truth ;)
Brad
-
This is a clear demonstration that you do not understand resonance.
And so the day came when the teachers became the students.
Brad
-
And so the day came when the teachers became the students.
Brad
Wow...
-
Wow indeed...
Now _my brain_ is hurting from reading this foolishness.
-
The guitar string is self-resonant, just like the wine glass or a tuning fork or a bell. The air around the string drains energy away from the resonating guitar string in two ways. The moving string is pushing its way through the viscous air and therefore there is friction. The moving string also couples energy into the air in the form of sound waves. So you can simply say that the air is damping the resonant string and draining energy away from it, like a resistor in a parallel RLC circuit.
That's why I said you have apparently been bluffing your way through this.
-
OK
What if you were sitting in a bell tower, drinking wine from a glass while playing guitar and pushing a small child on a little swing with your foot?
Would the universe as we know it implode?
Bill
-
Self-resonant??? (SRF)
So now there is a capacitance within the wine glass,, guitar string and a tuning fork??
How does the air drain away the energy without changing the frequency,, how does that air around the guitar string make the other strings amplitude increase so that they can be causally observed??
In short the air is in resonance with the string.
This is a classically used example that you have called ridiculous.
Okay Webby, so you have been bluffing. And Brad is off in La-La Land backing you up. There is mechanical capacitance in the guitar string and the wine glass when you analyze the physical systems. I stand by what I am saying and for this basic stuff I know what I am talking about. So let's just put this whole damn thing to bed. Just watch the new thread about the vibrating magnet on a stick. It's like a lab experiment for a junior college physics class. See if anybody arrives at a conclusion or if it just withers and dies. Don't expect to ever see a "resonant Joule Thief" thread, which was the reason I entered into this sometimes-crazy debate in the first place.
-
Wow...
Is it that hard for you guys to accept?
Too big to be taught by those you think are beneath you?.
Did i,or did i not explain,show and provide evidence to MH of existing resonant systems that exist around an ICE,that greatly improves performance and efficiency?,when he said they do not in any way,shape ,or form.
Did i ,or did i not provide evidence and prove to MH ,that resonant systems exist within the ICE it self,that also improve performance and efficiency ? when he said they do not in any way,shape ,or form.
The teacher became the student ;)
Have i,or have i not provided correct and accurate information and examples of what resonance is?.
Wow indeed.
Brad
-
Wow indeed...
Now _my brain_ is hurting from reading this foolishness.
Yes Mr J/FET,i bet it is.
Looking back on your mistakes throughout this thread must be painful :D
How do you link the oscillations of the wine glass and the Tacoma Narrows bridge?.
Brad
-
If my mistakes are a mouse, then your mistakes are an elephant. But of course that is problematic territory for your psyche. It's up to you to link the oscillations of the wine glass with the Tacoma Narrows bridge in order to demonstrate some competence in the subject matter.
-
Is it that hard for you guys to accept?
After the recent o'scopes 101 foul up, I thought your comment was a bit arrogant...
Carry on...
PW
-
After the recent o'scopes 101 foul up, I thought your comment was a bit arrogant...
Carry on...
PW
When did i claim to be an Oscope guru?
And just for the record,the way the scope was set up for that test,did indeed show that the yellow trace was leading the blue trace when the yellow trace was to the right side of the blue trace.
I have no problem being the student,and learning as we go along.
MH should accept the fact that he too is also the student some time's--your never too big to learn.
Brad
-
And just for the record,the way the scope was set up for that test,did indeed show that the yellow trace was leading the blue trace when the yellow trace was to the right side of the blue trace.
Wow...
-
Wow...
It was good to see you show up so fast,and comment/correct MHs mistakes PW. ;)
A clear pattern has formed here in this thread.
Brad
-
The skyscrapers are resonating and oscillating.
The buildings may be oscillating but how can
you prove they are in resonance? :o
How many resonant frequencies does a tall
building have? With anti-resonance dampers?
No Webby, I am dead-on accurate.
A classic example of a lamely weak desperate attempt
to defend a losing stance. ;)
Now _my brain_ is hurting from reading this foolishness.
Must be a wedgie - those can be painful. Did you not
deploy your chute? ???
-
With nice repetitive sine waves on your scope, how do you tell the difference between a 30 degree phase _lead_ and a 330 degree phase _lag_?
-
The buildings may be oscillating but how can
you prove they are in resonance? :o
How many resonant frequencies does a tall
building have? With anti-resonance dampers?
A classic example of a lamely weak desperate attempt
to defend a losing stance. ;)
Must be a wedgie - those can be painful. Did you not
deploy your chute? ???
Oh, stop your silly playing-the-bad-boy BS. Losing stance my ass. I have a reasonable sense of your technical knowledge level and you have been reading Brad spouting a bunch of nonsense and saying nothing. Meanwhile you "take delight" in trying to be nit-picky with me or try to challenge me on something. Most of the time I respond and then you say nothing. The backdrop to that and your motivations for being a bad boy are that I have challenged you on chemtrails, vaccinations, and what would be better-left-unsaid politics.
Your Dr. Strangelove cameo moment came up and such is my response this time.
-
With nice repetitive sine waves on your scope, how do you tell the difference between a 30 degree phase _lead_ and a 330 degree phase _lag_?
Ooooh! I love those kinds of questions! 8)
There is of course an answer which is more correct
than all of them... ::)
Way to go TinK! ;)
-
With nice repetitive sine waves on your scope, how do you tell the difference between a 30 degree phase _lead_ and a 330 degree phase _lag_?
Good question
How?
Brad
-
Oh, stop your silly playing-the-bad-boy BS. Losing stance my ass. I have a reasonable sense of your technical knowledge level and you have been reading Brad spouting a bunch of nonsense and saying nothing. Meanwhile you "take delight" in trying to be nit-picky with me or try to challenge me on something. Most of the time I respond and then you say nothing. The backdrop to that and your motivations for being a bad boy are that I have challenged you on chemtrails, vaccinations, and what would be better-left-unsaid politics.
Your Dr. Strangelove cameo moment came up and such is my response this time.
Well MH,it's been a hoot.
The one thing i will say is,thank you for all of your help over the years-you have taught me much.
I guess there comes a time when we have to agree to disagree.
There is no point in continuing to argue about resonance,as it makes more sence to put what we know (believe) to work,and see if we can make something of it.
Brad
-
It was good to see you show up so fast,and comment/correct MHs mistakes PW. ;)
A clear pattern has formed here in this thread.
Brad
What does MH's "wow" moments have to do with yours?
The emotional feud between you and MH is your own matter...
PW
-
With nice repetitive sine waves on your scope, how do you tell the difference between a 30 degree phase _lead_ and a 330 degree phase _lag_?
Good question
How?
Brad
If necessary, by inserting a marker pulse, half sine, burst, etc using the second channel of your FG (as I suggested back in the flywheel version of these "experiments" and again just recently).
However, your open secondary waveforms made a lot more sense after you flipped the secondary connections...
PW
-
What does MH's "wow" moments have to do with yours?
The emotional feud between you and MH is your own matter...
PW
Well i was refering as to how you never correct MH(or the likes) when they are wrong,and yet you show up in a flash to point out my mistakes-
-just saying. ;)
Brad
-
With nice repetitive sine waves on your scope, how do you tell the difference between a 30 degree phase _lead_ and a 330 degree phase _lag_?
So thinking a little more on that question TK.
If we look at my last video,i shift the secondaries current wave !!through!! the primaries current wave.
So would this not mean that it went from trailing to leading if it passed straight through the primaries trace?.
Brad.
-
So thinking a little more on that question TK.
If we look at my last video,i shift the secondaries current wave !!through!! the primaries current wave.
So would this not mean that it went from trailing to leading if it passed straight through the primaries trace?.
Brad.
You might consider repeating that video with the secondary connections flipped...
-
You might consider repeating that video with the secondary connections flipped...
Will do.
Brad
-
Well MH,it's been a hoot.
The one thing i will say is,thank you for all of your help over the years-you have taught me much.
I guess there comes a time when we have to agree to disagree.
There is no point in continuing to argue about resonance,as it makes more sence to put what we know (believe) to work,and see if we can make something of it.
Brad
Well I wish I could say, "It's been real," but I can't. It's been absolutely unreal. So unreal that at the end of this discussion you come up with a crazy half-definition of "resonance" where only an externally driven resonant system is "resonance" but a resonant system resonating stand-alone all by itself is "not resonance."
It's so unreal that you are doing a simple college physics experiment and yet you try to claim it is "not in your books." There were probably about a dozen arguments with you in this thread where you were absolutely unreal.
It looks to me like you are going to be spinning in circles for a long time.
MileHigh
-
How does the air drain away the energy without changing the frequency,
Air changes the frequency a little. In other words, in vacuum the string would vibrate a little faster...and much longer.
This also happens in LCR circuits, where the resistance slightly affects the self oscillation frequency in an underdamped transient response. AFAIR it affects the Alpha parameter and the Neper frequency.
-
Well I wish I could say, "It's been real," but I can't. It's been absolutely unreal. So unreal that at the end of this discussion you come up with a crazy half-definition of "resonance" where only an externally driven resonant system is "resonance" but a resonant system resonating stand-alone all by itself is "not resonance."
It's so unreal that you are doing a simple college physics experiment and yet you try to claim it is "not in your books." There were probably about a dozen arguments with you in this thread where you were absolutely unreal.
It looks to me like you are going to be spinning in circles for a long time.
MileHigh
All i can say is,i have applied what i know to this thread.
As you know,ICE's are my life--even though the ICE is a very bad and inefficient design for an engine/prime mover.
I found Walter Lewin's video's to be very educational and spot on.
In the one below,he shows the difference between a harmonic oscillator and resonance-->you will have to watch the video before this one in regards to harmonic oscillators,and harmonic oscillation.
At the end of the day,we can only do our best to associate what we know from what we have learned by those that have high standing in the subject matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K5p9DfsXGo&list=FLsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w&index=1
Brad
-
I found Walter Lewin's video's to be very educational and spot on.
Spot on with reference to?
btw, Lewin is good, but he gives at least one lecture where he unfortunately leads his students astray.
-
@tinman
Here is a simple idea for simple resonance tests with coils. Just call it a Pre-Primary coil (PP1). So you pulse PP1 to the resonance of the working Primary P1 while scoping the P1 and the Secondary (S1). This way you can now experiment with a primary in resonance without having to pulse it directly. One should soon realize that the secondary will require the most work, because getting any PP1 to resonate P1 will always be easy with an FG. But will S1 like it, that is the question and then how to help S1 like it more, that should be a better question.
In the standard primary pulse to secondary resonance losing game there could definitely be missing some interplay and I figure this would add to the play in a positive manner. So if PP1 can resonate P1 and P1 can impress an output to S1, how much did it cost to run PP1? Is it possible that in some instance it will cost less to pulse PP1 then what is produced from P1 to S1? hehehe
Then possible variations like two PP1's each on one side of the primary to dual resonate or one PP1 and 5 primaries all in resonance, or any other expansion would be good avenues to investigate.
Then the really fun parts would be looking if S1 will hinder PP1 when it is loaded or not loaded or even better, with a variable load because I think many of the problems stem from not having the right load level.
wattsup
-
@tinman
Here is a simple idea for simple resonance tests with coils. Just call it a Pre-Primary coil (PP1). So you pulse PP1 to the resonance of the working Primary P1 while scoping the P1 and the Secondary (S1). This way you can now experiment with a primary in resonance without having to pulse it directly. One should soon realize that the secondary will require the most work, because getting any PP1 to resonate P1 will always be easy with an FG. But will S1 like it, that is the question and then how to help S1 like it more, that should be a better question.
In the standard primary pulse to secondary resonance losing game there could definitely be missing some interplay and I figure this would add to the play in a positive manner. So if PP1 can resonate P1 and P1 can impress an output to S1, how much did it cost to run PP1? Is it possible that in some instance it will cost less to pulse PP1 then what is produced from P1 to S1? hehehe
Then possible variations like two PP1's each on one side of the primary to dual resonate or one PP1 and 5 primaries all in resonance, or any other expansion would be good avenues to investigate.
Then the really fun parts would be looking if S1 will hinder PP1 when it is loaded or not loaded or even better, with a variable load because I think many of the problems stem from not having the right load level.
wattsup
I think I get what you mean....
If we did get the pri ringing, loading the sec would change the pri freq (higher) by lowering the pri inductance. So say a resistive load if varied would vary the freq of resonance. So it would be that the sec should be first loaded then look for the new resonant freq?
Mags
-
Spot on with reference to?
btw, Lewin is good, but he gives at least one lecture where he unfortunately leads his students astray.
.99
Do you mean the one where he says that Ohm's law is wrong? I was always wondering about that one. I love his lessons but, he is the only one that has claimed this (to my knowledge) and, if correct, I would have thought it would have been pretty big news all over the world.
Bill
PS I have watched over 30 of his lectures and have learned a lot from them.
-
PS I have watched over 30 of his lectures and have learned a lot from them.
Hope you didn't learn "too much", or you'll end up just like him, disgraced and erased:
http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N60/walterlewin.html
It's not good for educators to teach students to think, only to memorize and regurgitate. Why if students could think, imagine what they might do, or build over a few weekends of their spare time. No, no, we can't have that. Breaking of the status quo is unacceptable behavior--zero tolerance.
On the other hand, if you really look into some of the physics Dr. Lewin gets in to, it's not hard to recognize what is actually possible. Our limits aren't nearly as strict as one might think. Just be prepared to be blacklisted or worse. Probably best to just keep it to yourself and smile a lot. :) I'm pretty certain there are a few members of this forum that have learned a valuable lesson.
-
It's not good for educators to teach students to think, only to memorize and regurgitate. Why if students could think, imagine what they might do, or build over a few weekends of their spare time. No, no, we can't have that. Breaking of the status quo is unacceptable behavior--zero tolerance.
On the other hand, if you really look into some of the physics Dr. Lewin gets in to, it's not hard to recognize what is actually possible. Our limits aren't nearly as strict as one might think. Just be prepared to be blacklisted or worse. Probably best to just keep it to yourself and smile a lot. :) I'm pretty certain there are a few members of this forum that have learned a valuable lesson.
I almost fell asleep reading through your two paragraphs because they are the oldest cliche in the book. Open your eyes, you are living through an era where the pace of innovation and change and improvement is faster and more dramatic and more marvelous and exciting than it has ever been in the history of the world. They have discovered thousands of extrasolar planets, the James Webb Space Telescope will be launched soon, and in 10 years your cell phone will talk back to you like a person, shoot 4K video at 120 fps, and have four terabytes of on-board storage. Don't be surprised if one-third of your energy comes from renewable sources and there will be solar panels that are ten times more efficient and you will see them everywhere, including on the roofs of electric cars. You are spouting out a ridiculous tired old cliche.
-
Spot on with reference to?
btw, Lewin is good, but he gives at least one lecture where he unfortunately leads his students astray.
Which one was that?
Brad
-
You are spouting out a ridiculous tired old cliche.
I'm a ridiculous, tired old man, so it comes with the territory.
Solar panels...
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Milehigh, you do live in Denver right? The mile high city.
I should buy you a drink some day for being such a good sport, setting so many crazies on the path to enlightenment.
-
.99
Do you mean the one where he says that Ohm's law is wrong? I was always wondering about that one. I love his lessons but, he is the only one that has claimed this (to my knowledge) and, if correct, I would have thought it would have been pretty big news all over the world.
Bill
PS I have watched over 30 of his lectures and have learned a lot from them.
I think you mean the one where he said kishofs law dose not hold,but ohms law always holds. This was in reference to non conservative systems.
Brad
-
I think you mean the one where he said kishofs law dose not hold,but ohms law always holds. This was in reference to non conservative systems.
Brad
Kirchhoff's law and Ampere's Law. Yes, that was a doozie. Knocked a lot of folks out of their comfort zone with that demonstration.
Imagine just placing your volt meter on the opposite side of your circuit and getting a different reading. Crazy huh? That shit never happens in the real world where you and I pay taxes.
-
I think you mean the one where he said kishofs law dose not hold,but ohms law always holds. This was in reference to non conservative systems.
Brad
No, it was Ohm's law. It is even in the title of the lesson.
Bill
-
I would like to see that vid
Mags
-
A little musical interlude with some seriously mean lead guitar to inspire our friend Poynt99, and everyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SFNW5F8K9Y
-
I would like to see that vid
Mags
Sorry, my bad, it was Kirchhoff's law versus Faraday's Law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUMCT7FjaI
Go to the very end demonstration.
Be sure to tell your grandchildren about it--or solar panels, whichever you prefer.
-
Sorry, my bad, it was Kirchhoff's law versus Faraday's Law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUMCT7FjaI
Go to the very end demonstration.
Be sure to tell your grandchildren about it--or solar panels, whichever you prefer.
Yes-that was the one i was thinking of--Kirchoff's law V Faraday's law.
I have not seen the one Bill is talking about regarding Ohms law being wrong--will hunt it down.
Brad
-
No, it was Ohm's law. It is even in the title of the lesson.
Bill
Hi Bill
I cant find the video you are referring to.
This was the one i was thinking of,and it is the one where he shows kirchoff's law dose not hold,but Faradays law/ohms law always holds. It was in reference to non conservative fields.
From 34:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUMCT7FjaI
Not sure if that was the one Poynt was referring to?.
Nor do i see how what Walter described and showed could be true in that demonstration.
If there is a potential of 1 volt across the inductor,then there is also a potential of 1 volt across both resistors at that instance in time---Poynt?.
Brad
-
@ Bill
I believe this may be the one you are referring to?
From 17:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imlqEKrfS-k
If so,then yes. Ohms law still hold,as the resistance of the light bulb can be calculated as the heat in the bulb increases.
Not sure why he says that ohm's law dose not hold?.
Brad
-
Part 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqjl-qRy71w)
Part 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUWcy8HwpM)
Lewin fails to see or explain the experiment for what it is, and wrongly claims that Kirchhoff's law does not hold, when in actual fact it does. He just does not show how. His lecture is very biased towards Faraday and is quite misleading in my opinion.
-
Part 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqjl-qRy71w)
Part 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUWcy8HwpM)
Lewin fails to see or explain the experiment for what it is, and wrongly claims that Kirchhoff's law does not hold, when in actual fact it does. He just does not show how. His lecture is very biased towards Faraday and is quite misleading in my opinion.
So i take it that you know what is happening in that experiment?.
Well i do not,but i would like to know,and i would like to nut it out for myself ;)
Looking at the circuit below--is this correct to that used in the video?.
If so,i do not see how when a voltage potential of 1 volt is placed across the inductor,that the instantaneous voltage across both resistors is also not 1 volt. In fact,if there is enough supply current to maintain that 1 volt across the inductor,then the two resistors (100 & 900 ohm) should always have 1 volt across them. How he managed to get a negative value across the 100 ohm resister has me a little lost ATM :o. Even his frozen scope shot show's that he dose indeed have a negative value at the 100 ohm resistor ,and a positive value across the 900 ohm resistor.
UMmm ???
Brad
-
His FACE at the almost end, still playing epiloog, he on his way out?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SFNW5F8K9Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SFNW5F8K9Y)
-
So i take it that you know what is happening in that experiment?.
I believe I know most of what is going on there, yes.
Well i do not,but i would like to know,and i would like to nut it out for myself ;)
Looking at the circuit below--is this correct to that used in the video?.
Not quite.
First, make it an air-core coil.
Second, the coil is the "primary". The circuit including the two resistors and wire is the "secondary". So there is no electrical connection between the two. Yes, essentially a transformer with a 1-turn secondary.
This is in fact the experiment I encouraged you to perform a number of months ago when we were "discussing" the electric field.
-
Damn! Sorry to see him gone.
Who caught his guitar? ???
-
So i take it that you know what is happening in that experiment?.
Well i do not,but i would like to know,and i would like to nut it out for myself ;)
Looking at the circuit below--is this correct to that used in the video?.
If so,i do not see how when a voltage potential of 1 volt is placed across the inductor,that the instantaneous voltage across both resistors is also not 1 volt. In fact,if there is enough supply current to maintain that 1 volt across the inductor,then the two resistors (100 & 900 ohm) should always have 1 volt across them. How he managed to get a negative value across the 100 ohm resister has me a little lost ATM :o . Even his frozen scope shot show's that he dose indeed have a negative value at the 100 ohm resistor ,and a positive value across the 900 ohm resistor.
UMmm ???
Brad
Hi Tinman, replace the resistors with diodes, add caps to the diodes , room for 4, the coil will never know it is being tapped.
artv
-
@ Bill
I believe this may be the one you are referring to?
From 17:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imlqEKrfS-k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imlqEKrfS-k)
If so,then yes. Ohms law still hold,as the resistance of the light bulb can be calculated as the heat in the bulb increases.
Not sure why he says that ohm's law dose not hold?.
Brad
Yes!! Exactly. At 24 minutes in he shows the break down of Ohm's law and why it does not hold.
Thank you for finding this, it would have taken me a long time to do so. I watched this about 6 years ago or so and MIT has taken the vids down...some of my saved links are to youtube but most were to MIT. Here he shows the current going up on a curve relative to the voltage and then tapering off and never reaching the level Ohm's law says it should be.
Like I said, I would have thought this was Nobel Prize stuff and would have made many headlines. This man obviously knows much more about this than I ever will so I will not argue if he is right or not.
Thanks again for digging this one up Brad. I would be very interested in what .99, TK or MH has to say about Dr. Lewin's conclusions here.
Bill
-
Yes!! Exactly. At 24 minutes in he shows the break down of Ohm's law and why it does not hold.
Thank you for finding this, it would have taken me a long time to do so. I watched this about 6 years ago or so and MIT has taken the vids down...some of my saved links are to youtube but most were to MIT. Here he shows the current going up on a curve relative to the voltage and then tapering off and never reaching the level Ohm's law says it should be.
Like I said, I would have thought this was Nobel Prize stuff and would have made many headlines. This man obviously knows much more about this than I ever will so I will not argue if he is right or not.
Thanks again for digging this one up Brad. I would be very interested in what .99, TK or MH has to say about Dr. Lewin's conclusions here.
Bill
There is nothing Nobel about this stuff Bill. It's just Lewin making trying to make a big deal out of nothing. There is no "breakdown" as he calls it, just basic physics.
-
At any chosen moment of time, I still equals V/R, i.e. Ohms's law holds.
-
I looked at the current trace for the light bulb being lit at about 25:00 in the clip. If you ask me, Lewin is getting whackadoo when he says, "a breakdown in Ohm's Law." All that he is demonstrating is a resistance where the value is a function of time. Or you could say that it is a resistance where the value is a function of the temperature of the element.
There are some issues relating to deductive logic when you look at things like this. I remember once reading something where the person talked about scientists "discovering" the value of Pi. When you look at it logically, there is nothing to discover. For Ohm's Law, all that it states is that for a two-terminal device you will be able to measure the voltage across the device and the current though the device. So how can you get a "breakdown" in Ohm's Law? It's nothing more than an observation of voltage and current for a device under test and defining the term "resistance" as the voltage divided by the current. Presuming that the voltage and current are always measurable, then there can be no such thing as a breakdown in Ohm's Law.
-
Well thanks fellows.
I got confused when he showed the resistance jumping up (not linear) on his graph and then dropping down....and then rising up but not high enough to make Ohm's law correct.
Brad mentioned the heating up of the filament earlier. So, this is not an anomaly where Ohm's law does not apply. I wonder why he was showing this? I mean, this was not the advanced class or anything....this was an MIT basic course.
I did not even have a chance to look at the one .99 was talking about earlier. Why would he do that one also?
Bill
-
That one is a lot more complicated than just Ohm's law.
Lewin left out a few important details on that one, resulting in misleading information.
Bottom line is Kirchhoff always holds, regardless of what your measuring tool is telling you.
-
@all
If you really are interested in talking about curiosities, then follow this.....very simple test.
If anyone here has an OU bench, plug a simple 110 volts light bulb into the wall socket while scoping with both CHA and CHB scope probes (only)(DO NOT CONNECT THE GROUND CLIPS - EVEN BETTER REMOVE THE GROUND CLIPS) on each side of the bulb and both set at 50v/d and AC and seeing the waveforms that the scope produces. Post the waveforms here.
Then set the probe on the neutral line to 100mV/d and post that image as well while the other is still on 50v/d.
When that is done to advance even faster then do this.
Take any primary coil and use two cvr's one on each side of the primary then connect the cvr's to your pulse generator set at sine wave and then scope across each cvr, and post again the image of the two produced wave forms. Also you need to identify which channel is on the positive side and which is on the negative side as well as how the probe/grounds are connected.
For this to be objective I need someone besides me to do this. Do this and we'll talk but only if you guys want to really talk while remaining objective and civil. So simple, right in our faces but who thinks to really look that far back to basics.
In a previous post, I asked you guys 5 simple questions and all of you could only run away from them. That's understandable because those 5 questions being 5 of a good 50 are only scratching the surface of the reasoning of our effects.
So, who will post those images? It all starts by asking the right questions.
wattsup
-
Wattsup:
I think that many people around here would agree with me when I say that the concept of voltage, what it means, and how you interpret it and work with it is mostly an enigma for you. So until you have mastered the concept of voltage, you are at a disadvantage when trying to do bench experiments. If you are going to beat me up for saying that because it isn't politically correct, go ahead.
I will take a stab at your first questions in general terms. I believe that in the US and Canada, the third-prong ground line is connected to the neutral line at the breaker panel. Then that ground-neutral connection at the breaker panel is connected to a solid and nearby earth ground. The big step-down transformer up on a telephone pole also connects it's center tap to a solid earth ground. Please anybody correct me if I am wrong.
You did not mention if the scope is isolated or not, why is that?
If the scope is grounded (not isolated) then the two bare probes will pick up the hot and neutral potentials. Naturally this assumes that no device plugged into the power line is misbehaving and there is no current flowing in the ground line.
That begs some questions for you to ponder: What if between you and the breaker panel there is a coffee maker plugged into the line and you turn it on? What if there is a coffee maker further down the line and you turn it on? What will you see on the scope display for the two channels when the coffee maker is ON?
If the scope is isolated (not grounded) then the two bare probes will be floating and yet in all likelihood you will still see some waveforms on the scope display. Before even discussing the waveforms you see, there is a fundamental problem with the test in this case, what is it? Moving on, why will you see those waveforms, and what will they be? How do you explain those waveforms? What can you say about the impedance of the waveforms that you are looking at? What about putting the coffee maker between you and the breaker panel and putting the coffee maker further down the line?
Keep in mind that I never did a lot of the "crazy tests" you see discussed around here. Even though way back when I had a lot of bench experience, I never had any logical reason to do them.
MileHigh
-
@all
If you really are interested in talking about curiosities, then follow this.....very simple test.
If anyone here has an OU bench, plug a simple 110 volts light bulb into the wall socket while scoping with both CHA and CHB scope probes (only)(DO NOT CONNECT THE GROUND CLIPS - EVEN BETTER REMOVE THE GROUND CLIPS) on each side of the bulb and both set at 50v/d and AC and seeing the waveforms that the scope produces. Post the waveforms here.
Assuming that you have a modern oscilloscope with a third prong on its AC cord plugged into a correctly wired three prong outlet (without a ground lift/adapter on the scope's AC plug), you will see a sine wave on one channel with an amplitude that swings between approximately +170V and -170V. On the other channel, you will see near zero volts.
(If you have an isolated scope or a ground lift on the scope's plug, you will see a lot of capacitively coupled noise with a large 60Hz AC component on both channels because you will then have no scope ground reference connected)
Then set the probe on the neutral line to 100mV/d and post that image as well while the other is still on 50v/d.
With the same conditions as discussed above (scope with AC third prong ground connected to properly wired 3 prong socket) you will see the noise and voltage drop on the AC neutral caused by loads connected to the circuit you are measuring (and likely some induced noise up to RF as well). If the AC socket you are measuring from is physically very close to the service panel and the same one your scope is plugged in to and there are no other loads on that AC circuit, the observed voltage and noise will be fairly low.
With a basic understanding of how the center tapped pole transformer is connected to the house's service/distribution panel and AC sockets, there is nothing "curious" about these observations, they are as we would expect.
Perhaps someone can post a better schematic, but this link shows you how the AC ground and neutral are connected to earth and the pole transformer center tap. Perhaps if you study this a bit you will better understand what you are seeing.
http://www.generatorsforhomeuse.us/electrical-wiring/
When that is done to advance even faster then do this.
Take any primary coil and use two cvr's one on each side of the primary then connect the cvr's to your pulse generator set at sine wave and then scope across each cvr, and post again the image of the two produced wave forms. Also you need to identify which channel is on the positive side and which is on the negative side as well as how the probe/grounds are connected.
This measurement is a bit more difficult to perform, as one needs to be aware of both the scope and FG ground references. Without fully isolated test equipment it is a bit more difficult to directly measure the drop across both CVR's simultaneously.
If you are unable to understand the what and why of what you are seeing with the AC line measurements above, making you understand how to perform this dual CVR measurement correctly using your scope and FG is likely a lengthy and uphill battle.
However, if instead of your scope you were to use an isolated, battery operated DVM, you will measure the same AC voltage across both CVR's.
PW
Added: The above of course assumes you are in the US and that your AC line adheres to US split phase standards...
-
That one is a lot more complicated than just Ohm's law.
Lewin left out a few important details on that one, resulting in misleading information.
Bottom line is Kirchhoff always holds, regardless of what your measuring tool is telling you.
So we are talking about a circuit such as below,where the solenoid has a 1 volt potential placed across it,where the magnetic field is coming out from the page,and the 100R and 900R make a completed loop around the outside of the solenoid coil--but not connected to the solenoid coil?.
If so,i still do not see how he could have 900mV measured on one side,and 100mV measured on the other side,when both sides of each resistor are joined by a common wire-or the resistors wire it self.. The two voltage potentials should still be the same value,and same polarity :o
Maybe it is the electric field he is measuring?,but even then,how do you get a difference in potential across a piece of wire that short.
As far as i know,non inductive resistors conduct current instantly,so when you see a voltage across them,regardless of the electric field,current must be flowing through them.
Brad
-
@picowatt and @MH
Well I was going to post this long post answering @MH in general and @PW line per line. hahahaha
There is no point to that. Let's just cut through the chase here and look at the problem head on and if both of you could shift your attention from the given EE doctrines and just migrate over to a position of objective logic and observations, maybe between us we can arrive at some better conclusion.
The fact is 120 VAC is impossible with the idea of electron flow or current flow alternating at every half cycle from the hot to the neutral conductors of our AC driven homes. It is impossible because the set-up is just too flagrant to be logical and the fact that this cannot be easily measured should shoot off a big RED ALERT in terms of construct. How can you have a construct that cannot be show to be true? Why is there always something that gets in the way. In this case it is a question of ground. Imagine AC says the current alternates from hot to neutral but we cannot easily measure these because the neutral is also grounded. Now what kind of fairy tale story is this?
So first I will give a few more questions to you guys and if you can answer these to the best of your ability, we will slowing work it out. The first set of tests and waveforms @PW got them right which is very easy indeed. The second test where the probe on neutral set at 100mV will take that first neutral flat line waveform and show a larger waveform that is IN PHASE with the hot side. Oh no, why is that if this is AC even if this is at 100mV?
OK, then @PW referred to a web page of a standard home AC connection going from the hydro pole to the home. OK, if you look at that diagram you will see the mains transformer on the pole. You see the primary line going into the transformer. Then you see a center tapped secondary and also showing two hot lines that are 180 degrees out of phase (220VAC) and both are sharing the same neutral line. Right there, that is impossible under the AC construct of alternating from hot to neutral. Why? OK, how can the neutral be 180 degrees out of phase with both of the hot lines at the same time? That is impossible. The neutral cannot be the opposite phase of two hot lines that are already out of phase from each other. Look this is not even making any measurements, just if you guys use objective logic, you have to see this for what it is and not what you have been taught it is. There is no "close the door to logic" just to make things comfortably fit into our minds. We don't need comfortable. We can take the stress of realizing the truth.
Then let's continue. I have a solution for the measurement problems of floating versus grounded and I tried in on the bench.
A simple setup will show you guys much of the problem here. Take a light bulb, put a cvr on each side, connect it to a Variac that is plugged into the wall socket. Very simple set-up. The Variac is used just to lower the voltage to a more manageable level. Now using the scope set at A-B math function, this will cancel the ground connection of the probes and now with CHA and CHB probes only you can scope across the cvr's one by one and see what the waveforms are across the cvr's. You can even use the CHA probe alone and see again what the waveforms are at a single point. If you do that then you will realize there is one hell of a problem with the AC construct. If you guys think this is an acceptable method then I will make a small video and show you guys the results.
I am not here for confrontation and you guys should not be here to "protect" the "reputation" of AC. We all have to be here to look at things objectively and arrive at some conclusion, whatever this may entail. It is both your responsibilities to ask these questions yourselves at least once every few years, putting your own "beliefs" on trial as an auto-analysis when you are provided with valid reasons to do so.
Is the above enough to provide a valid reason to be concerned about how we see AC. I am not saying AC is not real. It is real but it is not what we think it is at this time and both of you should refrain from any character attacks in my regard for doing so. I'm like the insurance adjuster looking to see if the insured machine is installed and running and working to spec. You cannot blame me for this since I do not see anyone else on these forums employing a logical method of analysis to ask and analyze these questions. This is only a small portion of a new construct I have managed to produce that is 100 times more in tune with our effects then all our present constructs so this is not a joke. This AC question is one of them. Then we will have a DC question as well later.
Why am I doing this here. Because of the JT circuit is very simple and easy to deconstruct. In the few "useful" pages of this thread, we see @tinman working away doing his measurements of the JT circuit where he has one cvr in one location and one voltage reading in another location and the only thing we hear from this (and from every other OUer who does these types of experiments) is the cvr is showing "current flow". But that is not true to use the word "flow" because there is nothing flowing anywhere and there has never been concrete proof that anything is flowing anywhere. You can place a cvr anywhere you want and and see 5volts across a 1 ohm cvr then say there is 5 amps of current flowing. But there is not even a micro amp flowing. If one side of the cvr is 0 volts and the other side is 5 volts what is flowing? If you need voltage to produce current then what is flowing at 0 volts? Nothing is flowing otherwise each side of that cvr would read 5 volts but if each side of the cvr showed 5 volts the scope would show 0 amps (differential). For current to flow through the cvr, you would need to measure 5 amps before and 5 or 4.9 amps after the cvr. I have been a well paid water treatment professional for over 35 years now and in our book flow in is flow out. There is no exception. Yes in EE there are losses just like it WT there are leaks. OK. But in the normal usage of these terms the electron flow model is not possible and this is why I am saying that when Tesla invented AC, he killed the electron flow model. That would signify a start to even mention the word flow.
Again please do not refer me to any form of lack of "education". I am an extremely learned person with a great variety of proficiency and I am not working or employed as a standard EE circuit maker for iPhone or anyone else. Just consider me as a Grand Sleuth and my expertise is in analyzing logic bases. This I have been doing all my life. I am the origin of our Wire X on this forum given that I will find the inconsistencies in many of those purported OU devices that wound up fakes. So do not think for a minute that you have some dummy on the forum. If we can converse in a mutually respectable manner and if you take the discussion without being bent on protecting constructs even in the face of conflicting logic then let's move forward here. What is at stake. @MH said is very well. If we continue in this present line of construct of our effects, we will never advance for another 10 years. I know @MH meant it as a direct "insinuation" to me but unknowingly he put that nail on all of our coffins. Look, there has to be an element of trust here. I am not a stupid guy. If I investigate something ans see that it is totally in sync with the present state of construct, I would have been the first one to say it. In this case I took 5 years to mull it over because I know this is not chicken feed. THIS IS SERIOUS S*&T. So, if you guys want to partake without insults, then let's work together.
Final question. If I wanted to put cvrs on a bulb and plug it directly into the wall socket without a Variac, what value CVR and what rating should it have for it to be "acceptable" in your eyes. If you can find an image of one I would appreciate it to make no mistakes.
wattsup
-
So we are talking about a circuit such as below,where the solenoid has a 1 volt potential placed across it,where the magnetic field is coming out from the page,and the 100R and 900R make a completed loop around the outside of the solenoid coil--but not connected to the solenoid coil?.
Brad
Hi Brad,
http://www.transformacomm.com/en/tech/tesla-hairpin-circuit.htm (http://www.transformacomm.com/en/tech/tesla-hairpin-circuit.htm)
In this circuit a bit the same, the connection wire's (R) become the voltage adjusters, to the load, please try!!!
Thanks for ALL you''''''''re sharing! ;-))
Regards, Johan
-
Again please do not refer me to any form of lack of "education". I am an extremely learned person...
Wow...
As you feel you have it all figured out, there is no need to bother answering any of your questions, which is a shame, you might have learned something.
As both a legal disclaimer and as friendly advice, I AM STRONGLY URGING YOU TO STOP MEASURING THE AC LINE!! You very obviously are not qualified as an electrician or EE and SHOULD NOT be messing about with AC line voltage!! At the very least you may damage your test equipment, at the worst you could injure or kill youself or someone else.
Again, for safety's sake, I strongly urge you to stop measuring the AC line!!
Before coming up with a new theory about electricity and electronics, perhaps it would be wise to learn the current one.
Be safe...
PW
-
@picowatt
Wow is right.
I fully understand why you would want to pull yourself out from a hot potato.
Thanks for the warning. Duly noted.
wattsup
-
@picowatt
Wow is right.
I fully understand why you would want to pull yourself out from a hot potato.
I doubt that very much. That you think you do understand is only more cause for concern
Thanks for the warning. Duly noted.
Your very welcome.
Consider getting a low voltage center tapped transformer to work with. Something like a 25.2 volt CT transformer, a couple 12VAC pilot lamps, and a few resistors will allow you to safely perform similar AC measurements.
PW
-
Great advice PW. I have always been concerned about people playing with mains power or with very high voltages. There is no real reason to do so. Plus I believe your forearm muscles can contract if you pick up a live wire such that you can't let go and you can get electrocuted. I saw a nasty clip once where someone stepped off of an electrified bus. Some power lines had fallen onto the roof of the bus. For one moment one foot was on the bus stair and the other foot was on the ground and in an instant they were dead.
-
@picowatt
Wow is right.
I fully understand why you would want to pull yourself out from a hot potato.
Thanks for the warning. Duly noted.
wattsup
And there is the justification for me asking you the question that you couldn't answer about the circuit that consisted of a voltage source and one single component, a coil. You talk the big talk like "pull yourself out from a hot potato" but you clearly still haven't mastered the basics of an Electronics 001 course. And look at EMJunkie, he still "talks the big talk" almost every day, and he also was incapable of answering the same question. Both of you were completely lost for a very basic question, so how can you possibly investigate supposedly advanced concepts?
And if I dug it up earlier in this thread, you would find Brad getting hot under the collar with the discussion about resonance and willingly accepting taking on the question about the wine glass and resonance. And in the end the same thing happened with Brad. Why was that brought up? Because supposedly the team was going to investigate a "resonant Joule Thief" so why not be straight on what resonance really is? And clearly the "resonant Joule Thief" is dead and the guru Smoky2 has vanished in a puff of smoke. If you look at a lot of his early statements about resonance they are complete nonsense.
Why am I bringing this up? I suppose it's because of the insane "Earth is a pizza pie and we are all just Mants" thread. Frustration. Meanwhile the FBI has an arrest warrant out on John Rohner.
-
micro low i get this feeling that you are getting ignored and that is bad for you, because YOU NOBODY UNLESS SOMEBODY MAKES YOU SOMEBODY.and mirom who is this john rohner
-
@milehigh
So how can you get a "breakdown" in Ohm's Law? It's nothing more than an observation of voltage and current for a device under test and defining the term "resistance" as the voltage divided by the current. Presuming that the voltage and current are always measurable, then there can be no such thing as a breakdown in Ohm's Law.
Simple, I =V/R, in a one shot induced one turn superconductor with a resistance of zero... Ohms law has no application. First there is no resistance and second the equation has no meaning because V/Zero has no meaning. Voltage/Zero = Zero and yet we know as a fact the current would not be zero thus the equation is false in this case.
It is not unlike drag equations in aerodynamics being applied to a craft in space... Uhm there is no drag thus the equations are meaningless. Context matters.
And clearly the "resonant Joule Thief" is dead and the guru Smoky2 has vanished in a puff of smoke.
A resonant joule thief is a no brainier and I have built many. As you may know an LC circuit qualifies a resonant circuit. Thus we can have a battery which powers a joule thief and the output pulse from the JT inductance charges the battery which is powering the JT. The inductor output has coupled to the capacitance of the battery and the rest voltage rises cyclically thus we have a resonant series oscillation which the JT output rides on.
So how would one build this mythical resonant JT you cannot seem to understand?. You simply place a properly sized choke between the battery and the JT which limits the battery input current to the JT but not the periodic voltage rise resting on the capacitance of the battery voltage. I call it a series resonant LC circuit not unlike a delay line... I read about it in a textbook.
AC
-
Well said AC! A sterling example of why your
unique perspective and reasoning skills are
such an important addition to discussion in this
international forum.
Good to see you back!
-
@milehigh
Simple, I =V/R, in a one shot induced one turn superconductor with a resistance of zero... Ohms law has no application. First there is no resistance and second the equation has no meaning because V/Zero has no meaning. Voltage/Zero = Zero and yet we know as a fact the current would not be zero thus the equation is false in this case.
It is not unlike drag equations in aerodynamics being applied to a craft in space... Uhm there is no drag thus the equations are meaningless. Context matters.
I read somewhere that even superconductors have a very very low measurable resistance. i.e.; Perhaps a superconducting ring will have a L/R time constant of several months, so the current flow will slowly decay.
Secondly, you are talking about a superconducting ring, which looks like an inductor, not a resistor. Therefore it will behave like an inductor and you can therefore ignore the concept of resistance so ohm's law doesn't apply.
-
A resonant joule thief is a no brainier and I have built many. As you may know an LC circuit qualifies a resonant circuit. Thus we can have a battery which powers a joule thief and the output pulse from the JT inductance charges the battery which is powering the JT. The inductor output has coupled to the capacitance of the battery and the rest voltage rises cyclically thus we have a resonant series oscillation which the JT output rides on.
So how would one build this mythical resonant JT you cannot seem to understand?. You simply place a properly sized choke between the battery and the JT which limits the battery input current to the JT but not the periodic voltage rise resting on the capacitance of the battery voltage. I call it a series resonant LC circuit not unlike a delay line... I read about it in a textbook.
AC
Nope, we are talking about true resonance here, and what you are saying amounts to a word salad unless you can back it up with perhaps a schematic and timing diagram and a proper description relative to those two things. The output from the JT inductance does not charge the battery. The "capacitance of the battery" is essentially a meaningless term.
I seriously doubt that you have ever built a "resonant Joule Thief" and simply throwing that description at some kind of circuit that you have built is not applicable.
-
@Milehigh
Nope, we are talking about true resonance here, and what you are saying amounts to a word salad unless you can back it up with perhaps a schematic and timing diagram and a proper description relative to those two things. The output from the JT inductance does not charge the battery. The "capacitance of the battery" is essentially a meaningless term.
A battery such as an old 12v 5AH SLA has a fair amount of capacitance the more the plates become sulphated. I have seen a 12v battery with a temporary rest voltage of 50v which can be considered a surface charge. If it isn't capacitance then what is it?.
If we charge a sulphated battery at 13.5v DC that is the temporary charge some of which resides on the plates. If we discharge an inductance into the battery the temporary voltage spikes then slowly drops back to it's rest voltage. Not unlike a capacitor with an internal resistance, in fact exactly like a capacitor with an internal resistance or leakage.
Now what do you think happens when a JT has an input voltage that varies with time... well the output varies with time. It is all very textbook stuff.
http://www.rle.mit.edu/per/ConferencePapers/cpPESC07_p2718_Phi2boost.pdf (http://www.rle.mit.edu/per/ConferencePapers/cpPESC07_p2718_Phi2boost.pdf)
You see the JT is a boost converter and most all real EE's have no issue with resonant boost converters... unlike yourself.
AC
-
Miles
Throwing empty bottles around the bar the next morning ??
tings got Boring ?
trying to taunt up another dust up ??[post 2295]
-
Miles
Throwing empty bottles around the bar the next morning ??
tings got Boring ?
trying to taunt up another dust up ??[post 2295]
Nope, I was commenting on Wattsup's comment to close a loop and I cited some examples to back up my point and express some frustration. I can't play the Saxophone, in fact I don't even know how to read music. I don't go around telling saxophone players how to play.
You are the one that is being provocative and taunting me and looking for something.
-
Miles
I completely disagree !
your doing the Anal childish last word thing for the 100th time and trying to pretend that the lack of a 100th retort is
vindication of your perspective !
Your lesson Backfired on You ,your attempt to play supreme being with all the members here and declare resonance
a trigger word for the ignorant {Overunity} researcher.. and of no value whatsoever ??
NO SALE !!
and on top of that ..you pile the whole lot into some Flat earth trash pail ???
Oh I see
it was all just a friendly observation from a horrible saxophone player !!
NO SALE again !!
-
Chet:
In this thread your "contributions" where that of a totally biased jackass. Ridiculously biased against me, and you are doing more of the same right now.
Nor was I trying to play supreme being, that's just your spin. I also stated lots of good stuff of value. More ridiculously biased jackass behaviour from you.
Now I am going to assume that you have nothing else of value to say, and if you come back and repeat yourself then you will be wasting your time. Nobody wants a mother hen and nobody wants a Big Brother and nobody wants a "facilitator" that chases after complete and utter nonsense like GDS Tech.
MileHigh
-
Miles
Just clarifying your position so all here understand it .
This is not just about the few that engaged you here , it is about you calling ALL
that feel resonance is a path to Overunity ...fools ,and your goal here was to finally put this Resonance Nonsense to bed once and for all.
actually IMO you feel all here are fools for even believing OU is possible [and have said this many times ]
so yes you place yourself as the authority and look to reinforce your position in as many "flavors" or fields as possible
whenever Possible.
even when you are clueless about the field of study .
and this was very good for your readers to see .
-
And clearly the "resonant Joule Thief" is dead and the guru Smoky2 has vanished in a puff of smoke. If you look at a lot of his early statements about resonance they are complete nonsense.
Why am I bringing this up? I suppose it's because of the insane "Earth is a pizza pie and we are all just Mants" thread. Frustration. Meanwhile the FBI has an arrest warrant out on John Rohner.
And there is the justification for me asking you the question that you couldn't answer about the circuit that consisted of a voltage source and one single component, a coil. You talk the big talk like "pull yourself out from a hot potato" but you clearly still haven't mastered the basics of an Electronics 001 course. And look at EMJunkie, he still "talks the big talk" almost every day, and he also was incapable of answering the same question. Both of you were completely lost for a very basic question, so how can you possibly investigate supposedly advanced concepts?
Perhaps you could answer this basic question MH?.
And if I dug it up earlier in this thread, you would find Brad getting hot under the collar with the discussion about resonance and willingly accepting taking on the question about the wine glass and resonance. And in the end the same thing happened with Brad.
You know that that is not how it was MH.
In fact,i wiped the floor with you regarding resonant systems,as unlike your self,i know resonance is an interaction between two system's-not one as you claimed with your wine glass.
As it has been clearly defined,resonance is !IS! an interaction between two systems-two systems working in harmony.
Why was that brought up? Because supposedly the team was going to investigate a "resonant Joule Thief" so why not be straight on what resonance really is?
I think it may be a good idea that you yourself understand what resonance is,before trying to be the teacher you make out to be.
Looking forward to your answer about your coil question.
Brad
-
actually IMO you feel all here are fools for even believing OU is possible [and have said this many times ]
Although Overunity does manifest under certain
conditions, rarely; for the vast majority of seekers
it is un-attainable. That believers in Overunity are
thought by many to be fools is commonplace.
Why are the manifestations of Electrical Overunity
or Free Energy so mysteriously elusive? Why do
these manifestations seem so unpredictable and
why do those who have apparently stimulated the
manifestations seem so ignorant of their source?
There is a reason why this is so. It is a reality though
which many are not prepared, or ready, to admit.
One day we will have full comprehension of how we
have been deceived.
-
Miles
even when you are clueless about the field of study .
and this was very good for your readers to see .
That is a complete and total lie and you know it. You are just propagandizing. So why should anybody believe anything you have to say when you shamelessly lie like that?
I am not here to get the "over unity shakedown" from you. Because you know that you may as well then go and shakedown half of the members of this forum including Brad and I don't think that you are going to do that.
-
Perhaps you could answer this basic question MH?.
You know that that is not how it was MH.
In fact,i wiped the floor with you regarding resonant systems,as unlike your self,i know resonance is an interaction between two system's-not one as you claimed with your wine glass.
As it has been clearly defined,resonance is !IS! an interaction between two systems-two systems working in harmony.
I think it may be a good idea that you yourself understand what resonance is,before trying to be the teacher you make out to be.
Looking forward to your answer about your coil question.
Brad
Forget about the coil question it's irrelevant.
No Brad, you didn't "wipe the floor" with me regarding resonant systems but we all learned that you clearly have a psychological compulsion to believe that you did. The simple fact is that you were unable to answer the two wine glass questions and you willingly accepted the challenge. Therefore you had no understanding of what resonance really and truly is. Hopefully now you know better. However, your line about "resonance being an interaction between two systems not one" has been completely covered and it is completely ridiculous. And of course you have a psychological compulsion to believe what you are saying is true. So, you still might be stuck on this subject, and that's your issue to deal with.
And that brings it back to the point I was making: Wattsup wants to believe that he has stymied Picowatt and that is simply ridiculous. Clearly that is now a non-starter. So it's up to Wattsup to either stay on the same course or undertake to educate himself. "Educate" is not a dirty world like it is sometimes bandied about on this forum.
The FBI is after John Rohner and I challenged John Rohner a few years ago and told him he was full of crap. I did the same thing for Wayne Travis who is also under FBI investigation. I reported GDS to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Center and to my dismay they told me due to limited resources he may manage to fly under the radar.
http://www.antifraudcentre-centreantifraude.ca/index-eng.htm (http://www.antifraudcentre-centreantifraude.ca/index-eng.htm)
That's my fun. Having a borderline-insane argument about resonance is not fun.
MileHigh
-
@Seamonkey
Why are the manifestations of Electrical Overunity[/size]or Free Energy so mysteriously elusive? Why dothese manifestations seem so unpredictable andwhy do those who have apparently stimulated themanifestations seem so ignorant of their source?
I have found one gets to a certain point of understanding then it hits you like a sledgehammer. That singular point of understanding when when all the knowledge we possess culminates and we know every answer only leads to one thousand questions. Thinking we know everything is true ignorance and ignorance is truly bliss.
There is a reason why this is so. It is a reality though[/size]which many are not prepared, or ready, to admit.
Oh I found the answer... the more I understand the less I know for certain.
One day we will have full comprehension of how we[/size]have been deceived.
I think I comprehend and it seems pretty obvious now. If I cannot drag what I think I know, what I believe, into reality it is not and never will be reality. Reality is the ultimate indicator that we are doing something right. In retrospect Einstein had it right... nothing happens until something moves.
AC
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg482798#msg482798 date=1462246196]
Forget about the coil question it's irrelevant.
Quote No Brad, you didn't "wipe the floor" with me regarding resonant systems but we all learned that you clearly have a psychological compulsion to believe that you did. The simple fact is that you were unable to answer the two wine glass questions and you willingly accepted the challenge. Therefore you had no understanding of what resonance really and truly is. Hopefully now you know better. However, your line about "resonance being an interaction between two systems not one" has been completely covered and it is completely ridiculous. And of course you have a psychological compulsion to believe what you are saying is true. So, you still might be stuck on this subject, and that's your issue to deal with.
Fact is MH, i was the one continually correcting you throughout this thread,and you cannot deneigh this,as the proof is in the thread it self.
I would like you to show us all here anyone other than your self,that claims an object can be in resonance with it self. When i say resonance is an interaction between two or more systems,i am absolutely correct by the very scientific meaning of resonance. This means that i answered your questions correctly,and you actually got it wrong. You described oscillations of the wine glass at its natural resonant frequency,and not the wine glass resonating.
And that brings it back to the point I was making: Wattsup wants to believe that he has stymied Picowatt and that is simply ridiculous. Clearly that is now a non-starter. So it's up to Wattsup to either stay on the same course or undertake to educate himself. "Educate" is not a dirty world like it is sometimes bandied about on this forum.
The FBI is after John Rohner and I challenged John Rohner a few years ago and told him he was full of crap. I did the same thing for Wayne Travis who is also under FBI investigation. I reported GDS to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Center and to my dismay they told me due to limited resources he may manage to fly under the radar.
http://www.antifraudcentre-centreantifraude.ca/index-eng.htm (http://www.antifraudcentre-centreantifraude.ca/index-eng.htm)
Quote That's my fun. Having a borderline-insane argument about resonance is not fun.
As long as you keep dragging my name into arguments-coupled with the lies you keep adding with my name,then i will defend myself,and expose you for the liar you are.
You are not correct about your wine glass being in resonance when oscillating at it's natural frequency-period. What you are doing is leading people astray-up your garden path that is full of dead flowers.
I was happy to leave it be MH,but i will not stand by and have you associate my name with your lies.
Now,answer your own question regarding the coil and voltage source
Bet you do not get it right.
Brad
-
<<< You described oscillations of the wine glass at its natural resonant frequency,and not the wine glass resonating. >>>
You have to have some serious psychological issues to say nonsense like that with a straight face and believe it. The first and second parts of your sentence mean exactly the same thing. Go back to Googling or even better go buy a book. Your answers for the two wineglass questions were dead wrong and you are just going to have to believe that you were right.
Here is what the coil question was like:
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
The question is what happens starting at t = 0 seconds and both of the forum members had no clue whatsoever how to answer the question, not the slightest. And for people that may have been playing with coils for about 10 years each that is some seriously sobering food for thought.
<<< Bet you do not get it right. >>>
What a jackass comment that is. You didn't even know what the question was going to be and you say that? Is that like your insane argument that I was "wrong" about the wineglass questions because I did not discuss losses?
Unbelievable.
MileHigh
-
Here is what the coil question was like:
Unbelievable.
MileHigh
<<< You described oscillations of the wine glass at its natural resonant frequency,and not the wine glass resonating. >>>
You have to have some serious psychological issues to say nonsense like that with a straight face and believe it. Go back to Googling or even better go buy a book. Your answers for the two wineglass questions were dead wrong and you are just going to have to believe that you were right.
I think some one that believes that a wine glass will resonate on it's own,is the one that has the psychological issues-->or perhaps you have the only self running device on planet earth?.
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For thee seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
The question is what happens starting at t = 0 seconds and both of the forum members had no clue whatsoever how to answer the question, not the slightest. And for people that may have been playing with coils for about 10 years each that is some seriously sobering food for thought.
So what is the answer MH ?-->the complete answer?.
Should you not be able to answer your own questions accurately and completely ?.
<<< Bet you do not get it right. >>>
What a jackass comment that is. You didn't even know what the question was going to be and you say that?
Well it couldnt be any worse than stating that an ICE has nothing what so ever to do with resonance-both internal and external resonant systems that exist within and around an ICE,only then later on(after proven wrong in both cases)to claim that you dont know that much about ICEs.
It couldnt be any worse than saying some one's idea of using a J/FET to achieve oscillations in a low voltage JT type circuit is non sensible,without actually knowing how the J/FET works.
Is that like your insane argument that I was "wrong" about the wineglass questions because I did not discuss losses?
Not only that,but you also missed out another major factor--the energy source-->the other half of a resonant system.
Your descriptions were also incorrect,as you have been told by many people now--stiffness is not elasticity-ETC.
You made very bold and decisive statements in this thread,and you had to be corrected on many occasions--like the ICE resonant systems,how a J/FET works-ETC.
Being able to define the difference between resonance and oscillation at an objects natural frequency is also not your strong point.
You had a need to be right throughout this thread,and that didnt quite work out for you that way.
But at least you know are full bottles on how resonant systems in and around ICEs can raise the efficiency of that ICE now,and you also now know what a J/FET is. In time,perhaps you will get a handle on the difference between natural frequency oscillation,and resonance ;)
Brad
P.S--looking forward to your answer to your coil question.
-
You can wallow in your language and comprehension and technical understanding issues with respect to resonance, I don't give a damn. I'm not asking you the coil question and I'm not answering the coil question. Do whatever you want with the question, it's up to you. Ironically, I'm not sure that you can answer it yourself.
ICEs and JFETs, wow. You are a real "case" Brad and it was horrible and unreal "debating" with you. So horrible and unreal that I doubt anybody will correct your mistakes, it's just not worth it.
-
You can wallow in your language and comprehension and technical understanding issues with respect to resonance, I don't give a damn.
I'm not asking you the coil question and I'm not answering the coil question.
I will take that as--you cannot answer your own question. This means that you had not right to ask such a question to EMJ or Wattsup. Statements like-Quote: And there is the justification for me asking you the question that you couldn't answer about the circuit that consisted of a voltage source and one single component, a coil. You talk the big talk like "pull yourself out from a hot potato" but you clearly still haven't mastered the basics of an Electronics 001 course. from some one who cannot answer the question them self is just plain stupid.
Do whatever you want with the question, it's up to you. Ironically, I'm not sure that you can answer it yourself.
I did not ask the question--you did,and you have been wallowing in your own fluids ever since. It is time for you to show that you can answer your own question,as were all sick of hearing about how EMJ and Wattsup couldnt answer it.
It's basic !!001!! electronics as far as your concerned,so answer the question,and show us that your not the fraud everyone is starting to think you are.
We can then judge you like you have judged EMJ and Wattsup.
ICEs and JFETs, wow. You are a real "case" Brad and it was horrible and unreal "debating" with you. So horrible and unreal that I doubt anybody will correct your mistakes, it's just not worth it.
What was horrible MH,was to see how low you went when you were proven wrong. The level you dropped to,and the language you used was in very poor taste,and degrading to many other members here.
Many people have corrected mistakes i have made over the years,but you took me on in a subject where i am well versed--and you lost,just like i have in many other areas in electronics to others--and probably once again in the Lewin experiment thread regarding KVL. I only post what i know,and as we will see,Poynt will show me where i am going wrong. And if i can see that,then i will learn something new. But if i see a clear disagreement from what i should see,to what i am seeing,then i will continue to stand my ground.
As i said MH,i was happy to leave it be,and agree to disagree.
But i will not have you continue to post my name along with your lies--not going to happen.
You chose to bring me back into the discussion,and now you have me--so suck it up.
You should have left me out of your lies MH.
I hear by formally request you answer your question about the coil and ideal voltage-so as you may be judged as you have judged others on a question you asked,but have not answered yourself.
Brad.
-
MileHigh
Quote
That is a complete and total lie and you know it !
end quote
-----------------------------
Miles
My Comment where I mentioned your willingness to make assumptions in a field that is Not _your_ field
and declare Facts which are Not facts at all ..
was indeed true.. and calling me a liar will not change that .
And yes it is good for the readers to know your _limitations_ and just how far you will
go to be _right_ .
-
MileHigh
Quote
That is a complete and total lie and you know it !
end quote
-----------------------------
Miles
My Comment where I mentioned your willingness to make assumptions in a field that is Not _your_ field
and declare Facts which are Not facts at all ..
was indeed true.. and calling me a liar will not change that .
And yes it is good for the readers to know your _limitations_ and just how far you will
go to be _right_ .
Chet-dont take it to heart,MH calls everyone a liar if they dont agree with him.
He often has said that we should learn from our mistakes,but he seems to be one that dose not wish to learn,but to be right on every occasion. And when he is proven to be wrong,he dose what Webby says he dose--he starts to twist and distort things to suit his needs.
The need to be right run through his blood like water flows down a river.
We shall see if he can answer his own question correctly--see if he had the right to judge others as he dose so often. ;)
Brad
-
Wow, what a vile hate-filled rant. When you are challenged and treated like any other normal person that's been playing with electronics for six years and not coddled like a "special case" you turn into one pretty nasty mean SOB, don't you Brad?
We both know that me answering the coil question is moot. If I didn't treat you like a normal person then you wouldn't have freaked out and you wouldn't even be questioning me. This is just you exposing yourself for how nasty and ugly you can be and how low you will stoop by talking up BS about me. It's a sham. The veil has been lifted and it's not pretty at all. In fact it's downright creepy. And then you get two henchmen thrown in to boot.
What a farce, answer the bloody question yourself if you want to. The point was made. Wattsup questioning PW and then trying to suggest that PW ran away because he couldn't deal with the subject matter was ridiculous. I wanted to set the situation straight for that just on principle. I was motivated to do that by reading some foolishness about a pizza pie Earth. And you and Wattsup and EMJunkie for all your big talk are still more or less at square one, as illustrated by the examples of the coil and the wine glass. The implicit message in all of this is that if you are serious about your hobby then forget about talking the big talk, learn to walk the walk for real. Or just crawl forever, it's up to you.
-
Wow, what a vile hate-filled rant. When you are challenged and treated like any other normal person that's been playing with electronics for six years and not coddled like a "special case" you turn into one pretty nasty mean SOB, don't you Brad?
No,not at all MH.
I turn into some one that dose not like people associating my name with there lies.
like i said MH,i was happy to leave it alone-and i did. But you continued your attack on me by way of posting lies about me being wrong.
We both know that me answering the coil question is moot. If I didn't treat you like a normal person then you wouldn't have freaked out and you wouldn't even be questioning me. This is just you exposing yourself for how nasty and ugly you can be and how low you will stoop by talking up BS about me. It's a sham. The veil has been lifted and it's not pretty at all. In fact it's downright creepy. And then you get two henchmen thrown in to boot.
It is troubling when some one actually starts to believe there own lies MH--you should seek help.
The only reason you will not answer your own question regarding the coil and ideal voltage,is because you cannot. That makes you the worst of the worst.
What a farce, answer the bloody question yourself if you want to. The point was made.
I have already stated to you that i do not know the answer--lets stick to that ;).
The point that has been made here,is you ask people questions,and judge people on things they !may! not know,and yet you do not know them your self.You made the very same judgement on me ,regarding the use of a J/FET in a low voltage JT type circuit,and you fell flat on your face on that one as well.
Wattsup questioning PW and then trying to suggest that PW ran away because he couldn't deal with the subject matter was ridiculous. I wanted to set the situation straight for that just on principle. I was motivated to do that by reading some foolishness about a pizza pie Earth.
Or the earthquake making,flag shaking Astronaut on the moon ;)
And you and Wattsup and EMJunkie for all your big talk are still more or less at square one, as illustrated by the examples of the coil and the wine glass.
As i have stated,the wine glass will not resonate alone--that is a fact you cannot avoid MH.
You could of course prove me wrong,and show us all here a wine glass resonating on it's own.
The implicit message in all of this is that if you are serious about your hobby then forget about talking the big talk, learn to walk the walk for real. Or just crawl forever, it's up to you.
The !implicit! message here is MH,learn to accept when you are wrong-as i have done many times before.
Do not judge people on questions you cannot answer your self.
And stop telling people that resonance cannot increase the efficiency in any type of system,as that is just another lie that has been proven wrong in this thread.
Brad
-
Dumb question time,, I am not all that hot on electrical stuff,, so I know it is stupid and is in the 101 class,,
0.5*(C*V^2)
So,, 540uf charged to 30V dumped into a 14000uf cap should raise that cap up to what voltage?
So 30v across 540uF =243mJ of stored energy.
I am actually dumping it into 2,, one goes to 1.04V and the other goes to 0.87V
Two caps of what size?,,Both 14000uF ?.
If so,then 1.04v across 14000uF=7.571mJ of stored energy in that cap,and .87v across the other 14000uF cap gives you 5.28mJ of stored energy in that cap.
What is left in your 540uF cap after the test?.
Brad
-
<<< The only reason you will not answer your own question regarding the coil and ideal voltage,is because you cannot. >>>
And here is another example of you being sick, for lack of a better term. You can't possibly know that I cannot answer the question. And everybody reading knows that. You are putting yourself out there naked and seemingly unaware. What do you think this is, a episode of the Twilight Zone? And then ironically, you actually are pretty damn sure that I can answer it because you know my electronics knowledge level. So you are making a fool of yourself.
<<< As i have stated,the wine glass will not resonate alone >>>
You are absolutely wrong, so wrong that you are "not even wrong." You can understand one thing but you can't apply the knowledge to a new situation and show some adaptability, you are stuck like a stone in frozen mud. You simply can't see or you are playing the insane belligerent game again, it's one or the other. It's just like you saying something about your coil being sealed in epoxy therefore you couldn't see the direction of the windings therefore you couldn't add the dot convention to your schematic. Thus we are led to conclude that you are incapable of inventing a way to do your own test? Another jaw-dropping moment.
I am done with this crap. Just do your own thing and leave me out of your strange mental straitjacket and your creepiness. Be gone!
-
<<< The only reason you will not answer your own question regarding the coil and ideal voltage,is because you cannot. >>>
<<< As i have stated,the wine glass will not resonate alone >>>
And here is another example of you being sick, for lack of a better term. You can't possibly know that I cannot answer the question. And everybody reading knows that. You are putting yourself out there naked and seemingly unaware.
I am asking you to answer your own question--thats it.
Your refusal to do so will be taken as--cannot answer the question.
What do you think this is, a episode of the Twilight Zone? And then ironically, you actually are pretty damn sure that I can answer it because you know my electronics knowledge level. So you are making a fool of yourself.
I am not making a fool of myself at all,i am asking you to answer your own question.
It's a sure bet that (like the wine glass questions) you will not get it all correct--leave out vital information,and use inaccurate descriptions-as you did with the wine glass answers.
You are absolutely wrong, so wrong that you are "not even wrong." You can understand one thing but you can't apply the knowledge to a new situation and show some adaptability, you are stuck like a stone in frozen mud. You simply can't see or you are playing the insane belligerent game again, it's one or the other.
Please show an example of a wine glass resonating alone,and back up your claim.
It's just like you saying something about your coil being sealed in epoxy therefore you couldn't see the direction of the windings therefore you couldn't add the dot convention to your schematic. Thus we are led to conclude that you are incapable of inventing a way to do your own test? Another jaw-dropping moment.
Another lie,as i clearly stated as to how i could define the dot convention with that post.
Please stop your lies MH.
I am done with this crap. Just do your own thing and leave me out of your strange mental straitjacket and your creepiness. Be gone!
You really do have some mental issues MH,as i was gone,and you bought me back into it,and now you can suck it up.
I will not be degraded by the likes of you and your lies.
Now,answer your question regarding the coil and ideal voltage.
Here is my !prediction!-->you will not be able to answer your own question accurately,and there for have not right to judge EMG,Wattsup-or anyone else on this forum.
You had a big fail in this thread,and now it's time to see if you can stack up against yourself by answering your own question.
Brad
-
So you have been playing with coils for six years and you can't answer the question? That should motivate you to figure out how to answer it for yourself.
-
So you have been playing with coils for six years and you can't answer the question? That should motivate you to figure out how to answer it for yourself.
Yep-6 years and i cant answer the question.
So what is the answer to your question MH.
Please dont try the old switcharooney trick here this time,as everybody is watching.
What is the answer to your question regarding a coil and ideal voltage.
Brad
-
Yep-6 years and i cant answer the question.
So what is the answer to your question MH.
Please dont try the old switcharooney trick here this time,as everybody is watching.
What is the answer to your question regarding a coil and ideal voltage.
Brad
Todays schools going to common core is similar to some peoples 'teachings' here.
I had seen a vid the other day about how we used to learn things in school, back in the days. The guys said that today they try to make the students figure things out without first teaching them how to do it. And if you look at some of the ridiculous test questions, you can see there really is no way to provide an answer. Some of the questions are particularly loaded to not being able to figure them out.
But back in the day, teachers would work with us and teach us things each week. If we comprehend the teachings, then on test day we are able to answer the questions in tests.
here are some examples...... ::)
Mags
-
Todays schools going to common core is similar to some peoples 'teachings' here.
I had seen a vid the other day about how we used to learn things in school, back in the days. The guys said that today they try to make the students figure things out without first teaching them how to do it. And if you look at some of the ridiculous test questions, you can see there really is no way to provide an answer. Some of the questions are particularly loaded to not being able to figure them out.
But back in the day, teachers would work with us and teach us things each week. If we comprehend the teachings, then on test day we are able to answer the questions in tests.
here are some examples...... ::)
Mags
And all to often we have teachers that cannot answer the questions they ask the students.
Is MH one of these teachers?--well,we shall see soon enough.
If the question is basic !001! electronics as he claims,then a full and accurate description based around his given perameters should be a piece of cake.
Brad
-
I am just posting this to make it clear that I am no liar as has been alleged many times.
Me: It's just like you saying something about your coil being sealed in epoxy therefore you couldn't see the direction of the windings therefore you couldn't add the dot convention to your schematic. Thus we are led to conclude that you are incapable of inventing a way to do your own test? Another jaw-dropping moment.
Brad: Another lie,as i clearly stated as to how i could define the dot convention with that post.
Please stop your lies MH.
Brad, you said this on April 18th:
<<< CH1 is across the secondary /5 ohm resistor,and CH2 is across the 3 ohm CVR.
I do not know the dot convention,as the primary is sealed in apoxy resin,and i can find my compass. >>>
<<< I will be winding a new 1:1 coil tonight,as requested by Poynt,and will be able to supply the dot convention.
I cannot determine the winding direction of the primary winding of the transformer,as it is taped and lacquered,and the wire very fine. Guess i could use a compass and DC current to work it out. >>>
I did not see any clear statement for how you could "define" the dot convention.
I am no liar, but based on what you are stating above I am forced to conclude that you are unable to come up with a ridiculously simple test to determine the dot convention for a transformer. Assuming that I am correct, that's a real shame.
Yes, you do indeed mention a compass, and I suppose that if push comes to shove you could use a compass to determine the dot convention for a transformer that puts magnetic flux in the open air, although it will not work for a closed-flux-loop transformer. Considering that there is a pretty obvious and self-evident way to determine the dot convention that is so easy and so quick that will work for any type of transformer with standard bench equipment, your compass remark did not stick with me. What I really remembered was the shock in reading you say, "I do not know the dot convention,as the primary is sealed in apoxy (sic) resin."
I only made this posting to make it clear that I am no liar. I suppose that technically Brad is correct, and you really can use a compass to determine the dot convention for an air-core-type transformer if you really want to go that strange route. Or Brad will have a miraculous alternative explanation that clears up the misunderstanding.
MileHigh
-
At t=0, I think the universe might blow up :(
-
I was thinking,,,
If when you dump the charge in cap you end up loosing 1\2 the energy that was used to charge the cap,, where does it go.
MarkE stated that there is a trade off between how much you dump and what the costs are,, as in,, if the change in voltage is smaller then there is more of the stored energy transferred per cost to replace.
Here is the thing,, I can do this mechanically with almost no losses so why not electrically?
So,, I need to make sure that what I thought was how to look at the energy value was close enough to start with,, setting a base line if you will.
So my 30V @540uf if used up should show about 5.9V @ 14000uf on one cap,, and many variations when going into 2 caps,,
Right now I am loosing almost all of it into the spark and bang :) but you have to start from somewhere.
Ive thought of that many times. Even argued it a few times.
If we had 2 air tanks, 1 full at say 100psi and 1 empty.
Then we dump the full into the empty till they are equal. What did we lose? We lost pressure.
Say each tank is 1cu ft. The one thats full is able to accomplish a certain amount of work over time, depending how you release it. But if we dump that full tank into the other till both are equal, we now have the total amount of air in 2 cu ft. 50psi each? Now if we calculated the total amount of work that can be done with the total of what is in the 2 tanks, we will find that we could do more work with the full one cu ft tank than we can with 2 1cu ft tanks described above after the dump and equalization.
Now we could introduce an air motor, motor driven with air that can also pump, and we put a flywheel on the motor shaft, that would enable us to release the full tank into the empty tank through the air motor/flywheel and be able to transfer most of that air in the first tank into the empty tank. Like having a full cap and dumping it into another empty cap through an inductor and a diode and get most of the full caps energy into the empty cap, minus minimal losses.
They say that if we dump a cap into an empty cap that the reason for the 50% loss is due to resistance in the transfer. I still fail to believe that. I believe we have just wasted the full caps energy by dividing its voltage/pressure into a cap/container that is twice as large. Where we lost it is in reduced voltage/pressure, not in resistance losses. We lost it in a stupid way. We didnt do anything with the energy transfer.
Example.....
We have one full tank and one empty. We dump the full tank into the empty tank and the pressures equalize.
Now, we have our full tank and dump it into the empty tank, but we use the air motor to make the transfer. Now we can do work with the air motor until the 2 tanks are equalized. And we still have the same amount of pressure in each tank as when we did it the stupid way. ??? ;)
Im still trying to figure out the 'reasoning for blaming' the loss on resistance/heat when dumping a full cap into and empty one of the same value. ::) ;) There is something wrong there. ;)
That would be an interesting debate thread. ;)
Mags
-
At t=0, I think the universe might blow up :(
Trump might indeed have the "football" so let's hope being the most powerful man on Earth chills him out a bit.
-
Ive thought of that many times. Even argued it a few times.
If we had 2 air tanks, 1 full at say 100psi and 1 empty.
Then we dump the full into the empty till they are equal. What did we lose? We lost pressure.
Say each tank is 1cu ft. The one thats full is able to accomplish a certain amount of work over time, depending how you release it. But if we dump that full tank into the other till both are equal, we now have the total amount of air in 2 cu ft. 50psi each? Now if we calculated the total amount of work that can be done with the total of what is in the 2 tanks, we will find that we could do more work with the full one cu ft tank than we can with 2 1cu ft tanks described above after the dump and equalization.
Now we could introduce an air motor, motor driven with air that can also pump, and we put a flywheel on the motor shaft, that would enable us to release the full tank into the empty tank through the air motor/flywheel and be able to transfer most of that air in the first tank into the empty tank. Like having a full cap and dumping it into another empty cap through an inductor and a diode and get most of the full caps energy into the empty cap, minus minimal losses.
They say that if we dump a cap into an empty cap that the reason for the 50% loss is due to resistance in the transfer. I still fail to believe that. I believe we have just wasted the full caps energy by dividing its voltage/pressure into a cap/container that is twice as large. Where we lost it is in reduced voltage/pressure, not in resistance losses. We lost it in a stupid way. We didnt do anything with the energy transfer.
Example.....
We have one full tank and one empty. We dump the full tank into the empty tank and the pressures equalize.
Now, we have our full tank and dump it into the empty tank, but we use the air motor to make the transfer. Now we can do work with the air motor until the 2 tanks are equalized. And we still have the same amount of pressure in each tank as when we did it the stupid way. ??? ;)
Im still trying to figure out the 'reasoning for blaming' the loss on resistance/heat when dumping a full cap into and empty one of the same value. ::) ;) There is something wrong there. ;)
That would be an interesting debate thread. ;)
Mags
Back when I argued this, I had done simulations where if I have 2 10uf caps, 1 with 10v and one with 0, then made the transfer with an inductor, and diode, and timed the switch on, then switch off, I could get just above 7v in each cap. Now the 2 caps in parallel at 7v is just about equal in energy as the 1 cap with 10v. But if we make the comparison of the caps vs the air tanks, 10v in one cap direct dump into the empty cap, we get 5v each, and the air tanks, 100psi of 1 tank dumped into the empty tank we get 50psi in each.
So how do we get the 2 tanks to be just above or at 70psi each from the single 100psi tank?
Using the air pump with a flywheel, we dump the full tank till we have 70psi in the source tank then shut of the source tank and let the flywheel pump in air from the outside into the second tank. And the second tank should be near 70psi, considering losses. The same with the caps. We disconnect the source cap at 7v and let the inductor with a diode finish charging the other cap to right around 7v
So doing the direct dump is just releasing pressure/voltage in a way that we didnt do anything with the transfer action during the dump. The energy wasnt lost in heat. It was lost by releasing pressure into a container that was twice as large. I call it stupid losses. ;D
Mags
-
Trump might indeed have the "football" so let's hope being the most powerful man on Earth chills him out a bit.
I saw a show the other night saying that Trump will be like Biff Tanem from back to the future 2. Pics of the 2 were a bit uncanny. ;D
Mags
-
I saw a show the other night saying that Trump will be like Biff Tanem from back to the future 2. Pics of the 2 were a bit uncanny. ;D
Mags
Good. Maybe Putin will stop buzzing our carriers and China will quit stopping our ships because they might be afraid of what he might do. We will get some respect back...hopefully. We will see.
Bill
-
I am just posting this to make it clear that I am no liar as has been alleged many times.
.
MileHigh
Me: It's just like you saying something about your coil being sealed in epoxy therefore you couldn't see the direction of the windings therefore you couldn't add the dot convention to your schematic. Thus we are led to conclude that you are incapable of inventing a way to do your own test? Another jaw-dropping moment.
And that right there is a lie.
Me-- Another lie,as i clearly stated as to how i could define the dot convention with that post.
Please stop your lies MH.
Brad, you said this on April 18th:
I cannot determine the winding direction of the primary winding of the transformer,as it is taped and lacquered,and the wire very fine. Guess i could use a compass and DC current to work it out.
Proving beyond doubt that you lied when you stated--->Thus we are led to conclude that you are incapable of inventing a way to do your own test,when i clearly stated how it could be done.
I did not see any clear statement for how you could "define" the dot convention.
Either you need new glasses,or you are lying once again
The quote you posted of my reply !once again!-->Guess i could use a compass and DC current to work it out
I am no liar, but based on what you are stating above I am forced to conclude that you are unable to come up with a ridiculously simple test to determine the dot convention for a transformer. Assuming that I am correct, that's a real shame.
Yes you are,and you have now been upgraded to a pathological liar.
If you think supplying the coil with a DC voltage and current,and using a compass to see the field produced at each end of the coil is hard,then you need help--and fast.
Yes, you do indeed mention a compass, and I suppose that if push comes to shove you could use a compass to determine the dot convention for a transformer that puts magnetic flux in the open air, although it will not work for a closed-flux-loop transformer.
What do you mean if !push comes to shove! ?. It's a very simple way of working out winding direction of a coil.
And before you go off into your own little world,and try to twist things around again to save your sorry ass--we were not using a closed-flux-loop transformer,we were using air core coils,and so my way of determining the winding direction of the coil was very correct.
Considering that there is a pretty obvious and self-evident way to determine the dot convention that is so easy and so quick that will work for any type of transformer with standard bench equipment, your compass remark did not stick with me.
I dont give a rat's ass about what sticks with you. What i stated was correct in every way.
Please show us an easier way to determine the winding direction of the wire on an air core coil.
I have to place two clip lead's onto the coil from my power supply,and place a compass at one end of the coil--thats really hard-isnt it MH ::)
What I really remembered was the shock in reading you say, "I do not know the dot convention,as the primary is sealed in apoxy (sic) resin."
That's !epoxy! by the way. ;)
Why so shocked MH,as i never bothered to check it out.
I only made this posting to make it clear that I am no liar.
Well you failed at that -didnt you. You posted exactly what i said,and that proves that your statements are lies.
I suppose that technically Brad is correct, and you really can use a compass to determine the dot convention for an air-core-type transformer if you really want to go that strange route.
Technically right ::) lol. It was spot on MH,and there is nothing technical about using a DC current and compass to determine turn direction of a coil.
And yes--you know just as well as everyone else,that i was using an !!AIR CORE!! coil.
Or Brad will have a miraculous alternative explanation that clears up the misunderstanding
There is no misunderstanding MH--you just lied through your teeth again,and then made this post which pushed you into the very hole you dug your self.
Once again you tried to make me look like a fool,and once again you failed to do so. The biggest hoot is,you just proved to everyone here that you are indeed a liar--a pathological liar.
Pathological Liar--The individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth. Sometimes however, the individual may be lying to make their life seem more exciting when in reality they believe their life is unpleasant or boring
Get help MH.
Brad
-
Ive thought of that many times. Even argued it a few times.
If we had 2 air tanks, 1 full at say 100psi and 1 empty.
Then we dump the full into the empty till they are equal. What did we lose? We lost pressure.
Say each tank is 1cu ft. The one thats full is able to accomplish a certain amount of work over time, depending how you release it. But if we dump that full tank into the other till both are equal, we now have the total amount of air in 2 cu ft. 50psi each? Now if we calculated the total amount of work that can be done with the total of what is in the 2 tanks, we will find that we could do more work with the full one cu ft tank than we can with 2 1cu ft tanks described above after the dump and equalization.
Now we could introduce an air motor, motor driven with air that can also pump, and we put a flywheel on the motor shaft, that would enable us to release the full tank into the empty tank through the air motor/flywheel and be able to transfer most of that air in the first tank into the empty tank. Like having a full cap and dumping it into another empty cap through an inductor and a diode and get most of the full caps energy into the empty cap, minus minimal losses.
They say that if we dump a cap into an empty cap that the reason for the 50% loss is due to resistance in the transfer. I still fail to believe that. I believe we have just wasted the full caps energy by dividing its voltage/pressure into a cap/container that is twice as large. Where we lost it is in reduced voltage/pressure, not in resistance losses. We lost it in a stupid way. We didnt do anything with the energy transfer.
Example.....
We have one full tank and one empty. We dump the full tank into the empty tank and the pressures equalize.
Now, we have our full tank and dump it into the empty tank, but we use the air motor to make the transfer. Now we can do work with the air motor until the 2 tanks are equalized. And we still have the same amount of pressure in each tank as when we did it the stupid way. ??? ;)
Im still trying to figure out the 'reasoning for blaming' the loss on resistance/heat when dumping a full cap into and empty one of the same value. ::) ;) There is something wrong there. ;)
That would be an interesting debate thread. ;)
Mags
Referring to the two air tanks Mag's-you are very correct,in that you can end up with more stored energy than what you started with.
I did such testing with MarkE working out the numbers as we went through each stage of testing.
At the last test,i ended up with 16% more stored energy in the two tank's,than what i started out with in the one tank.
This was(and can be again)proven beyond doubt,and it can be done with a simple venturi setup.
Doing it your way,you can indeed power a load without loosing or using any of the stored energy in the tanks.
Brad
-
Brad:
Your posting #2340 is both comical and shows how "debating" with you can be a nightmare from hell.
You actually don't even need to know the winding directions to determine the dot convention for a transformer. You can sit like "The Thinker" and try to figure that one out for yourself.
<<< That's !epoxy! by the way. >>>
Yes Brad it really is! Good show!
<<< At the last test,i ended up with 16% more stored energy in the two tank's,than what i started out with in the one tank.
This was(and can be again)proven beyond doubt,and it can be done with a simple venturi setup. >>>
Wow, you have discovered the "Travis Effect" for compressed air tanks? World saved! Open up a small local electrical distribution utility in your neighbourhood. Transfer air back and forth between two large tanks and then use the excess energy to drive a generator and sell the mains power to your neighbours. Then you can set up a business licensing the technology and another business managing a world-wide network of distributors and resellers. You are a freaking genius Brad, better than solar freaking roadways.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Your posting #2340 is both comical and shows how "debating" with you can be a nightmare from hell.
You actually don't even need to know the winding directions to determine the dot convention for a transformer. You can sit like "The Thinker" and try to figure that one out for yourself.
<<< That's !epoxy! by the way. >>>
Yes Brad it really is! Good show!
<<< At the last test,i ended up with 16% more stored energy in the two tank's,than what i started out with in the one tank.
This was(and can be again)proven beyond doubt,and it can be done with a simple venturi setup. >>>
Wow, you have discovered the "Travis Effect" for compressed air tanks? World saved! Open up a small local electrical distribution utility in your neighbourhood. Transfer air back and forth between two large tanks and then use the excess energy to drive a generator and sell the mains power to your neighbours. Then you can set up a business licensing the technology and another business managing a world-wide network of distributors and resellers. You are a freaking genius Brad, better than solar freaking roadways.
MileHigh
Just a pure lack of understanding of your own posting,and the outcome that could become of it.
How is your answer to your question coming along MH?
You know-the one you ragged EMJ and Wattsup with not being able to answer--the simple electronics 001 lesson. The question regarding your coil and ideal voltage.
As i said before--you cannot answer it correctly your self.
Now is your chance to call me out--to show my statement above is a lie ;)
Lets see what you got MH.
Brad
-
<<< As i said before--you cannot answer it correctly your self. >>>
No, you are just showing what a bloody nightmare you are.
You can sit in the same boat as the others or figure it out for yourself, it's up to you.
-
<<< As i said before--you cannot answer it correctly your self. >>>
No, you are just showing what a bloody nightmare you are.
No,i am exposing you for what you are--a fraud.
Also.
It would pay you to go and research a little more on your !claimed! travis effect,and then come back here,and tell us how you have married the two together-the transfer of air pressure from one tank to another-and the travis effect.
You can sit in the same boat as the others or figure it out for yourself, it's up to you.
As i said--anything to avoid answering your own question--hey MH ;)
I have figured it out MH.
Your a fake.
Brad
-
The only thing you are exposing is your true self.
-
Miles
You really should stay in your Pond , and Not taunt everyone in the Boat ...
What Brad is Speaking of actually does have Merit .
---------
But for Clarity .
what's the Question again ?
and where's the Boat ?
@Miles Quote to Brad
"You can sit in the same boat as the others"
end Quote
-----
?
-
The only thing you are exposing is your true self.
Yep--some one who dose not take people lying about me lightly--thats you MH.
I agreed to leave it all behind,but you continued to use my name along with your lies.
Now you have my full attention :D
Now,how are you going with your travis effect research,and how it relates to what myself and Mag's are referring to?-is this going to be another ICE situation ?,or are you actually going to correct your mistake straight up?.
2nd--how is your answer coming along in regards to your coil question.
It is important for you to answer the question you asked EMJ and Wattsup,as then we can see if you had the right to pass judgement on them,and see if you !can! actually answer your own questions ;)
Brad
-
Miles
You really should stay in your Pond , and Not taunt everyone in the Boat ...
What Brad is Speaking of actually does have Merit .
---------
But for Clarity .
what's the Question again ?
and where's the Boat ?
@Miles Quote to Brad
"You can sit in the same boat as the others"
end Quote
-----
?
what's the Question again ?
MHs coil/voltage question
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
The question is what happens starting at t = 0
MH has claimed that EMJ and Wattsup failed to answer this simple 001 electronics question.
You have seen yourself Chet,that over many threads MH keeps bringing this up--as some sort of distorted victory over EMJ and Wattsup.
It is now time MH shows that !he! can actually answer his own question.
He has !so far! been unable to do that.
MHs boat was the Titanic--it sunk some time ago.
Brad
-
No Brad, I have explained how to answer that question probably between 20 and 40 times over the years on this forum and I have nothing to prove to you. Surprisingly, you missed it. Although, considering you corrected your own spelling mistake and scolded _me_ about it, I suppose that nothing is surprising.
Here is a laughable quote from you on April 19th where you are addressing me and you shamelessly lie:
<<< Your english is no better than mine. >>>
Really, why should anybody believe anything you say after reading that? You are clearly in "nightmare from hell" mode and you will say almost anything. It's a sad grotesque thing to see.
Here is big news for you: When one cap discharges into another cap you lose half the energy and the same thing happens with two air tanks. Magluvin said that he "fails to believe" that you lose half the energy in the case of the capacitors so perhaps both of you would want to investigate capacitors and air tanks in more detail to understand what is going on. If you are going to proclaim over unity then the burden of proof is on you.
-
Not true completely MH,
You CAN waste 1\2 the stored energy,, but you do NOT HAVE TO.
If you bother to read and understand my little post covering this and except the fact that I can do this mechanically,, very easily actually,, basic stuff,, then you will see your error.
Just because something is done one way does not mean that that is the only way of doing it
Webby, don't you give me this stupid-ass "your error" nonsense. You can THINK I am sure, and you are fully aware that I was not referencing anything you said. Pull yourself together and have some self-respect. That nonsense posting is a clear case of you trolling me.
-
No Brad, I have explained how to answer that question probably between 20 and 40 times over the years on this forum and I have nothing to prove to you. Surprisingly, you missed it. Although, considering you corrected your own spelling mistake and scolded _me_ about it, I suppose nothing is surprising.
Please point me in the direction of just one of those answers to your ideal inductor and ideal voltage question,as i have never seen you answer that question correctly.
Stop trying to avoid answering the question MH,and just post your answer here--i bet it is wrong. ;)
Here is big news for you: When one cap discharges into another cap you lose half the energy and the same thing happens with two air tanks.
And that just go's to show you how little you know.
So now you can just make energy disappear :o
You truly are clueless MH.
When transferring compressed air from one tank to another until both tanks are in pressure equilibrium ,no energy is lost--you loose nothing-->and the same go's for the cap's-->the energy is not !!lost!!
If the tanks are well insulated(as they were in my test),then the transfer results in no energy loss at all. You are of course free to go and find the thread ,where myself and MarkE carefully calculated the start and end pressures and temperatures ,and calculated no energy loss during the transfer,and place your argument against the results.
Magluvin said that he "fails to believe" that you lose half the energy in the case of the capacitors
And Mag's was correct. You cannot !loose! energy--it just dose not disappear--you cannot destroy energy--->basic 001 ;)
Really, why should anybody believe anything you say after reading that? You clearly are in "nightmare from hell" mode and you will almost say anything. It's a sad grotesque thing to see.
And more lies.
What is sad,is your lack of knowledge in the simplest of things. Your last statements(along with a truck load of others in this thread) regarding energy lost when transferring compressed air from one tank to another until they reach pressure equilibrium ,shows just how far you are behind in your education.You are truly clueless.
so perhaps both of you would want to investigate capacitors and air tanks in more detail to understand what is going on.
It is you that needs the education boost MH,not myself and Mag's.
If you are going to proclaim over unity then the burden of proof is on you.
Here is the deal MH.
You answer your own coil question correctly,and i will show you a 20% increase in stored energy from that which created it. ;)-->but you have to get your own ideal inductor/ideal voltage question right-->and no help from the other guru's on this-or any other forum.
why should anybody believe anything you say after reading that
Because after reading the garbage you just wrote,they will be smart enough to see who knows what,and who has lied throughout this thread.
Can you read the words in the picture below MH?
If you can,then get of my back about spelling.
If you cant,then you need all the pieces to put a puzzle together,and have no vision to read between the lines.
Brad
-
<<< And Mag's was correct. You cannot !loose! energy--it just dose not disappear--you cannot destroy energy--->basic 001 >>>
You are just one never-ending shameless barrel of monkeys Brad. Did you ever hear the expression, "Energy lost to heat?" Keep on being that creepy horrible nightmare from hell. What ugliness there is under your skin. Dunning-Kruger effect, OCD for being wrong or perceived as being wrong, and a creepy ugly bogan to boot.
-
Nice read...and yes it is odd how fast it can be read .
perhaps I might interject a thought regarding the Airtank and MH's analogy .
all venturi effects or Temp/Phase /gravitational/ Buoyancy effects out of the equation .
if you place two identical tanks next to each other ,
tank A has 100 lbs of air
Tank B Zero
you will never get over 50 lbs into tank B from Tank A
So a total transfer is impossible , but all the energy is still in the system.
-
Nice read...and yes it is odd how fast it can be read .
perhaps I might interject a thought regarding the Airtank and MH's analogy .
all venturi effects or Temp/Phase /gravitational/ Buoyancy effects out of the equation .
if you place two identical tanks next to each other ,
tank A has 100 lbs of air
Tank B Zero
you will never get over 50 lbs into tank B from Tank A
So a total transfer is impossible , but all the energy is still in the system.
You can if you use the air from tank A to drive a turbine which runs a generator which runs a compressor...you still have the air, and it is compressed again...well...not all of it of course...but more than 50%.
Bill
-
<<< And Mag's was correct. You cannot !loose! energy--it just dose not disappear--you cannot destroy energy--->basic 001 >>>
You are just one never-ending shameless barrel of monkeys Brad. Did you ever hear the expression, "Energy lost to heat?" Keep on being that creepy horrible nightmare from hell. What ugliness there is under your skin.
You mean energy dissipated as heat--not lost to heat. Heat is the result of an energy transformation.
Please use correct terms,as this would of also helped you out in your wine glass bumble.
Now--you were saying about half the energy being lost when transferring compressed air from one tank to another?. How did you go with that?.
Also,how is your answer coming along,regarding your ideal inductor,and ideal voltage ?--we are all waiting for your big reveal ;)
Dunning-Kruger effect, OCD for being wrong or perceived as being wrong, and a creepy ugly bogan to boot.
We only have to review some of your language on this thread to see who is the creepy one here.
You have been wrong so many times on this thread,it's not funny. You continually lie about me,and the things i have said,to the point where you are now starting to believe your own lies.
You have now made another mistake,and stated that half of the energy is lost in pressured air transfer from one tank to another-->another big crock of crap,and i have proven this wrong-along with MarkE,who done all the energy calculations.
Cant wait to read your answer to your own question-the ideal inductor meets the ideal voltage.
The unstoppable force meets the unmovable object ;)
Brad
-
Webby, pull yourself together and show some self-respect.
Brad, no, if you are going to draw an analogy between capacitors and air tanks then you wait for the air tanks to reach thermal equilibrium and you have lost half of your energy.
Both of you are being ridiculous and making fools of yourself. That's no surprise.
-
All that I wanted to do was make it clear that I was not lying about the epoxy coil business, that's all. But clearly Brad you could not comprehend what I was saying and/or you took that as an opportunity for yet another display of gratuitous ugliness. You have really exposed yourself in this thread.
-
Nice read...and yes it is odd how fast it can be read .
perhaps I might interject a thought regarding the Airtank and MH's analogy .
all venturi effects or Temp/Phase /gravitational/ Buoyancy effects out of the equation .
if you place two identical tanks next to each other ,
tank A has 100 lbs of air
Tank B Zero
you will never get over 50 lbs into tank B from Tank A
So a total transfer is impossible , but all the energy is still in the system.
Absolutely correct.
Now,what if that transfer line between tank A and tank B had a venturi entry into it.
Tank A starts with 100 psi,tank B starts at atmospheric pressure-0 gauge pressure.
We open the valve on tank A to allow the compressed air to start to flow into tank B,and at the same time it is drawing in ambient air through the venturi. At the point where the pressure in tank B stop's the venturi effect working,the venturi is shut off,so as air cannot escape via the venturi valve. The compressed air is allowed to continue to flow into tank B,until pressure equilibrium is reached between the two tanks.
The result is
1-you finish with a higher equilibrium pressure in the two tanks,as you added more volume of air into the system via the venturi.
2-As the pressure is now higher,so will be the two end temperatures in each tank.
3-Because you now have a higher pressure equilibrium in the two tanks,the volume of compressed air has also increased.
This leaves us with more stored potential energy that we started with-and that's a fact.
Brad
-
In your example you will end up with more than you started with.
and there are other scenarios too.
-
Webby, pull yourself together and show some self-respect.
Brad, no, if you are going to draw an analogy between capacitors and air tanks then you wait for the air tanks to reach thermal equilibrium and you have lost half of your energy.
.
You are making a fool of your self MH.
When i did the test with MarkE,one tank was pressurized to a certain pressure,and then left to sit to reach room temperature. This meant a drop in pressure and inside gas temperature.
The tank was then topped up to our regulated pressure (set pressure throughout the tests).
Once again,it was left to drop to room temperature. The compressed gas in tank A was then let flow into tank B,and then once pressure equilibrium was reached,the gas inside the tanks was once again left to sit until room temperature was reached.
With the venturi switched off,we had an exact potential energy transfer from one tank to both tanks--nothing was lost. This set the bench mark for the venturi tests,and also made it clear that the tests were being carried out in a controlled manner.
When the same tests were carried out with the venturi in play,the results showed an increase of 16% of stored potential energy in the two tanks.
The very same tests were carried out with all of the DUT now heavily insulated in thermal wool.
This allowed us to skip the waiting for the gas inside the tanks to drop to room temperature.
The results were exactly that of the first set of tests.
So do not tell me that energy is lost through the air tank transfer situation,as you are totally wrong.
Both of you are being ridiculous and making fools of yourself. That's no surprise
What is no surprise MH,is you got it wrong again.
This is becoming a habit with you.
Time and time again,you have made claims that i am wrong,and time and time again,i have proven you to be wrong-->and it just happened again. ;)
Brad
-
All that I wanted to do was make it clear that I was not lying about the epoxy coil business, that's all. But clearly Brad you could not comprehend what I was saying and/or you took that as an opportunity for yet another display of gratuitous ugliness. You have really exposed yourself in this thread.
No MH--i defended myself against your lies--and you know it.
How will anyone else know it?,well they just have to read the thread--it's all there in black and white.
We both know that me answering the coil question is moot.
No-we all now know you cannot answer your own coil question--a question you judged EMJ and Wattsup on.
And here is another example of you being sick, for lack of a better term. You can't possibly know that I cannot answer the question.
I know without doubt that you cannot answer the question.
I am no liar, but based on what you are stating above I am forced to conclude that you are unable to come up with a ridiculously simple test to determine the dot convention for a transformer.
Even though you yourself posted what i said-->quote: Guess i could use a compass and DC current to work it out.
You then state-->quote:Yes, you do indeed mention a compass, and I suppose that if push comes to shove you could use a compass to determine the dot convention
You need serious help MH.
You should have left me out of your lies.
Brad
-
Brad:
It's pure sleaze for you to pose a question and then pull a bait and switch where you draw extra air into the destination tank with a venturi without stating that in the first place. You have no shame and you were too lazy or sleazy to even define the question properly.
And I will concede that you are most likely correct about the standard air tank test and I am wrong. This is a setup where the environment itself exchanges energy both ways with the two air tanks whereas for two capacitors there is a one-way exchange of energy with the environment, the heat is considered lost. When the pressurized tank is discharged into the empty air tank, energy is lost to heat in the valve, the pressurized tank does work on the unpressurized tank, the pressurized tank draws heat from the environment, and the unpressurized tank starts to put heat into the environment. So this is a thermodynamic problem and accounting for everything is pretty tricky when this is not your forte (like me). I was silly by forgetting about the thermodynamic angle and the energy exchange with the environment.
<<< When the same tests were carried out with the venturi in play,the results showed an increase of 16% of stored potential energy in the two tanks. >>>
Perhaps, but now you are playing in the big leagues and you can't cherry pick if you are going to be thorough. Energy had to be taken out of the external environment to do that, so there is no real energy gain.
I am not even going to try to work out the specifics for the two tanks and will take your word for it. I would not even consider the venturi example, it's just a stupid bait and switch on your part.
<<< Time and time again,you have made claims that i am wrong,and time and time again,i have proven you to be wrong-->and it just happened again. >>>
It just happened again, yes. But you seriously would not want to have an independent audit of errors in this thread made by both of us. Because of your OCD, your head would explode if all of your errors were pointed out to you. For Christ's sake, you read your own quote with a jarring spelling mistake and five minutes later you forgot that fact or it didn't even register in your brain that you had read your own quote. So you end up accusing me of your own spelling mistake - five minutes after you read your own mistake!
<<< No MH--i defended myself against your lies--and you know it. >>>
I did not lie and it's not my fault that your brain cannot process information properly and understand what I stated in my posting.
MileHigh
-
Nice try MH.
It would seem that you do not understand unit volume and unit pressure relationships.
You are way beyond making a fool of yourself MH, you have become so ridiculous that it is getting painful to watch.
What's painful is reading you trying to describe your little "exchange of pressure" example. It's barely comprehensible and you are too lazy to make a diagram or two. Sounds familiar. Your "discussion" about the cap discharging business with Brad is another exercise in obtuse strangeness.
You have been chasing after me for a month or more now, and 90% of the time it was just a gratuitous ugly display like somebody is rubbing off on you in the wrong way.
-
Have I got it? You transfer from one tank to another and end up with say
66% of your original pressure so in fact you're only losing 33% by doing
so. No overunity power supply here!!
John.
-
Here is a big fat bone for Brad.
To paraphrase Bob Dylan, "Six years on the bench and you're still stuck on the day shift." If you want to go from crawling to walking and get off of the day shift, then pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.
-
If you Wiki "Compressed air energy storage" there is quite a bit of useful info.
One method seemed to have near 100% efficiency theoretical (70%in practice) very
much inline with Tinman's claim.
John.
-
Ok. After the 2 posts I made on the cap to cap issue, here is the clincher....
When I was arguing this back when, we agreed that a 10uf cap at 10v has equal energy to a 20uf cap(2 10uf in parallel) with 7.07v
So like I said earlier, if we dump a cap directly into another, 10uf 10v into another 10uf cap, we end up with 5v each. Same comparison to 100psi air tank into an identical tank we have 50psi each. It was said back then that if the capacitors were void of resistance(and inductance) as in superconductor capacitors, then the full cap at 10v were dumped into the other identical capacitor, we would end up with 7.07v each. ??? I strongly disagree!
Its funny that 10v cap dumped into an identical cap ends with 5v each, similar to 2 air tanks doing the same starts with 100psi in 1 and 50psi in 2. Seems very logical, right?
Well if we measured the weight of the mass of the air in the tank at 100psi, would that not be the weight of the air in both 50psi tanks total? If we lost energy in the transfer, did we lose any air mass weight in doing so??? So if we were able to count the excess electrons in the 10v cap, and then measure the excess electrons in each cap at 5v, would the total be the same? ;) Do we have the same amount of excess electrons total?? If not, where did we lose some of the excess electrons? In heat? Did they ride off on the heat wave into the sunset?
So to say that if we eliminated the so called resistance loss in the transfer from cap to cap, how could there be more excess electrons added to the system if each cap is 7.07v of excess electrons each?? Where did the extra electrons come from?? I say it isnt the case. I think the superconducting caps would end with 5v each and we just lost energy by releasing the total voltage(pressure) by letting it be expanded into a larger capacitor value of twice the source cap.
Same with the air tanks. If we eliminated the so called heat loss in the transfer, would we end up with 70.7psi in each tank with a direct transfer?? Well where did the extra air mass weight come from to do such?? ;)
Now, we didnt do anything, as in usable work during the transfer of each example. So in a way, 'they' can say that resistance within the transfer creates heat(work) and that it is a loss, if heat is not the desired outcome. But to me thats just an odd reasoning to explain why we didnt get 7.07v in each cap. There are only so many excess electrons in the full cap, and that number is equal to the total of both caps excess electrons after full transfer. When I say excess electrons, it is just an example of the charge difference between the + and - plates.. Could be called electron imbalance of + and- plates. Just easier to say excess electrons. You get what Im saying. ;)
The real loss is pressure. Sharing a full tank with an empty tank reduces the original pressure into twice the volume(2 tanks). The amount of energy it took to fill the full tank to 100psi is more than it would take to fill a tank of twice the volume to 50psi.
Now we do a cap to cap transfer using an inductor between them and we cut off the source cap at 7.07v. The inductor is charged at cutoff and with a diode freewheels its stored energy into the second cap that was already charging during the inductor charge up. If the diode were 0v drop, we would end with 7.07v in each cap.....
Now again, if we count the number of total excess electrons, do we have more total excess electrons in the 2 caps than we started with in the source cap?? Yes! Where did they come from? They came from the + side of the receiving cap forced into the - side of the receiving cap via the inductor discharge. They were pumped from the + side of the receiving cap to the - side by the collapsing filed of the inductor.
Same with the air tank. If we use the air motor/pump with a flywheel, and we cut off the source tank at 70.7psi, then let the flywheel pump in 'outside air' into the receiving tank, we end up with a total of more total air weight mass in the tanks. More than we started with in the source tank. ;) ;) ;)
So to me saying that we lost half the energy of the source cap via resistance heat losses by letting the 10v charge of one cap simply expand into another identical cap ending up with 5v each doesnt make a lot of sense. It was stupid losses in my book.
Now. The real question is why 'they' explain the loss as a resistance heat loss when it simply doesnt seem to be the case? What is it that may be hidden in that riddle? ;)
Mags
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg483071#msg483071 date=1462464689]
MileHigh
It's pure sleaze for you to pose a question and then pull a bait and switch where you draw extra air into the destination tank with a venturi without stating that in the first place. You have no shame and you were too lazy or sleazy to even define the question properly.
Another lie.
I stated-as mag's did,that no potential energy is lost during the tank to tank transfer.
After !yes-after! that statement,i added the venturi into the equation--after MH--after.
And I will concede that you are most likely correct about the standard air tank test and I am wrong.
Yes you are.
This is a setup where the environment itself exchanges energy both ways with the two air tanks whereas for two capacitors there is a one-way exchange of energy with the environment, the heat is considered lost.
With the capacitors,the missing energy is dissipated as heat--not lost to heat,and as radiation.
When the pressurized tank is discharged into the empty air tank, energy is lost to heat in the valve, the pressurized tank does work on the unpressurized tank, the pressurized tank draws heat from the environment, and the unpressurized tank starts to put heat into the environment. So this is a thermodynamic problem and accounting for everything is pretty tricky when this is not your forte (like me). I was silly by forgetting about the thermodynamic angle and the energy exchange with the environment.
As soon as the pressure starts to drop in tank A,it will start to draw in environmental heat energy. As soon as tank B starts to pressurize,it will start to dissipate the same amount of heat energy to the environment.
As the tests were carried out within a 5 second period,and the tanks were insulated against environmental heat gains and losses,the tests can be considered an isolated test from any environmental impacts or energy factors.
<<< When the same tests were carried out with the venturi in play,the results showed an increase of 16% of stored potential energy in the two tanks. >>>
Perhaps, but now you are playing in the big leagues and you can't cherry pick if you are going to be thorough. Energy had to be taken out of the external environment to do that, so there is no real energy gain.
And that there is a horses ass understanding of what just took place. The energy from the environment did not just fall into the tank by itself. The energy stored in tank A is what was responsible for the energy increase. The energy in tank A did work against the environmental energy available outside of the DUT,and it did it without loss.
I am not even going to try to work out the specifics for the two tanks and will take your word for it. I would not even consider the venturi example, it's just a stupid bait and switch on your part.
You dont have to try and work it out,as MarkE already done this.
The only reason you say it is a bait and switch bluff,is because you got it wrong,and you done your slim pickings from each post i made,jumbled them around(as you do often),and once again lied about what i stated.
It just happened again, yes. But you seriously would not want to have an independent audit of errors in this thread made by both of us. Because of your OCD, your head would explode if all of your errors were pointed out to you. For Christ's sake, you read your own quote with a jarring spelling mistake and five minutes later you forgot that fact or it didn't even register in your brain that you had read your own quote. So you end up accusing me of your own spelling mistake - five minutes after you read your own mistake!
I thought you were here to correct all my spelling mistake's,as it seems to bother you greatly.
Were you able to read the text in that picture i posted?.
I did not lie and it's not my fault that your brain cannot process information properly and understand what I stated in my posting.
No MH,your postings have been quite clear,and you quite clearly stated that half of the potential energy stored in tank A would be lost during the transfer to tank B.
You are wrong--again.
How is your answer to your question coming along?. The one about the ideal inductor and ideal voltage.?.
Brad
-
Indeed John,
Lots of changes with those things over the years.
Don't forget that according to the law of conservation of energy there can only ever be unity,, no over and no under.
When Brad opens the system up to the outside environment,, then there is another input potential added. The gain comes from the unit quantity of air stored within the fixed volume of the tanks.
hint to MH :)
That is correct.
And the environmental energy drawn into the system was due to the stored energy in tank A-the pressurized tank at the start of the test,and it was drawn into the system without loss,and resulted in a gain of potential energy.
Can i claim the OU prize now? :D
What if i can raise 10KGs of weight 1 meter, using only 70 joules of energy?--could i claim the OU prize then ;D,as we would then have close to 100 joules of potential energy stored in that raised 10KG weight. ;)
Brad
-
<<< With the capacitors,the missing energy is dissipated as heat--not lost to heat,and as radiation. >>>
That has got to be about the 500th inane and ridiculous reply from you. Go see your doctor and get Thesaurus injections.
<<< How is your answer to your question coming along? >>>
Fully answered in post #2372, unless you are really the scarecrow.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg483071#msg483071 date=1462464689]
MileHigh
Another lie.
I stated-as mag's did,that no potential energy is lost during the tank to tank transfer.
After !yes-after! that statement,i added the venturi into the equation--after MH--after.
Yes you are.
With the capacitors,the missing energy is dissipated as heat--not lost to heat,and as radiation.
As soon as the pressure starts to drop in tank A,it will start to draw in environmental heat energy. As soon as tank B starts to pressurize,it will start to dissipate the same amount of heat energy to the environment.
As the tests were carried out within a 5 second period,and the tanks were insulated against environmental heat gains and losses,the tests can be considered an isolated test from any environmental impacts or energy factors.
And that there is a horses ass understanding of what just took place. The energy from the environment did not just fall into the tank by itself. The energy stored in tank A is what was responsible for the energy increase. The energy in tank A did work against the environmental energy available outside of the DUT,and it did it without loss.
You dont have to try and work it out,as MarkE already done this.
The only reason you say it is a bait and switch bluff,is because you got it wrong,and you done your slim pickings from each post i made,jumbled them around(as you do often),and once again lied about what i stated.
I thought you were here to correct all my spelling mistake's,as it seems to bother you greatly.
Were you able to read the text in that picture i posted?.
No MH,your postings have been quite clear,and you quite clearly stated that half of the potential energy stored in tank A would be lost during the transfer to tank B.
You are wrong--again.
How is your answer to your question coming along?. The one about the ideal inductor and ideal voltage.?.
Brad
"With the capacitors,the missing energy is dissipated as heat--not lost to heat,and as radiation."
I can agree that there is heat created via a cap to cap transfer. But I believe that heat is due to the high current flow, and the resultant equalization of full cap to empty cap IS the reason for the energy loss. We have let the high pressure convert to a low pressure haphazardly. If there were no heat developed in any way, there would still be half the source energy in the total of the 2 equalized caps. If the caps were superconductive, would the energy in the 2 caps equal the energy of full one before the transfer? ;) ;) ;) ;D Think on it a bit. Not saying Im right and your wrong. Just trying to get my view understood. ;) Asking questions to see what you think. ;D
"As the tests were carried out within a 5 second period,and the tanks were insulated against environmental heat gains and losses,the tests can be considered an isolated test from any environmental impacts or energy factors."
Did you do a tank to tank test? If so I must have missed it. What is the outcome in pressure of the full tank and the results of each tank once equalized?
Mags
-
I must be missing something because this has been a long interesting discussion I started reading when the subject was on the JT transistor switching at low mV but the cap to cap and air tank to tank metaphor seem to be more of an impossibly hypothetical situation.
The discharge of electricity as we know still deals with resistance, which is just an extremity and different label for capacitance and conductance in a way. When you discharge a cap into another cap, the losses seem to occur in not only the resistance in the actual conductors flowing the current from cap to cap, but the 'spark', and initial visualization of that resistance being that this current is moving at the speed of electricity. Once that initial connection is made, should that high amount of amperage persists over time, the conductors of course could heat up. Seems like a normal 'ideal'-ized argument.
If an air tank were to discharge into another air tank, we are dealing with an entirely different set of physics altogether aren't we? It's definitely an interesting thought about having some type of turbine driven by the pressurized air, which is not lost in the process but contained in another tank until equalized, requiring no extra energy added to the system to facilitate this process and have the turbine still spin which could be considered taking advantage of passing energy.
However there's still a great deal of energy that was required to pressurize that first tank.
All kinds of losses surely occur during the transfer of that pressure from one stressed metal container to another, along with the switch/valve, just like in electronic circuits.
Motorizing that pressure during it's release seems to only be going in reverse, since you are providing a back pressure that is ultimately working against the energy you transferred motoring the pressure into the tank in the first place.
Anywho to compare that with a capacitor discharge into another capacitor does seem like a very similar kind of situation except now my brain is hurting trying to figure out what would happen if that air could travel at the speed of light initially while trying to equalize. would it 'backspike' at some point? lol
-
I don't understand your argument mags, re. the cap to cap discharge.
An ideal cap discharged into another ideal cap of equal value would yield half the energy in each, i.e. no energy loss. However, there would be an infinite initial current that would tear a hole through space-time. :o Unfortunately, we can not have an ideal 'anything', so there is always a finite resistance in the connecting conductors, no matter how small, and it is there where half the energy is lost.
If you insert a high Q inductor between them, you can approach a lossless transfer.
-
I don't understand your argument mags, re. the cap to cap discharge.
An ideal cap discharged into another ideal cap of equal value would yield half the energy in each, i.e. no energy loss. However, there would be an infinite initial current that would tear a hole through space-time. :o Unfortunately, we can not have an ideal 'anything', so there is always a finite resistance in the connecting conductors, no matter how small, and it is there where half the energy is lost.
If you insert a high Q inductor between them, you can approach a lossless transfer.
Hey Poynt
Its just something that clicks in the back of my mind a lot. The back of my mind may not be correct, but the clicks keep coming. :o ;D
Say if we have a capacitor of particular value capacitance, and we have no charge. Zero. Now if we charge that cap to 10.0000v, cant we actually say there is a particular number of electrons taken from that positive and the same amount added to the negative in order for there to be a 10.0000v potential in that cap? For example, using imaginary numbers that for the cap to have 10.0000v there needs to be 1 million electrons taken from the positive and 1 million added to the negative. Wouldnt those numbers stand every time we charge that cap to 10.0000v?
Soo, if we did that cap to cap transfer to 5.0000v each, wouldnt there be only 5 million count missing from each positive plates and 5 million count plus electrons on the negative plates, all vs caps with no charge?
So with that said, if we can associate and determine the voltage charge in the cap if we're able to count the electron differential between the positive and negative plates, then we will always have half the differential in each cap as we did in the 10.0000v source cap to begin with doing a direct cap to cap transfer. So how, how is it possible to end up with 7.07v in each cap by direct transfer in theoretical superconducting capacitors, connections and switch, etc? Wouldnt there need to be some electrons added to the circuit in order for that to happen???? 7.07 million differential???
Isnt it odd when you think of it that way? Thats why I like the air tank analogy because the psi (at particular temp) can be determined by how many air atoms, to say, are pumped into the tank in the same way we can look at caps. So if the air tanks were to do a direct tank to tank transfer till equalized, how could we start with 100psi in the source tank and end up with 70.7psi in each when done? Eliminate losses, and how did we get the extra air atoms/molecules that we didnt start with?
May sound nutty to others, but to me it sounds correct. Maybe you guys can help me understand this. But I think its going to be a tough cookie to bake. ;D
I hope that what Im saying here makes sense. :o ??? ::) ;D I reread it a couple times. Its as good as I can put it to ya. ;D
Mags
-
I must be missing something because this has been a long interesting discussion I started reading when the subject was on the JT transistor switching at low mV but the cap to cap and air tank to tank metaphor seem to be more of an impossibly hypothetical situation.
The discharge of electricity as we know still deals with resistance, which is just an extremity and different label for capacitance and conductance in a way. When you discharge a cap into another cap, the losses seem to occur in not only the resistance in the actual conductors flowing the current from cap to cap, but the 'spark', and initial visualization of that resistance being that this current is moving at the speed of electricity. Once that initial connection is made, should that high amount of amperage persists over time, the conductors of course could heat up. Seems like a normal 'ideal'-ized argument.
If an air tank were to discharge into another air tank, we are dealing with an entirely different set of physics altogether aren't we? It's definitely an interesting thought about having some type of turbine driven by the pressurized air, which is not lost in the process but contained in another tank until equalized, requiring no extra energy added to the system to facilitate this process and have the turbine still spin which could be considered taking advantage of passing energy.
However there's still a great deal of energy that was required to pressurize that first tank.
All kinds of losses surely occur during the transfer of that pressure from one stressed metal container to another, along with the switch/valve, just like in electronic circuits.
Motorizing that pressure during it's release seems to only be going in reverse, since you are providing a back pressure that is ultimately working against the energy you transferred motoring the pressure into the tank in the first place.
Anywho to compare that with a capacitor discharge into another capacitor does seem like a very similar kind of situation except now my brain is hurting trying to figure out what would happen if that air could travel at the speed of light initially while trying to equalize. would it 'backspike' at some point? lol
"If an air tank were to discharge into another air tank, we are dealing with an entirely different set of physics altogether aren't we?"
Are we dealing with a different set of physics? Read my previous post above this one.
Mags
-
Magluvin:
So with that said, if we can associate and determine the voltage charge in the cap if we're able to count the electron differential between the positive and negative plates, then we will always have half the differential in each cap as we did in the 10.0000v source cap to begin with doing a direct cap to cap transfer. So how, how is it possible to end up with 7.07v in each cap by direct transfer in theoretical superconducting capacitors, connections and switch, etc? Wouldnt there need to be some electrons added to the circuit in order for that to happen?(http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)) 7.07 million differential???
Isnt it odd when you think of it that way? Thats why I like the air tank analogy because the psi (at particular temp) can be determined by how many air atoms, to say, are pumped into the tank in the same way we can look at caps. So if the air tanks were to do a direct tank to tank transfer till equalized, how could we start with 100psi in the source tank and end up with 70.7psi in each when done? Eliminate losses, and how did we get the extra air atoms/molecules that we didnt start with?
There is an answer to the conundrum with ideal electrical components. We do have to add the ideal diode, but what you missed was the impossibly infinitely fast switching function. I will explain but first let's go back to the air tanks.
In the air tank example, and in fact using an unreal model where we ignore temperature for a second and have idealized components, when one tank discharges into the other tank, that spins up an ideal flywheel pump. So you can set it up such that when the first tank drops to 70.7 psi, you then stop the air flow out of the first tank, and then the ideal flywheel pump takes over and pumps extra air into the second tank so that it also reaches 70.7 psi and therefore no energy is lost. The net result is no energy was lost and extra air was pumped into the second tank by the ideal flywheel pump.
So, let's do that with ideal capacitors and ideal diodes and an ideal switch.
As Poynt said, an ideal capacitor connecting to an ideal capacitor is a no-no. You were absolutely right though about the conundrum of "missing" electrons to get to 7.07 volts in each cap.
If you have two ideal caps, and an ideal inductor connecting between them, that is a manageable situation with no ripping of space-time. In this case, Cap A discharges into Cap B via the coil and the charge goes back and forth forever. There are no extra electrons and there is never a condition with 7.07 volts in each cap. The best you can get is this in terms of equal voltage something like 5 volts in each cap, and current flowing through the coil. I am not saying it has to be 5 volts in each cap either, just an equal voltage in each cap. The coil discharges into Cap B and stops discharging when Cap A has zero volts and Cap B has 10 volts. Then the whole process reverses. During that infinite back-and-forth cycle there will be an instant in time where there is an equal voltage in each cap and the "missing" energy is in the coil.
I will do another post to explain the two caps with 7.07 volts each.
MileHigh
-
@Mag
you know it's definitely interesting thinking about it, I just don't get how it could mathematically be worked out that there is some gain when placing a charged capacitor in parallel with a discharged capacitor. The air tank analogy is definitely similar, but I don't think we can say that a battery, or capacitor, or any electrical power 'source' is under the same kind of pressure. it's actually a good analogy for voltage I guess, like water pressure in pipes, but when the charged caps plates coalesce with the neutral cap isn't it just a balancing-out transference at electron speed, and not the result of some form of actual pressure like that of air? when it comes to counting electrons, isn't the 'empty' cap more like a container that already has electrons in it just like the empty tank has air in it before being fed pressurized air from another tank? In ideal terms where we have a 100% transference of electrical energy from one place to another then it seems like we answered our own question. If we are talking about a current flow happening between one cap to another, and assuming there is 0 resistance, then if we're going with the flow and also assuming current will actually pass over 0 resistance in the real world then I don't think a 10v cap would have to balance out to 5v to have 'equalized the pressure' so to speak.
-
Hi Poynt, "If you insert a high Q inductor between them, you can approach a lossless transfer."
I don't know what "high Q" is, but I have 10 mot coils wired in series, that when I discharge one cap through them to turn a mag rotor , which puts voltage back in , it also sends almost all of its voltage to the cap at the other end.
Then discharge that cap and it sends almost all of its voltage back to the first one.
The numbers go down slowly, but that is only using two points, with those ten coils there are eleven points that can be used.
Hi Mags,"I hope that what Im saying here makes sense. I reread it a couple times. Its as good as I can put it to ya."
To me your halfway there you just have to go a little deeper.
artv
-
Okay, so now let's discuss an ideal situation where we end up with 7.07 volts in each cap. It's going to be essentially identical to the case with the simplified model of the air tanks and the ideal flywheel pump pumping in extra air molecules.
Assume Cap A has discharged to 7.07 volts. You know that current is still flowing, and therefore there is energy in the ideal coil connected between the two ideal caps, and there is also some energy in Cap B. Like I said before, we don't need to know the size of the coil, or the amount of current flow, or the voltage in Cap B. The most critical thing is that we are at the instant in time were Cap A is at 7.07 volts.
So what we have to do is instantly change the configuration of the circuit at this instant in time to realize the goal of 7.07 volts in each cap.
So the new configuration is this: Cap A is completely disconnected from the circuit, and the inductor is across Cap B only with an ideal diode.
So what will happen is that the inductor will discharge all of its energy into Cap B and you end up with 7.07 volts in Cap B. That is the "ideal flywheel air pump." The ideal inductor supplies the extra electrons. You have to remember that an ideal inductor can supply an infinite amount of electrons into a zero ohm load. So in effect the ideal inductor "pumps up" Cap B to 7.07 volts.
Of course, we did an "impossible switching event" where we reconfigured the circuit and put the inductor across Cap B to make this all happen. Such is the beauty of a thought experiment using ideal components. The critical point being that you need extra electrons to reach 7.07 volts and the inductor supplies them by sucking them off of one plate and depositing them on the other plate.
It's also worth noting that without this "trick" then you can never get 7.07 volts across each cap. Even in the ideal case we are discussing, charge has to be conserved.
MileHigh
-
MH,
thought it interesting to know MarkE's take on air tank.
Can't do quotes, you'll have to look at Re Rosch that I posted
earlier.
Tinman struggles with fundamentals!
John.
-
Hi MH, But what about the magnet rotor that is already inducing electron flow in the coil before we even discharge the cap?
artv
-
Chet you are not even at the table, you are calling some new fake-ass nutcase that wants to suck money from gullible people.
I am blaming YOU. Johan, you should apologize to me and to everyone on this forum for your absolutely disgusting behaviour. You have some nerve posting that picture and trying to make a comparison to me. You are disgusting and you should apologize.
Some time again. Can you back up your remarks from here above, this about:
1- new:
2- fake-ass:
3- suck money from gullible people:
Regards, Johan
-
Johan, that's a new fake-ass posting from you and I am still waiting for you to apologize to me and to everyone on this forum for your disgusting behaviour.
-
Hi MH, But what about the magnet rotor that is already inducing electron flow in the coil before we even discharge the cap?
artv
Sorry, I am not really sure what you are talking about.
-
MH,
thought it interesting to know MarkE's take on air tank.
Can't do quotes, you'll have to look at Re Rosch that I posted
earlier.
Tinman struggles with fundamentals!
John.
Yes I looked at MarkE's quote. I think is very easy for people to overreact to the issue of drawing heat from the the atmosphere. You have good old Aaron that says a heat pump is an over unity device. On the other hand, the atmosphere and the ground represent a near-infinite source or sink of heat, a "heat ground" and if you can take advantage of it then why not go for it.
-
<<< With the capacitors,the missing energy is dissipated as heat--not lost to heat,and as radiation. >>>
That has got to be about the 500th inane and ridiculous reply from you. Go see your doctor and get Thesaurus injections.
<<< How is your answer to your question coming along? >>>
Fully answered in post #2372, unless you are really the scarecrow.
That is your answer to your coil question ?
This is it :o lol
Well it has now become very plain to see that you are the epic failure others claim you to be.
It is very clear that you had no right to judge EMJ and Wattsup--you are a total disaster MH.
I knew right from the start that you could not answer your own question--you are a fraud.
Brad
-
That is your answer to your coil question ?
This is it :o lol
Well it has now become very plain to see that you are the epic failure others claim you to be.
It is very clear that you had no right to judge EMJ and Wattsup--you are a total disaster MH.
I knew right from the start that you could not answer your own question--you are a fraud.
Brad
No jackass, you're the fraud. The people that are in the know, they know that I can easily answer it. Many other readers of this forum know that I can answer it just from reading me. You yourself even know that I can answer it. It's only the fact that you have degenerated into a psycho Mr. Hyde that you persist in making a fool of yourself by pretending that I can't answer it while you inadvertently make a jackass spectacle of yourself.
You are a fraud, a bad actor on a stage. It's ridiculous. You are showing how screwed up you are in the head.
I asked people if they wanted to try to answer a question and they accepted the challenge. You agreed to try the wineglass questions. Nothing was forced on anybody.
And here you are like some pathetic clown jumping through hoops trying to force me to answer a question that I never wanted to ask, never agreed to answer, and I am not going to answer.
And behind all of this is the fact that you can't answer it, and that makes you mad. Just like you couldn't answer the two wine glass questions. And the ironic thing is that you are sitting in front of your computer and if you really wanted to answer it you could, just do the bloody work yourself. You have gone six years on the bench playing with coils without understanding how a coil works, you may as well go for seven.
Stop this nonsense and if you want the answer figure it out for yourself or ask somebody else for a spoon-feeding session.
MileHigh
-
MH,
thought it interesting to know MarkE's take on air tank.
Can't do quotes, you'll have to look at Re Rosch that I posted
earlier.
Tinman struggles with fundamentals!
John.
Minnie struggles with finding the correct thread--but anyway.
Quote from MarkE : You need to take your experiment to the end. Generate enough work to return to your starting state with even just a scintilla left over. Then you will have something remarkable. What your apparatus does is move energy. Some of that energy moved is from the local atmosphere. Such is the operation of a heat pump. If you are intent on staying warm or trying to cool off, heat pumps can be very useful devices. If you are intent on performing kinetic work, they don't help. It seems that the only way that you will learn is to take your experiments to their logical conclusion where you compare useful work done.
I guessed you missed the rest of the experiment,where i did indeed show the system doing useful work without loss of energy.
If you find the correct thread,you may see where MarkE him self did the calculation's.
His reply to my results from the 5 venturi tests was this-->Brad . This makes no sense,as the calculated results equate to 110% efficiency.
The calculated results when the venturi was replaced with the air ram setup was 133% efficient.
The extra energy comes from the environment,and is drawn or pumped into the system via the stored energy in tank A at no loss.
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg483150#msg483150 date=1462538048]
MileHigh
I stand by my claim MH--you cannot answer your own question.
You say the people you asked the question to,could not answer it,and you have been bellowing out this distorted victory in many threads,trying to drag there names through the mud.
I asked people if they wanted to try to answer a question and they accepted the challenge. You agreed to try the wineglass questions. Nothing was forced on anybody.
Now all you have to do,is prove they were wrong by providing the correct answer--this is a scientific requirement when making a claim-->you claim they are wrong.
No jackass, you're the fraud.
I see the bad language is returning MH ::)
The people that are in the know, they know that I can easily answer it. Many other readers of this forum know that I can answer it just from reading me.
Rubbish.
Anyone that has read this thread,will now know that your not all that.
You yourself even know that I can answer it.
Another lie. How could you know what im thinking,or think.
The truth is,i know you cannot answer it correctly--feel free to prove me wrong--but you wont,because you cant.
It's only the fact that you have degenerated into a psycho Mr. Hyde that you persist in making a fool of yourself by pretending that I can't answer it while you inadvertently make a jackass spectacle of yourself.
MH.
It is you that has had your knickers in a twist ever since i proved you wrong about resonant systems in and around the ICE,that improves both efficiency and performance of that engine.
I see the name calling is also increasing. ::)
You are a fraud, a bad actor on a stage. It's ridiculous. You are showing how screwed up you are in the head.
You have that backwards MH. You are the fraud,and that is very clear now.
And here you are like some pathetic clown jumping through hoops trying to force me to answer a question that I never wanted to ask, never agreed to answer, and I am not going to answer.
A question you never wanted to ask lol. What a load of rubbish MH. As soon as some one dose not agree with you,you start with your little MH quiz night question's,hoping you can catch them out,and make your self look great.
Well this time you have fallen into your own hole. It's not that you will not answer your own question,it's the fact that you cant.
And behind all of this is the fact that you can't answer it, and that makes you mad. Just like you couldn't answer the two wine glass questions. And the ironic thing is that you are sitting in front of your computer and if you really wanted to answer it you could, just do the bloody work yourself. You have gone six years on the bench playing with coils without understanding how a coil works, you may as well go for seven.
The fact is MH, i never stated that i could answer the question,but that dose not mean i cant.
The biggest fact here is that you cant answer the question your self--and that's a fact.
Stop this nonsense and if you want the answer figure it out for yourself or ask somebody else for a spoon-feeding session.
Lol-Run Forrest-run.
Brad
-
Brad,
Keep making a fool of yourself. There are two differential equations and two integral equations that describe how capacitors and inductors work and I have discussed them literally hundreds of times.
MileHigh
-
Mags,
Can the number of electrons transferred be directly equated to the end voltage?
The energy stored in a capacitor is proportional to the square of the voltage, so perhaps that is something throwing many people off.
-
I think MarkE meant what he said "Brad,this makes no sense" he's inferring
that it's nonsense.
I may not be clever enough to insert a quote,I'm an old farmer but I can
recognise a pile of s... when I see one.
The commercial boys can get fifty odd percent and they're definitely not daft.
With 133% you'll soon be raking in millions.
John.
-
Hmm. Ok, maybe Im not conveying the issue well enough. Will be back in a couple hours to see if I can make more sense of it for you guys. I talked to a guy at work about this for about 5 min. He gets what Im saying. Lets see if we can do that here.
I see a new thread that is possibly almost on this subject. If so then maybe we can continue this there. Gunna look and gotta git for a bit.
Im not going to get into argument mode with this. Stress is not good for anybody. ;) Just a good, civil debate is all I want out of this. :)
Mags
-
I think MarkE meant what he said "Brad,this makes no sense" he's inferring
that it's nonsense.
I may not be clever enough to insert a quote,I'm an old farmer but I can
recognise a pile of s... when I see one.
The commercial boys can get fifty odd percent and they're definitely not daft.
With 133% you'll soon be raking in millions.
John.
John
Why do you find it so hard to understand that energy can be drawn in from the environment. This is not some sort of !OU! event,this is every day science. How is it different than a solar panel producing a DC current from the energy of the sun.
As i said,i can easily show this,and it is replicable by most anyone here on this forum that has some degree of mechanical skill,and some simple tools.
It would seem that you have once again turned,only because of that you do not understand.
The venturi is a simple device that draws in environmental energy--nothing more,and when this energy is used to do work,it is returned right back where it came from.
Get MH to answer his own question correctly--the one he judged other forum members on,and i will re-assemble the device,and show you how it works.
Brad
-
Brad,
Keep making a fool of yourself. There are two differential equations and two integral equations that describe how capacitors and inductors work and I have discussed them literally hundreds of times.
MileHigh
Im not interested in your capacitors.
Im interested in you answering your own question about the ideal inductor meets an ideal voltage,
The only one making a fool of them self is you MH,as your attempt to avoid answering your own question shows exactly the type of person you are--a fraud.
Brad
-
Brad:
Still hung up on this nonsense are you?
Here is the question:
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
The question is what happens starting at t = 0
Let's change it up and make it more difficult, and revamp the question:
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. The voltage source waveform is 20*t^2. So as the time t increases, the voltage increases proportional to the square of the time.
The question is what happens starting at t = 0
The answer:
The current through the ideal coil starts from zero at time t = 0 and then increases with this formula: i = 1.33*t^3.
Time..........Voltage.........Current
0...............0.................0
1...............20...............1.33
5...............500.............166.67
10.............2000............1333.33
20.............8000............10666.67
50.............50000..........166666.7
There you go, harder question answered.
So why don't you go reassemble your device for John and even take a shot at the original question.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
Still hung up on this nonsense are you?
Here is the question:
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
The question is what happens starting at t = 0
Let's change it up and make it more difficult, and revamp the question:
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. The voltage source waveform is 20*t^2. So as the time t increases, the voltage increases proportional to the square of the time.
The question is what happens starting at t = 0
The answer:
The current through the ideal coil starts from zero at time t = 0 and then increases with this formula: i = 1.33*t^3.
Time..........Voltage.........Current
0...............0.................0
1...............20...............1.33
5...............500.............166.67
10.............2000............1333.33
20.............8000............10666.67
50.............50000..........166666.7
There you go, harder question answered.
So why don't you go reassemble your device for John and even take a shot at the original question.
MileHigh
And there you go.
I knew you could not answer the question correctly--you are way off.
Care to have another go MH?.
Some hints for you.
1-An ideal voltage is one that dose not change in selected value.
2-An ideal inductor has no resistance nor capacitance.
3-What is the current value of 1 volt across a resister with a value of 0 ohms ?.
Brad
-
And there you go.
I knew you could not answer the question correctly--you are way off.
Care to have another go MH?.
Some hints for you.
1-An ideal voltage is one that dose not change in selected value.
2-An ideal inductor has no resistance nor capacitance.
3-What is the current value of 1 volt across a resister with a value of 0 ohms ?.
Brad
I am not sure what to say, I am not sure you correctly processed what I posted. Perhaps try again tomorrow when the neurons will be firing differently?
<<< 1-An ideal voltage is one that dose not change in selected value. >>>
After six years you are lucky that you still have people that want to work with you and make attempts to help you.
-
It's all got a bit too George Carlin methinks.
John.
-
Magluvin:
There is an answer to the conundrum with ideal electrical components. We do have to add the ideal diode, but what you missed was the impossibly infinitely fast switching function. I will explain but first let's go back to the air tanks.
In the air tank example, and in fact using an unreal model where we ignore temperature for a second and have idealized components, when one tank discharges into the other tank, that spins up an ideal flywheel pump. So you can set it up such that when the first tank drops to 70.7 psi, you then stop the air flow out of the first tank, and then the ideal flywheel pump takes over and pumps extra air into the second tank so that it also reaches 70.7 psi and therefore no energy is lost. The net result is no energy was lost and extra air was pumped into the second tank by the ideal flywheel pump.
So, let's do that with ideal capacitors and ideal diodes and an ideal switch.
As Poynt said, an ideal capacitor connecting to an ideal capacitor is a no-no. You were absolutely right though about the conundrum of "missing" electrons to get to 7.07 volts in each cap.
If you have two ideal caps, and an ideal inductor connecting between them, that is a manageable situation with no ripping of space-time. In this case, Cap A discharges into Cap B via the coil and the charge goes back and forth forever. There are no extra electrons and there is never a condition with 7.07 volts in each cap. The best you can get is this in terms of equal voltage something like 5 volts in each cap, and current flowing through the coil. I am not saying it has to be 5 volts in each cap either, just an equal voltage in each cap. The coil discharges into Cap B and stops discharging when Cap A has zero volts and Cap B has 10 volts. Then the whole process reverses. During that infinite back-and-forth cycle there will be an instant in time where there is an equal voltage in each cap and the "missing" energy is in the coil.
I will do another post to explain the two caps with 7.07 volts each.
MileHigh
Ok. Thought about what it is I need to say to show my reasoning..... At least you said " You were absolutely right though about the conundrum of "missing" electrons to get to 7.07 volts in each cap." ;D
What I had gotten from this discussion way back was that when we discharge a full cap into an empty directly, we lose half the energy 'because' of resistance. I frown on that. I can agree that some heat will occur because of the resistance and very high current flow during the transfer, but I fail to see that the heat generated caused the loss.
Like the ideal scheme. If we had 2 ideal caps, super conductive to say, one at 10uf at 10v, and the other at 10uf 0v, and we do the dump, Im wondering why there would be an unfathomable explosion or what ever when we hit the superconducting switch. In fact, there should be no heat generated at all with ideal caps and switch because there is no resistance. ;) So if it says so in the book, Id like to read that book. ;)
Now furthermore, if we have 2 ideal caps and dump the 10v cap to the 0v cap, there still should still be 5v each, considering the electron count measurements I described earlier. It seems the 'loss due to resistance' is made up for unknown reasons and we are just suppose to agree. Well I cannot. Unless, whom ever made that statement back then 'meant' the energy lost is equal to the heat generated. But then there is still the blame on the resistance for the loss. ??? So what Im saying is, it isnt the 'resistance that causes the loss', it is the fact that we expanded the electrical pressure into a larger container haphazardly, with which in the end, we wind up with only half of the usable energy. The energy wasnt simply used up as heat. it was reduced by letting the pressure change value and containment size get larger, and heat was generated because of the resistance.
So the energy that we lost in the transfer and equalization was due to stupidity of doing so by not using the flow of pressure from one cap to the other. Dumb, stupid, ridiculous thing to do. ;D
This may be showing that conservation of energy may not be all its cracked up to be. ;) None of us(I dont believe) have ideal caps or switches or even inductors to test this. We are just told it is so. So there is no real reason why it cannot be questioned in such that I have.
Sure we can say that if we use an ideal inductor and ideal diode that we could convert all the energy from the 10v ideal cap to another 0v ideal cap and say that it would be a 100%transfer. But we can just about do that now with regular components, and eliminating the diode and replacing it with timed switching like I did in sim. Even with all the crappy resistance in the caps, the wires, the inductor and switches, we can come damn close to full transfer. So it leaves me to think that if the superconductor components are so superior, then why might we only be gaining that little bit we lost with the regular components? Maybe it can do better than that?? How would we know without access to these components. The best thing Ive seen with super conductors is we can float them above a magnet as long as we keep it super chilled. Probably wasting more energy chilling the thing than it would take to levitate a normal object of the same weight.
So really what Im looking for is the answer to the conundrum that you actually agree with me on. If you and I can agree that we cannot produce 2 caps with 7.07v each from a 10v cap 'by direct dump', then where would we lose half of the source cap energy in an ideal scenario by doing a direct cap to cap equalization? No heat. Where did it go? ;) ;) ;) ;D Excluding using an inductor and diode/timed switching, as it is another subject I will bring up after this cap to cap deal.
Mags
-
Mags,
Can the number of electrons transferred be directly equated to the end voltage?
The energy stored in a capacitor is proportional to the square of the voltage, so perhaps that is something throwing many people off.
"Can the number of electrons transferred be directly equated to the end voltage?"
If you have a cap and charge it to 10.0000000000000000000000000000v, exactly 10v, do you believe that the number of electron differential between the + and - plates will be different each time you charge it to exactly 10v? If so, what variance would you expect and what would be the cause of this, 'all' else being equal? If it were a 10uf cap at 10v, is it possible that no electrons were pulled from the + plate and no electrons pumped into the - plate? Is it possible that no electrons moved in charging that 10uf cap to 10v from 0v?
Isnt it the taking of electrons from the + plate that makes it have a positive charge, and the addition of electrons to the - plate that makes it a negative charge?
I dont want to get into it that we could simply pump electrons into the - plate without taking from the + plate and still get 10v. In what we are discussing there should be fair trade off of electrons from plate to plate till the 2 caps are of equal voltage.
Id really like to hear your version of this. ;D
Mags
-
@Mag
you know it's definitely interesting thinking about it, I just don't get how it could mathematically be worked out that there is some gain when placing a charged capacitor in parallel with a discharged capacitor. The air tank analogy is definitely similar, but I don't think we can say that a battery, or capacitor, or any electrical power 'source' is under the same kind of pressure. it's actually a good analogy for voltage I guess, like water pressure in pipes, but when the charged caps plates coalesce with the neutral cap isn't it just a balancing-out transference at electron speed, and not the result of some form of actual pressure like that of air? when it comes to counting electrons, isn't the 'empty' cap more like a container that already has electrons in it just like the empty tank has air in it before being fed pressurized air from another tank? In ideal terms where we have a 100% transference of electrical energy from one place to another then it seems like we answered our own question. If we are talking about a current flow happening between one cap to another, and assuming there is 0 resistance, then if we're going with the flow and also assuming current will actually pass over 0 resistance in the real world then I don't think a 10v cap would have to balance out to 5v to have 'equalized the pressure' so to speak.
" I just don't get how it could mathematically be worked out that there is some gain when placing a charged"
I havnt said there was gain. Yet. ;D
"The air tank analogy is definitely similar, but I don't think we can say that a battery, or capacitor, or any electrical power 'source' is under the same kind of pressure. it's actually a good analogy for voltage I guess,"
A cap yes, battery no. If the cap remains in perfect shape, it should always give accurate calculable results.
If we had an air tank that was so small that we could only pump in say 100 max atoms of oxygen, then there must be a determined psi for each number atoms of oxygen added or subtracted from the tank. Like 1 atom would be say 1psi and 100 atoms be 100psi. So if we have a very tiny cap, each plate should be, if plates are exactly perfect/ideal, identical for the example, and equal number of electrons per plate at 0v potential, then if we take 1 electron from the + plate and add an electron to the - plate, there should be a voltage potential on the cap and it is considered charged to a particular potential. Now lets say that the 1 electron taken and 1 given produces .0001v between the 2 plates, and we then discharge the cap to 0 v and do it all over again, would we not each time we charged the cap in such a way, end up with .0001v, every time? If not, please explain why. ;) So with the cap to cap idea, there should be a number of electrons taken from the + plate and electrons added to the - plate in order to get exactly 10v. So isnt it logical that if we had a 10uf 10v cap and we were able to count the electron differential between the + and - plates, that when we do the direct cap to cap transfer that if we end up with 5v in each when done that there should be half the number count of electrons missing from the positve plates, and half the number count of electrons in abundance on the negative plates, as compared to the electron count number of the original 10uf 10v cap? ??? ? ;) ;) If not, lol, then again, please explain why.
" If we are talking about a current flow happening between one cap to another, and assuming there is 0 resistance, then if we're going with the flow and also assuming current will actually pass over 0 resistance in the real world then I don't think a 10v cap would have to balance out to 5v to have 'equalized the pressure' so to speak."
Ok, then how do you come to that conclusion figuring an electron differential number count as described above? If in your example above you start with 10v and end up with an alternative voltage compared to 5v in each cap when done, how can you explain the electron differential number count that determines that voltage? And if Im incorrect, then please explain why. But if you cannot, not beeing snooty, then why do you believe what you do? ;) Books? ;) ;D Pun intended. ;)
Mags
-
Ok. Thought about what it is I need to say to show my reasoning..... At least you said " You were absolutely right though about the conundrum of "missing" electrons to get to 7.07 volts in each cap." ;D
What I had gotten from this discussion way back was that when we discharge a full cap into an empty directly, we lose half the energy 'because' of resistance. I frown on that. I can agree that some heat will occur because of the resistance and very high current flow during the transfer, but I fail to see that the heat generated caused the loss.
Like the ideal scheme. If we had 2 ideal caps, super conductive to say, one at 10uf at 10v, and the other at 10uf 0v, and we do the dump, Im wondering why there would be an unfathomable explosion or what ever when we hit the superconducting switch. In fact, there should be no heat generated at all with ideal caps and switch because there is no resistance. ;) So if it says so in the book, Id like to read that book. ;)
Now furthermore, if we have 2 ideal caps and dump the 10v cap to the 0v cap, there still should still be 5v each, considering the electron count measurements I described earlier. It seems the 'loss due to resistance' is made up for unknown reasons and we are just suppose to agree. Well I cannot. Unless, whom ever made that statement back then 'meant' the energy lost is equal to the heat generated. But then there is still the blame on the resistance for the loss. ??? So what Im saying is, it isnt the 'resistance that causes the loss', it is the fact that we expanded the electrical pressure into a larger container haphazardly, with which in the end, we wind up with only half of the usable energy. The energy wasnt simply used up as heat. it was reduced by letting the pressure change value and containment size get larger, and heat was generated because of the resistance.
So the energy that we lost in the transfer and equalization was due to stupidity of doing so by not using the flow of pressure from one cap to the other. Dumb, stupid, ridiculous thing to do. ;D
This may be showing that conservation of energy may not be all its cracked up to be. ;) None of us(I dont believe) have ideal caps or switches or even inductors to test this. We are just told it is so. So there is no real reason why it cannot be questioned in such that I have.
Sure we can say that if we use an ideal inductor and ideal diode that we could convert all the energy from the 10v ideal cap to another 0v ideal cap and say that it would be a 100%transfer. But we can just about do that now with regular components, and eliminating the diode and replacing it with timed switching like I did in sim. Even with all the crappy resistance in the caps, the wires, the inductor and switches, we can come damn close to full transfer. So it leaves me to think that if the superconductor components are so superior, then why might we only be gaining that little bit we lost with the regular components? Maybe it can do better than that?? How would we know without access to these components. The best thing Ive seen with super conductors is we can float them above a magnet as long as we keep it super chilled. Probably wasting more energy chilling the thing than it would take to levitate a normal object of the same weight.
So really what Im looking for is the answer to the conundrum that you actually agree with me on. If you and I can agree that we cannot produce 2 caps with 7.07v each from a 10v cap 'by direct dump', then where would we lose half of the source cap energy in an ideal scenario by doing a direct cap to cap equalization? No heat. Where did it go? ;) ;) ;) ;D Excluding using an inductor and diode/timed switching, as it is another subject I will bring up after this cap to cap deal.
Mags
I should be able to shed some light on this subject. We often say "things go to infinity" whereas MarkE would use a more commonly used term in scientific parlance, "undefined." I will make use of both terms here.
Simple thought experiment for the real-world shorting one cap to the other and losing half the energy. If you use say a 100 kohm resistor say it takes five minutes for the two caps to be equal in voltage. (There is semi-related conundrum about the two caps "never" attaining the exact same voltage.) Then you switch to a 5 kohm resistor and it takes 30 seconds. Then a 100 ohm resistor and it takes two seconds.
Here is the simple conclusion: It doesn't matter what value of resistor you use you always lose half the energy. Hence when you short two caps together with "no resistor" you still lose half the energy.
Now for the ideal caps. You can't short one cap to the other because you get infinite current for zero seconds. In other words it is undefined. Ending up with the same voltage in each cap or 7.07 volts in each cap is a non-starter, because you can never get there. So let's switch to plan B and put the ideal inductor between the two ideal caps. Now the energy cycles back and forth between each cap forever. As you lower the value of the ideal inductor in an attempt to simulate a short with a value for zero for the inductance what happens? The cycling frequency gets higher and higher until it approaches an infinite cycling frequency as the value of the inductance goes to zero. One more time infinity crops up, and hence you can say the solution for a value of zero for the inductance is undefined.
Going back to losing half the energy for a real-world shorting of two caps together, you are over analyzing the situation. Voltage times current through the resistor equals heat power. So you convert energy stored in the electric field in the capacitor into heat energy. It's actually very mundane, nothing to do with expanding into a new capacitor or volume.
There is a good old visualization trick for this one. When the 10-volt cap is shorted to the 0-volt cap you lose half the energy and both caps are at 5 volts. You can visualize this like a totally inelastic collision. That simply means that energy is burnt off when two things collide. So imagine a stationary metal block being hit by a ball of putty with a velocity of 10 meters per second. After they hit they move together at 5 meters per second. Here is the thing: The ball off putty deformed when it hit and stuck to the metal block. The deformation process was resistive in nature, like bending a coat hanger, and therefore the metal block and the ball of putty heated up due to the collision. There is the signature of the resistive losses for the capacitor example.
Here is another way to look at the same thing: On an axle you have three things: A flywheel, a remote controlled clutch, and then another flywheel. The clutch is between the two flywheels. You spin up the first flywheel to 100 RPM. The other flywheel is not turning. Then you press the button and the clutch engages and connects them together. It takes one second for the clutch to fully engage. The net result is that both flywheels are now spinning together along with the "weightless" clutch at 50 RPM. When the clutch engaged there was friction between the clutch plates producing heat.
MileHigh
-
@Mag
you know it's definitely interesting thinking about it, I just don't get how it could mathematically be worked out that there is some gain when placing a charged capacitor in parallel with a discharged capacitor. The air tank analogy is definitely similar, but I don't think we can say that a battery, or capacitor, or any electrical power 'source' is under the same kind of pressure. it's actually a good analogy for voltage I guess, like water pressure in pipes, but when the charged caps plates coalesce with the neutral cap isn't it just a balancing-out transference at electron speed, and not the result of some form of actual pressure like that of air? when it comes to counting electrons, isn't the 'empty' cap more like a container that already has electrons in it just like the empty tank has air in it before being fed pressurized air from another tank? In ideal terms where we have a 100% transference of electrical energy from one place to another then it seems like we answered our own question. If we are talking about a current flow happening between one cap to another, and assuming there is 0 resistance, then if we're going with the flow and also assuming current will actually pass over 0 resistance in the real world then I don't think a 10v cap would have to balance out to 5v to have 'equalized the pressure' so to speak.
Think.
100psi to 50psi
10gal to 5 gal
20lb to 10lb
10v to 5v
Any recognizable likenesses?
How about....
10 billion to 5 billion electrons?
10billion electron differential in the source cap and 5 billion differential in each cap after the cap to cap deal is done. How could it be any different than 10billion divided by 2? 1 cap into 2 caps. 1 air tank into 2. If we could we count the number of oxygen atoms in the source tank at 100psi, then when we do a tank to tank transfer and equalization, would we have the total of the number of oxygen atoms in 2 tanks, half in one tank and half in the other? ??? ;) How could we ever expect the electron differential between cap plates to be any different?
10uf cap plates say has 10 billion excess electrons on the negative plate and 10 billion taken away from the positive plate, just as an example, then we do the direct cap to cap thing. When all is said and done, can you argue that those 10 billion excess and missing electrons of the source cap + and - plates would not end up being split up between the 2 caps once the caps equalize to 5v each? 5 billion differential for each cap would be the number, wouldnt it? If it is a different number, how did you determine that? Where did the extra electrons come from if the number is larger than 5bil for each cap? Or if your number is less than 5bil in each cap, where did some electrons disappear to? ;)
Mags
-
C = Q/V
Q = CV
So if Q is conserved and you double the capacitance to 2*C, then for the equation to hold then V has to be halved to V/2.
However, you lose half the energy when this happens. Some of the charge moves through the resistor and suffers a voltage drop and loses some of its "bang."
-
C = Q/V
Q = CV
So if Q is conserved and you double the capacitance to 2*C, then for the equation to hold then V has to be halved to V/2.
However, you lose half the energy when this happens. Some of the charge moves through the resistor and suffers a voltage drop and loses some of its "bang."
Ah yes. The voltage drop. I was just thinking about that. Are you reading my mind through my phone? lol None the less, its true that I was. :o ;D
Its funny the voltage drop across any value resistor doesnt change the outcome. It just changes the time till equalization as you said earlier. But when you first consider it, it makes you think a bit, dont it? ;) In this case, what I believe, is that the resistor does just that and isnt a loss in this cap to cap deal. But thats just me until convinced otherwise. As for the answers so far, Im still at point A. ;)
Mags
-
Misposted
-
I should be able to shed some light on this subject. We often say "things go to infinity" whereas MarkE would use a more commonly used term in scientific parlance, "undefined." I will make use of both terms here.
Simple thought experiment for the real-world shorting one cap to the other and losing half the energy. If you use say a 100 kohm resistor say it takes five minutes for the two caps to be equal in voltage. (There is semi-related conundrum about the two caps "never" attaining the exact same voltage.) Then you switch to a 5 kohm resistor and it takes 30 seconds. Then a 100 ohm resistor and it takes two seconds.
Here is the simple conclusion: It doesn't matter what value of resistor you use you always lose half the energy. Hence when you short two caps together with "no resistor" you still lose half the energy.
Now for the ideal caps. You can't short one cap to the other because you get infinite current for zero seconds. In other words it is undefined. Ending up with the same voltage in each cap or 7.07 volts in each cap is a non-starter, because you can never get there. So let's switch to plan B and put the ideal inductor between the two ideal caps. Now the energy cycles back and forth between each cap forever. As you lower the value of the ideal inductor in an attempt to simulate a short with a value for zero for the inductance what happens? The cycling frequency gets higher and higher until it approaches an infinite cycling frequency as the value of the inductance goes to zero. One more time infinity crops up, and hence you can say the solution for a value of zero for the inductance is undefined.
Going back to losing half the energy for a real-world shorting of two caps together, you are over analyzing the situation. Voltage times current through the resistor equals heat power. So you convert energy stored in the electric field in the capacitor into heat energy. It's actually very mundane, nothing to do with expanding into a new capacitor or volume.
There is a good old visualization trick for this one. When the 10-volt cap is shorted to the 0-volt cap you lose half the energy and both caps are at 5 volts. You can visualize this like a totally inelastic collision. That simply means that energy is burnt off when two things collide. So imagine a stationary metal block being hit by a ball of putty with a velocity of 10 meters per second. After they hit they move together at 5 meters per second. Here is the thing: The ball off putty deformed when it hit and stuck to the metal block. The deformation process was resistive in nature, like bending a coat hanger, and therefore the metal block and the ball of putty heated up due to the collision. There is the signature of the resistive losses for the capacitor example.
Here is another way to look at the same thing: On an axle you have three things: A flywheel, a remote controlled clutch, and then another flywheel. The clutch is between the two flywheels. You spin up the first flywheel to 100 RPM. The other flywheel is not turning. Then you press the button and the clutch engages and connects them together. It takes one second for the clutch to fully engage. The net result is that both flywheels are now spinning together along with the "weightless" clutch at 50 RPM. When the clutch engaged there was friction between the clutch plates producing heat.
MileHigh
I actually understand these examples and it has helped me to visualize what is happening. I really get the 2 fly wheels example...as soon as I saw where you were going with the clutch idea...I yelled at my monitor 50 RPM! 50 RPM! Then I read on to the point where you said they were all turning at 50 RPM. This makes total sense.
Thanks.
Bill
-
@Mags
If you consider a battery could be an analog to your cap, batteries usually cannot handle a charge of greater then 20% of its amperage rating. So if you have a 100 amp battery and 40 amps of charge, you are better off using two 100 amp batteries to be charged in parallel instead of that one.
So the problem I see is right away the use of two identical capacitors. The charge capacity may not match the greater discharge capacity and could this explain the loss. So if you had a 10uf charged to 10 volts, then discharge it into 2 x 10uf caps, then try 3 x 10uf caps and so on until you find the best number of caps that can hold that full 10uf 10 volts of the first cap. If you were using 5 caps in parallel to receive that 10 volts discharge and you then put those 5 caps in series and measure across them, would you get 10 volts or still get 5 volts. I would bank on maybe not 10 but close to 10 would be better then the 5 your are getting now.
I think that is where the problem is. You can take all the time in the world to charge that first cap, but then you put it in parallel with the second identical cap and expect it to take it all in one instant. Why should it?
Just thinking out load here.
wattsup
-
Mag thanks for further explanation, but at this point from what I gather it seems there's a confusion as to why there actually would be some 'loss' at all when charging one cap with another.
First, why is resistance not an option? we can call it a 'loss' due to heat, or a dissipation of heat energy, or whatever, but why would there be no heat generated in the transfer of current across a conductor? If we're talking about a 10v 10uF cap 'dumping' into another 10v uF cap, it seems the 'heat' would have been in the tiny spark you may see, because the ultra fast discharge of those amps would not persist long enough to generate a level of heat within the conductor you would notice any other way other than let's say dumping that same cap into an indicator filament. Everyone here has certainly welded the legs of a cap to some metal during a discharge before. Just saying, why is heat not really considered a factor?
Ideally, were we to create a '100% transfer', it would be more like instead of 2 caps, the one cap magically grew twice the size in an instant, thereby retaining it's charge but doubling in capacitance.. am I way off there?
Alternatively I imagine it like two cups, same height (voltage). One is exactly twice the volume of the other (capacity). What happens when we pour the same amount of liquid into each cup. Obviously the height of each cups liquid level will be different, analogous to the voltage level of the caps. So in that ideal scenario, a gain or loss in 'pressure' would also accordingly result in the loss or gain of sustainability/duration. same amount of water, like same amount of air. ultimately releasing either the air or the water from these varying containers may not net you the same pressure as before, but that just requires 'tuning' now because we still have the same total water and air.
the electrical representation of that tank with the venturi metaphor for me is like taking a large amount of energy to charge a cap up, then slowly dump the cap into another cap through a resistor, making up for any current dissipated as heat in the process by providing the remaining charge via a solar cell. So, to do that with our circuits, we just need to add a solar cell to grab some of that sun, or wind turbine to grab some air, etc..
OK, well, then what did we even do? other than just magically increase the cap size? we can't magically also double the power in this scenario so that just has to 'spread out' so to speak right?
why would the voltage remain the same if we didn't also magically double the energy in the cap?
If we are looking at pressurized air spinning a turbine, and opening a valve in the air line increases the torque on the turbine, then we have clearly found a way to increase the efficiency of our air pressure-to-turbine exercise where our goal is to torque the turbine. but does the venturi actually increase the air pressure through the pipe? If so, isn't that just like lowering the resistance in a circuit and cranking up the current, draining the source faster? if it does not increase the air pressure in the pipe, then does it not simply just create a better air flow for the fan right at the exit valve? I mean look no lie that's badass but isn't just sort of just like finding the right capacitor that made your Joule Thief 75% efficient instead of 40%?
I don't see the real point of the cap argument because it's like saying we have to charge a cap initially.. but after that, we can facilitate this ideal transfer between that cap and another cap in some perfect resonance, where that same amount of energy just sloshes back and forth, yet in order to facilitate that process, we are introducing an outside energy that could also be used to do work, thereby ultimately recooping the energy it took us to get that initial cap charge. That's great but that energy came from somewhere else, not from within the system, so what's the difference between that and adding a solar cell? well, for one, I guess the solar cell will only work in the sun.. but to say the air flow and venturi analogy is more efficient because of that would be to ignore the amount of mechanical energy it took to fill that first air tank compared to the mechanical energy you would get out of it.
-
The question
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
Then you decide to change the question,before you have answered the original question.
Let's change it up and make it more difficult, and revamp the question:
Why? ,when you have not answered the original question?.
Your revamp question-->
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. The voltage source waveform is 20*t^2. So as the time t increases, the voltage increases proportional to the square of the time.
The question is what happens starting at t = 0
The answer:
The current through the ideal coil starts from zero at time t = 0 and then increases with this formula: i = 1.33*t^3.
Time..........Voltage.........Current
0...............0.................0
1...............20...............1.33
5...............500.............166.67
10.............2000............1333.33
20.............8000............10666.67
50.............50000..........166666.7
There you go, harder question answered.
There you go.
Original question not answered-as expected,and the harder question was answered incorrectly--very wrong :D
I am not sure what to say, I am not sure you correctly processed what I posted. Perhaps try again tomorrow when the neurons will be firing differently?
<<< 1-An ideal voltage is one that dose not change in selected value. >>>
After six years you are lucky that you still have people that want to work with you and make attempts to help you.
We will see how your judgement on me go's MH.
Here is the correct answer to your question.
When a continuous current is flowing through an ideal coil/inductor,there is no voltage across it,as the resistance value across that ideal coil/inductor is 0.
If there is a voltage across the coil/inductor,then the coil/inductor is not ideal.
If there is no voltage across it when a voltage is applied to it,then the coil/inductor is ideal,and the voltage is not an ideal voltage.
Looking at your question again-->
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
The parts i have highlighted are impossible if the coil/inductor is ideal--this is a fact.
So i ask again MH--what happens when an ideal voltage is placed across an ideal coil/inductor?
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object?.
Im giving you a second chance to get it right.
Brad
-
We will see how your judgement on me go's MH.
Here is the correct answer to your question.
If there is a voltage across the coil/inductor,then the coil/inductor is not ideal.
If there is no voltage across it when a voltage is applied to it,then the coil/inductor is ideal,and the voltage is not an ideal voltage.
Looking at your question again-->
The parts i have highlighted are impossible if the coil/inductor is ideal--this is a fact.
So i ask again MH--what happens when an ideal voltage is placed across an ideal coil/inductor?
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object?.
Im giving you a second chance to get it right.
Brad
Six years' worth of working on a bench and having lots of good people helping you, and all that you got out of it was a lousy t-shirt, right Brad?
You have pretty much destroyed yourself. It's like you are going to have to start over from scratch. Get Google and YouTube fired up and read, watch, and learn. Take notes.
-
Tinman, how's about trying an Edward M. Purcell?
J.
-
Six years' worth of working on a bench and having lots of good people helping you, and all that you got out of it was a lousy t-shirt, right Brad?
You have pretty much destroyed yourself. It's like you are going to have to start over from scratch. Get Google and YouTube fired up and read, watch, and learn. Take notes.
Your a fraud MH.
Show me any scientific paper that shows that a voltage can exist across an ideal coil/inductor.
You epic failure.
And to think you thought you could judge others on this question of yours,when you failed to answer it correctly.
I bet EMJ and Wattsup are having a good laugh now.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.
A voltage cannot exist across an ideal inductor when the current flow is constant-period.
Post 2313-->You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source
What do you make of Poynt's comment on post 2334--perhaps he can clarify?
Quote--> :At t=0, I think the universe might blow up :(
What dose happen when a unstoppable force (your ideal voltage),meets an unmovable object(your 0 resistance-ideal coil/inductor).
Brad
-
Tinman, how's about trying an Edward M. Purcell?
J.
I see your back to your good old self again John.
Perhaps you should just google ideal coils/inductors-->it's that simple.
Brad
-
You don't know how silly you look now Brad. I am working online and I am trying to get you a full version of the Edward M. Purcell book in pdf form. I hope to be able to post it soon.
-
Okay, so for this great public domain book the only complete version I could find was not an electronic version but a scanned-in version.
This is a 10 MB version of the book in some ".djvu" publishing format:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/l06iwa67busvq1q/Edward+M+Purcell+-+Electricity+and+Magnetism.djvu (http://www.mediafire.com/download/l06iwa67busvq1q/Edward+M+Purcell+-+Electricity+and+Magnetism.djvu)
You can add a plugin to your browser and there is probably a separate viewer program.
I found a web page to convert .djvu to .pdf:
http://djvu2pdf.com/ (http://djvu2pdf.com/)
When you do the conversion you get a whopping 266 MB pdf file, but at least it's the whole book, 500 pages worth.
Brad, they say it's a good book, and plus you have the entire 1200 petabytes of data on the Internet, of which there are many gigabytes that will teach you basic electronics.
MileHigh
P.S.: You know you will have achieved something when you can answer the original question correctly all by yourself.
-
You don't know how silly you look now Brad. I am working online and I am trying to get you a full version of the Edward M. Purcell book in pdf form. I hope to be able to post it soon.
Just use ohms law MH.
Show me a voltage that appears across an ideal coil that has a resistance value of 0 ohms,for your quotes 3 seconds.
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
Using ohms law,please show me how you can have 4 volts over 0 ohms for 3 seconds as stated in your question. Also stated in your question,the coil/inductor is ideal,and there for has a resistance value of 0 ohms.
Thats all you have to prove MH,and the rest i will believe.
But i will tell you now,if you have an ideal voltage across a resistance value of 0 ohm's,the current will climb to infinity.
What happens then MH ?.
Brad
-
Brad:
It's the old cliche, you are not even in the ballpark. Even if you could not answer the question, I was expecting that you would at least be able to formulate the beginnings of an answer to the question, and then have some traction and move forward. But you are not even in a position to begin to formulate an answer.
So, in this day and age you are practically drowning in information, and John mentioned something that I was not even aware of so I looked it up and got you some links.
Or you can discuss it with your peers. One of your peers would have to swallow the poison pill and tell you that you are wrong and then you can all work it out together from scratch. I am out of that game and just dabble a tiny bit. Or someone can do the usual spoon feeding but it's not going to be me. I would even advise against it. The reason is simple. In your case it's obvious that spoon feeding doesn't work. It's just a glorified form of copy-paste.
It would he interesting to read you guys, the people contributing right now, and other forum regulars, try to get this stuff figured out so that you truly understand it - but not have the gurus/big guns parachute in and do a spoon-feeding session.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
It's the old cliche, you are not even in the ballpark. Even if you could not answer the question, I was expecting that you would at least be able to formulate the beginnings of an answer to the question, and then have some traction and move forward. But you are not even in a position to begin to formulate an answer.
So, in this day and age you are practically drowning in information, and John mentioned something that I was not even aware of so I looked it up and got you some links.
Or you can discuss it with your peers. One of your peers would have to swallow the poison pill and tell you that you are wrong and then you can all work it out together from scratch. I am out of that game and just dabble a tiny bit. Or someone can do the usual spoon feeding but it's not going to be me. I would even advise against it. The reason is simple. In your case it's obvious that spoon feeding doesn't work. It's just a glorified form of copy-paste.
It would he interesting to read you guys, the people contributing right now, and other forum regulars, try to get this stuff figured out so that you truly understand it - but not have the gurus/big guns parachute in and do a spoon-feeding session.
MileHigh
Using ohms law-one of the laws which you your self go by,show me 4 volts existing across a resistance value of 0 ohms.
Again,your question-->
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
Your coil is ideal.
Every page on the internet states that an ideal coil/inductor has a resistance value of 0.
Your voltage is ideal-an ideal voltage dose not change in value over time,and when talking ideal inductors,3 seconds is an extremely long time to have a fixed voltage across it of 4 volt's.
So instead of calling me all names under the sun(as is your way when some one disagrees with you),use our simple law(ohms law),and show me 4 volts existing for 3 seconds across an inductor that has a resistance value of 0 ohms.
Brad
P.S
Yes,i would be more than happy for one of the EE guys here to comment,and back it up with proof.
Brad
-
OK MH
I ask this question of all the EE guys here.
Can a voltage of 4 volts exist across an ideal inductor,(where an ideal inductor has a resistance value of 0 ohms), for 3 seconds as stated in MHs question?.
Poynt,PW,Verpies-ETC ?
Brad
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductor
An "ideal inductor" has inductance, but no resistance or capacitance
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/inductor.html
An ideal inductor has no resistance only inductance so R = 0 Ω’s
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/inductance.htm
An ideal inductor is the equivalent of a short circuit (0 ohms)
And this one MH,that might show you that your answer was not only incorrect,but your question was not possible -as i had already stated.
it is not possible to hook up an ideal inductor to an ideal voltage source,
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/inductor-in-dc.205550/
It is not possible to hook up an ideal inductor to an ideal voltage source,
Brad
-
Quote
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
The correct answer for this question is--you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor-or coil,as the chosen term from MH.
MHs results from his modified test parameters
The current through the ideal coil starts from zero at time t = 0 and then increases with this formula: i = 1.33*t^3.
Time..........Voltage.........Current
0...............0.................0
1...............20...............1.33
5...............500.............166.67
10.............2000............1333.33
20.............8000............10666.67
50.............50000..........166666.7
The quoted results above are also incorrect, as T=L/R,and where R=o in an ideal inductor,and thus were T becomes instantaneous,and I becomes infinite.
Brad
-
Again,your question-->
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
@tinman
Is this the question that I could not answer? I am confused as usual on this thread. Stuff gets thrown around so fast.
If a voltage source changes in time, why is it ideal? Ideal means the voltage stays the same across the connections of the coil regardless of how the coil handles it. There is more but no need to go any further.
wattsup
-
@tinman
Is this the question that I could not answer? I am confused as usual on this thread. Stuff gets thrown around so fast.
If a voltage source changes in time, why is it ideal? Ideal means the voltage stays the same across the connections of the coil regardless of how the coil handles it. There is more but no need to go any further.
wattsup
Yes Wattsup.
This is the question that MH asked you and EMJ to answer.
MH answered the question(after a modification to the question),and got it wrong.
So feel easy Wattsup,as it was a question MH him self could not answer correctly,and all the bad karma he threw your way,and the gloating he made throughout many threads regarding this question,simply can now be dismissed as garbage.
As i stated,and provided links to the same,an ideal voltage cannot be placed across an ideal coil.
As an ideal coil/inductor has a resistance value of 0,and where an ideal voltage is placed across that coil/inductor,the current rises to infinity. And as T=L/R,and where R=0 in an ideal coil/inductor,then T is instantaneous.So you dont have to worry about the voltage changing over time,as the time is instant. There is also the fact that MHs question states 4 volts for 3 seconds over an inductor(ideal inductor)that has a resistance of 0 ohms.
So now we have an infinite source of power ;)
What happens when you have an infinite source of power?
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object?.
Brad
-
@Mag
Ok, then how do you come to that conclusion figuring an electron differential number count as described above? If in your example above you start with 10v and end up with an alternative voltage compared to 5v in each cap when done, how can you explain the electron differential number count that determines that voltage? And if Im incorrect, then please explain why. But if you cannot, not beeing snooty, then why do you believe what you do?
lol definitely not books =). I'm just not understanding the electron differential you speak of not out of disagreement, but sheer ignorance. I don't see it as counting electrons so to speak, but measuring imbalance in charge. but maybe this is what you are saying by differential. the electron ratio to positive charge which produces a voltage. Well I'm saying in reality, we shouldn't lose any electrons like we shouldn't lose any air or water. and we apparently don't. we do lose energy though, rather have to expend some more in the process. so long as those electrons are moving and there is a current, that voltage will not only drop due to resistance, but due to the 'pressure' equalization so to speak when the joules are spread out like jelly long the capacitance of this extra capacitor introduced, which is like another way of saying the electrons are rearranging yet the differential remains the same.
it's like, yea. naturally I want to say it in essence we are basically saying, what happens when I cut this in half? does it form 2 equal halves? sure, why not? I'm just not necessarily saying the voltage unit would be cut in half imo. I'd assume the same total energy, or joules, or whatever you want to call it that was stored, was cut in half. so basically I think it COULD end up as 5v/5v so long as stored current was adjusted. how would we measure that? electrons I assume. I just don't necessarily think it 10v has to end up as 5v/5v after the dump using equal caps because it seems to work out that way in our other analogies in nature. it most certainly could though and probably does.
-
Yes Wattsup.
This is the question that MH asked you and EMJ to answer.
MH answered the question(after a modification to the question),and got it wrong.
I really did not notice that question because at certain times in this thread things got out of hand and I just jump pages to not have an upset stomach. So sorry for missing it.
So feel easy Wattsup,as it was a question MH him self could not answer correctly,and all the bad karma he threw your way,and the gloating he made throughout many threads regarding this question,simply can now be dismissed as garbage.
Anyone can ask a wrong question. So let's try to fix the question. You cannot have an ideal coil if it is to be 5 Henrys, since at such a rather high inductance there has to be "some" resistance. Then you cannot use an ideal voltage because the voltage would always remain the same regardless. So both the voltage and coil cannot be ideal.
So let's just say the voltage source is non-ideal at over the highest voltage reading in the question which is 4 volts at 3 seconds. So let's give a non-ideal voltage of 12 volts to start and we know this is DC.
So........ I can only answer this question under Spin Conveyance and not under EE Electron Flow. In SC, when you have a DC source, both polarities enter the coil as I had clearly shown in my HCS videos. So if the negative polarity was connected to the coil first, that negative polarity is already at the other end of the coil. When the 12 volts positive is then connected you should get a quasi voltage spike (semi-short or damped short) first then it could indeed drop to 4 volts for about 3 seconds (depends on the available amps) as the positive pushes the negative potential back up to the center of that fat coil. But then the voltage would never drop to zero during the next 2 seconds and show instead a gradual rise to 12 volts again (or almost 12 volts) as both polarities fight it out in the center of that coil. Eventually the thin wires at the center of this high inductance coil having no thermal release will just pop and you will then see 12 volts forever. If you dissect the coil it should show a break near the center.
So............ If anyone has a 5 henry coil and a 12 volt dc source, let's place our bets. hehehe
So........... this just shows only one great formula.......... "ideal" = "unreal". You can use these ideal "mentalations" for years and wind up in the looney bin. For me they have always been useless methods of thinking that you just learned something when in actuality they are designed to reinforce a construct by distracting your real force of logic. Saying "let's pretend" only produces fairy tales. I prefer reality.
But regardless, I think it is better to not make a mountain out of a mole hill and just leave it at that. You know, I still have full respect for @MH just for sticking it out with us OU crazies as well as you and just consider this whole quagmire a better proof of the effects of chemtrails. Maybe some chelation therapy would be in order. You guys both need to step out of the boxers ring and let those ring girls walk around a bit. Some quality time off would be great for all. Ding ding game over. hahahahaha
wattsup
-
Yes the game is really over and for me there are just two outstanding issues:
1. Brad admits that he is wrong about my response to the harder question.
2. Brad gets up the learning curve and understands the original question and then answers it correctly all by himself and clearly demonstrates that he understands what he is doing.
What's been going on for the past six years? Even The Shadow can't answer that one. I intentionally answered a more difficult question in order to leave the original question up for discussion among the regulars. Again, we are talking about a very simple circuit here consisting of a power source and one single solitary component.
For both Brad and Wattsup, I am not holding out much hope for either of you but there are always the high-odd payouts for the long shot bets. You guys would be the winners, but nothing ventured nothing gained and no pain no gain.
MileHigh
-
Yes the game is really over and for me there are just two outstanding issues:
MileHigh
1. Brad admits that he is wrong about my response to the harder question.
No,i will do no such thing,as your answers are wrong when an ideal coil/inductor,and an ideal voltage are used as per your description in your question.
2. Brad gets up the learning curve and understands the original question and then answers it correctly all by himself and clearly demonstrates that he understands what he is doing.
Perhaps some learning of your own MH.
1-Please describe what an ideal inductor is.
2-Please describe what an ideal voltage is.
What's been going on for the past six years? Even The Shadow can't answer that one. I intentionally answered a more difficult question in order to leave the original question up for discussion among the regulars. Again, we are talking about a very simple circuit here consisting of a power source and one single solitary component.
First of all,you are talking about a fictional power source,and a fictional component.
But that aside,you question clearly states-an !ideal! voltage across an !ideal! coil/inductor.
This is the question you asked,and that is what my answers refer to.
My answer to your original question stands-you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor--or coil,as you have chosen to use.
As the inductor is ideal,there is no resistance,and so T is instant.
An ideal voltage of 3 volts placed across a resistance of 0 ohms results in an instant current with an infinite value,as there is no resistance to the flow of that current,nor is there a drop in value of you ideal voltage.
For both Brad and Wattsup, I am not holding out much hope for either of you but there are always the high-odd payouts for the long shot bets. You guys would be the winners, but nothing ventured nothing gained and no pain no gain.
The more rubbish we get rid of-the likes you have tried to peddle in this post,the further man will go when dealing with truth's.
Shall i post some links to ideal inductors and ideal voltages MH,or are you able to do some research of your own.?.
Will you post the resistance value for an ideal inductor?.
Brad
-
Well like usual Brad you are saying stuff that is totally whackadoo and I am sure some of your friends around here are reading it and know that you are saying stuff that is totally whackadoo but so far none of them are saying anything about it. That is a "sickness" you see on these forums. If nothing happens then perhaps the usual will happen, a spoon feeding session from a guru. But why always a spoon feeding session when you are living in the information age, and you can educate yourself if your friends refuse to help you? For you spoon feeding is clearly not working. Like I have said many times, you would not survive half a day on a real electronics forum. You are getting the real deal from me about the easy question and the tough one that I answered, and all that you can do is obstinately refuse to try to do some critical thinking.
Here is the big exercise in critical thinking for you: For the sake of argument and for your own benefit, assume that I am right and then take it from there. Come up with an action plan and do something.
-
@Mag
lol definitely not books =). I'm just not understanding the electron differential you speak of not out of disagreement, but sheer ignorance. I don't see it as counting electrons so to speak, but measuring imbalance in charge. but maybe this is what you are saying by differential. the electron ratio to positive charge which produces a voltage. Well I'm saying in reality, we shouldn't lose any electrons like we shouldn't lose any air or water. and we apparently don't. we do lose energy though, rather have to expend some more in the process. so long as those electrons are moving and there is a current, that voltage will not only drop due to resistance, but due to the 'pressure' equalization so to speak when the joules are spread out like jelly long the capacitance of this extra capacitor introduced, which is like another way of saying the electrons are rearranging yet the differential remains the same.
it's like, yea. naturally I want to say it in essence we are basically saying, what happens when I cut this in half? does it form 2 equal halves? sure, why not? I'm just not necessarily saying the voltage unit would be cut in half imo. I'd assume the same total energy, or joules, or whatever you want to call it that was stored, was cut in half. so basically I think it COULD end up as 5v/5v so long as stored current was adjusted. how would we measure that? electrons I assume. I just don't necessarily think it 10v has to end up as 5v/5v after the dump using equal caps because it seems to work out that way in our other analogies in nature. it most certainly could though and probably does.
You raise important details as I go on....... ;)
"but maybe this is what you are saying by differential. the electron ratio to positive charge which produces a voltage."
Yes, I probably should use the word ratio instead of differential.
"Well I'm saying in reality, we shouldn't lose any electrons like we shouldn't lose any air or water"
Water is not a good analogy for pressures like air and charge. Water is not compressible. Air and electrical charge are compressible.
"we shouldn't lose any electrons like we shouldn't lose any air or water."
Ok, here is where I have not went into detail......
If we have 2 caps, one 10uf and the other 100uf, the 10uf cap plates will have less total atoms than the 100uf. With no charge, there are no excess electrons on the neg plate and no electrons taken from the pos plate. When we add an electron to the neg plate and take an electron from the pos plate of each cap, the 10uf cap will have more voltage/pressure than the 100uf cap. And if it were a 1uf cap the voltage/pressure would be even higher, just with the 1 electron difference for each plate. So if we had a theoretical pair of tiny caps and the smaller cap had say 100 atoms and the larger had 1000 atoms for their plates, when we take one electron from one plate and put it into the other plate, the smaller cap will have more pressure than the larger cap. Similar to a small air tank and a larger one, it would take less atoms of oxygen pumped into the smaller tank to reach say 100psi than it would to get the larger tank to 100psi. In both examples, the containers determine how much is needed to be pumped in to get to a particular pressure or voltage.
So when we take that ratio of electrons that are in the 10uf cap at 10v, we are letting that same ratio of the same number of electrons to be in a larger cap/container by doing the cap to cap connection. So now we have the same 'total' number of excess electrons on the neg plates and the same number of electrons missing from the pos plates, but they are divided between the to caps, which if they are now in parallel equals a larger capacitor/container. So pressure/voltage is reduced. It is not resistance that caused the loss, it was the fact that we put our initial pressure into a larger container, there by reducing the total pressure. The only loss is that we didnt use the action of the transfer that happened to do work.
" it's like, yea. naturally I want to say it in essence we are basically saying, what happens when I cut this in half?"
Ah. Thats where you are stuck. We are not cutting the capacitor or air container in half. We are dividing that pressure into a larger container of twice the size. that is why we have reduced pressure/voltage. 10uf cap in parallel with a 10uf cap equals a 20uf cap. A 10lb nitrous oxide bottle and connected it to another empty bottle, there would be 5lb in each. But we lost total pressure, even though we still have our total amount of gas in weight. We lost the energy of pressure. Resistance had nothing to do with the loss. I cannot use the 10lb of nitous in my car if the pressure were 0psi. As a further example, if we were to have a large enough container that if we sucked out all gas to a perfect vacuum and put in that 10lb of nitrous till it was 16lb, equal to ambient sea level air pressure, the gas will not come out when we open the nozzle. That 10lb of nitrous(about $35) is not usable.
"Well I'm saying in reality, we shouldn't lose any electrons like we shouldn't lose any air or water"
This is the point Im making... If we did the cap to cap transfer and we start with 10v in the first cap and 0v in the other, the only way we can end up with the total amount of initial energy in the 2 caps total would be to end up with 7.07v each. So that would mean that we would need a different ratio/number of electrons on the cap plates. We would have to introduce more electrons in the system, or pull more from the pos plates and put them into the neg plates through some mechanism of doing so. So the cap to cap dump can only end up as half, .5, of the total electron ratio once spread between a container of twice the original size. How could we ever see a .707 in each of 2 caps when we started with 10 doing a cap to cap equalization?
If we have a 10uf cap at 10v and another cap 10uf at 0v, and instead of a direct cap to cap dump, we use an inductor between the caps and watched it in slow motion, we would see the field build in the inductor as current flows. The inductor acts as a flywheel. It stores energy as the current increases. It will pump the remaining electron ratio from the source cap into the receiving cap till the source is 0v and the receiving cap is 10v. So now if we do the same and we cut off the source cap at 7.07v, the inductor is still charged, and we switch the inductor to be across the receiving cap when we disconnected the source cap, the inductor will pump electrons from the pos plate of the receiving cap into the neg plate till the receiving cap is at 7.07v and we disconnect the inductor. We will now have the total amount of energy in the 2 caps as we did in the source cap to begin with. Thats because we used the energy of the transfer to do work, where the direct cap to cap we did nothing with that work potential. Resistance has nothing to do with the loss because there is no other outcome no mater the value of resistance introduced whether it be 1Mohm or 0ohm, we will still end up with half of the electron ratio in each cap. The total number electron imbalance will be the same, just divided between the 2 caps as reduced pressure.
Mags
-
Does a visual help any?
can you 'visualize' the electron ratio that would occur if a charged cap is directly connected to an empty cap?
Mags
-
What if the other cap is adjustable??
So you start it out at 0.0MFD,, connect the caps together and then adjust the cap slowly up to the same value as the other one,, while doing this the current flow could be used in some sort of inductive fashion so that when current flow stops the collapsing induced field returns the energy it has taken,, that would be the energy not used but would be wasted,, and tops up the adjustable cap.
What if that slow induced field had a secondary interaction with something that allowed for the collapsing field to have a faster rate of change in the flux density??
If the cap is adjustable say 1uf to 10uf, then when you charge it at 10uf to 10v, the voltage goes up when you adjust the cap to a lower value. the electron ratio and count number remains the same. We have just increased the pressure by changing the value of the cap. The energy would remain the same, only the voltage value and capacitance value would change. Good question, as it helps my explanations. ;) ;D
Mags
-
The cap below. Would you consider it to be a charged cap? If so, could you understand that if we took some of the electrons from the bottom plate and put them in the top plate that the voltage would go down?. And in the reverse, if we took some of the electrons from the top plate and pumped them to the bottom plate that the voltage would be higher?
So to what extent 'can't' we say that the number of electrons ratio is directly related to the voltage of a determined cap value of capacitance? Same number of electrons, same ratio, but the value of the capacitance is what will determine the voltage. So I say that we can determine the voltage on that caps capacitance value if we could count the electron number ratio and be very accurate at doing so.
All this is just to help understand that when we do a cap to cap dump, there is still the same total amount of extra electrons on the neg plates that there was in the source cap neg plate, and the same total number of missing electrons from the pos plates as there was in the source cap positive plates. Its just now that the numbers are divided between the 2 caps, thus less pressure, less voltage. Resistance will not change those numbers or ratios. And 0ohms will not change those numbers either. Heck put 10 10ohm resistors in series with the cap to cap transfer. All those actual voltage drops will not change the outcome from 10v in one cap to 5v in 2 caps.
So if thats the case, the only thing we lost in the cap to cap transfer was pressure. If we didnt do anything with that pressure release from one cap to the other, then we just lost it stupidly. Resistance had nothing to do with it.
So the big question is if we have ideal caps, no resistance, and we do a cap to cap transfer, would we not still end up with the 'same' electron ratio and electron number count in either system, real world or fantasy ideal world? So with no resistance we still end up with 5v in each cap from the single 10v cap. What am I missing here?????? If the 2 caps ended up at 7.07v each, total energy of both caps equal the energy of the original source cap at 10v, then something must have changed in the electron count and ratios. What mechanism would have occured to create that 'theoretical' situation?
The energy was lost as pressure. If we use that pressure without wasting it, we can then do a full cap to cap transfer, as described by me and MH several times here already. No matter what we do, cap to cap direct connect, we lost 'pressure' if we didnt use it during the 'action' transfer. Ideal world or not.
Do you get it now that resistance has nothing to do with the 50% loss by doing the cap to cap deal????????
Now if we did the transfer with the inductor and diode, resistance will affect that for sure due to the voltage division. It will allow less voltage across the inductor throughout the transfer process and the inductor will never build up enough to do the full transfer from cap to cap and we would end up with some left in the source and not all in the receiving cap. The higher the resistance, the less is transferred. but direct cap to cap, no mater the resistance, there will ALWAYS be a leveling out of pressure and the resistance will only delay that transfer over time.
MH said that the super conducting, ideal caps would have instantaneous transfer. Well maybe at the speed of light, which is not instantaneous in the least. Its just incredibly fast. Even with superconductors there must be a limit to how much current can flow through the stuff. Thus the cooling I suppose. Is it the cooling that takes away the heat that is not suppose to occur? :o ??? ;D
Anyway......
Mags
-
Here I have edited one of the previous pics to describe what Im saying....
The first pic is of 2 caps, same value, both at 0v.
The second pic is of the left cap charged to a particular voltage.
The third pic is after cap to cap connection.
This is to show that the 'total number of electrons in both caps' is the same throughout the process and just shows the ratio when charged and then cap to cap connection. We never lose or gain electrons in the system. They are only moved or say pumped from one plate to the other, but while charging the total remains equal. One in and one out at a time to say as an example. So if we do a ratio electron count, and we know the other variables as in the caps capacitance value and the electron ratio change in the left caps plates when charged, then we should be able to calculate the voltage in the left cap when charged. Every time. ;) Then when we do the cap to cap deal, we again should be able to calculate the voltage in each when they are equalized. And each time we do the count, we should be able to do the math to find the voltage.
So in an ideal system, how could 0ohm vs resistance(any value) affect the electron count values changing the voltage outcome for each cap? Where did the extra electrons come from to have 7.07v in each cap from 10v initial charge in the ideal model vs 5v on each cap in the resistance energy losing model? Thats the big question.
If we get the same outcome, ideal or real world, how could we say we lost half the energy in heat, if there wasnt any heat in the ideal model????? ;)
Ok. Im done for now. I cannot further explain it. Let me know where I am going wrong, if you can. ;) ;D
Mags
-
Here I have edited one of the previous pics to describe what Im saying....
The first pic is of 2 caps, same value, both at 0v.
The second pic is of the left cap charged to a particular voltage.
The third pic is after cap to cap connection.
This is to show that the 'total number of electrons in both caps' is the same throughout the process and just shows the ratio when charged and then cap to cap connection. We never lose or gain electrons in the system. They are only moved or say pumped from one plate to the other, but while charging the total remains equal. One in and one out at a time to say as an example. So if we do a ratio electron count, and we know the other variables as in the caps capacitance value and the electron ratio change in the left caps plates when charged, then we should be able to calculate the voltage in the left cap when charged. Every time. ;) Then when we do the cap to cap deal, we again should be able to calculate the voltage in each when they are equalized. And each time we do the count, we should be able to do the math to find the voltage.
So in an ideal system, how could 0ohm vs resistance(any value) affect the electron count values changing the voltage outcome for each cap? Where did the extra electrons come from to have 7.07v in each cap from 10v initial charge in the ideal model vs 5v on each cap in the resistance energy losing model? Thats the big question.
If we get the same outcome, ideal or real world, how could we say we lost half the energy in heat, if there wasnt any heat in the ideal model? ??? ? ;)
Ok. Im done for now. I cannot further explain it. Let me know where I am going wrong, if you can. ;) ;D
Mags
One more thing...
"If we get the same outcome, ideal or real world, how could we say we lost half the energy in heat, if there wasnt any heat in the ideal model?"
Soo, if the resistance is NOT the cause of the loss, did we get the heat if any for free????????? :o ;)
Mags
-
One more thing...
"If we get the same outcome, ideal or real world, how could we say we lost half the energy in heat, if there wasnt any heat in the ideal model?"
Soo, if the resistance is NOT the cause of the loss, did we get the heat if any for free? ??? ??? ?? :o ;)
Mags
What if the actual electron count 'equalization' in the ideal system were as I show and it did give us 7.07v in each cap from the precharged 10v cap. Then we would have to had lose some electrons somewhere to be at 5v on each cap in the real world system doing an electron ratio count. If so, where did they go? If so our total electron count would be depleted somehow, then how? ??? Certainly they are not stored or trapped in the resistor/resistance or they would become negatively charged components in the system. ::) Also if we are losing electrons from the system then our whole system would be positively charged due to missing electrons. ??? ;)
It doesnt make sense. the only thing I can say we lost is pressure and resistance didnt cause the loss. I mean, that is the unit of storage in this case, pressure.
1MOHM resistance, 50% loss. 1 ohm resistance, 50% loss. 1 pico ohm resistance, 50% loss. .0000000001pico ohm, 50% loss. Always 5v in each cap from 10v. But ideal caps are said to be zero loss. ::)
Mags
-
OK MH
I ask this question of all the EE guys here.
Can a voltage of 4 volts exist across an ideal inductor,(where an ideal inductor has a resistance value of 0 ohms), for 3 seconds as stated in MHs question?.
Poynt,PW,Verpies-ETC ?
Brad
Heck, with an ideal coil with say ideal field paths, with any initial current flow, the back emf may be equal to the input? ??? Like the super conducting plate with the mag that just floats :o :o :o What is the mechanism that keeps it afloat? Is it oscillating itself in position??
Maybe no currents would ever happen. ???
Maybe just the initial static field charge when hitting the switch sets off the ideal bemf standoff and no actual current ever flows in the ideal inductor. :o :o :o ;)
Mags
-
Mags, I think something is wrong here.
How many electrons are in a charged cap of 2.7 volts and 3,000 Farads?
How many electrons are in a charged cap of 2.7 volts and 100 pico farads?
According to what I think you are saying, the amount of electrons would be the same which is not possible in my opinion. I think the problem is that I was taught that you need to consider capacitance and not just volts or amps. My point is that 2 caps of the same voltage could have a varied capacitance and hence a totally different amount of stored energy.
If I am mistaken in your taking voltage as the measure for how many electrons are in a cap, then I am sorry and must have misunderstood.
Bill
-
Mags, I think something is wrong here.
How many electrons are in a charged cap of 2.7 volts and 3,000 Farads?
How many electrons are in a charged cap of 2.7 volts and 100 pico farads?
According to what I think you are saying, the amount of electrons would be the same which is not possible in my opinion. I think the problem is that I was taught that you need to consider capacitance and not just volts or amps. My point is that 2 caps of the same voltage could have a varied capacitance and hence a totally different amount of stored energy.
If I am mistaken in your taking voltage as the measure for how many electrons are in a cap, then I am sorry and must have misunderstood.
Bill
"According to what I think you are saying, the amount of electrons would be the same which is not possible in my opinion."
Not at all. Id say the pic below would represent the way it is in my mind. In that tiny cap, fewer electron count ratio would produce the same voltage as a larger count ratio in a larger cap, like in the pic. Both caps are the same voltage considering they are in parallel. So what I have said didnt sink in I suppose.
In a very tiny cap, 1 electron taken from on plate to the other will increase the voltage/pressure more than 1 taken from one plate to the other of a larger cap value.
" My point is that 2 caps of the same voltage could have a varied capacitance and hence a totally different amount of stored energy. "
But we are talking about the cap to cap situation where the caps are theoretically identical.
"If I am mistaken in your taking voltage as the measure for how many electrons are in a cap, then I am sorry and must have misunderstood."
No problem. ;D
Mags
-
Mags:
OK, got it now.
Bill
-
Yes the game is really over and for me there are just two outstanding issues:
1. Brad admits that he is wrong about my response to the harder question.
2. Brad gets up the learning curve and understands the original question and then answers it correctly all by himself and clearly demonstrates that he understands what he is doing.
What's been going on for the past six years? Even The Shadow can't answer that one. I intentionally answered a more difficult question in order to leave the original question up for discussion among the regulars. Again, we are talking about a very simple circuit here consisting of a power source and one single solitary component.
For both Brad and Wattsup, I am not holding out much hope for either of you but there are always the high-odd payouts for the long shot bets. You guys would be the winners, but nothing ventured nothing gained and no pain no gain.
MileHigh
@MH
Like I said I will always have full respect for you but it does not mean I will always agree with your methods. Why don't you just cut the high on the hog "I won't spoon feed you" slogan. I am not going to backtrack on all these crazy pages to find out what your questions are and then try to decipher changes to a question and what not. I have better things to do. But since you like and can afford to spend your days on this forum not spoon feeding but more like feeding the fire, then the onus is on you to clarify things, not on me.
If the QUESTION is as I had copied on the previous page to @tinman, then I have nothing more to say. It's your business if you want to call me this or that, I don't care. But if that was your question and you wish to re-work the question, then do it and save us all your violin playing. Yes, you are allowed to re-work a question but it's up to you. If you are more concerned of peoples perceptions then asking a proper question, then that's your character flaw not mine.
If the question you asked is not on the previous page, then you need to post it again because I ain't searching for it. Imagine I have to wade through how many damn variables about a question to even figure out what the question is and all you are worried about is not spoon feeding anyone. Who asked for spoon feeding? Start by just getting the table set properly before you invite anyone for super.
What the hell man. So what. Ideal voltage (AC or DC would help), ideal coil (core or air core would help), we know this will in any way lead to what. The coil has 5H of inductance since it's ideal it cannot have resistance. OK so what. You want to talk about what? There is not even a question mark in your question plus no real question in your question. At least if you said there was a secondary with a resistive or inductive or capacitive load, that would add some more meat on the table. You just put a high inductance coil and count seconds with voltage levels. Look man, your question was just as ambiguous as your wine glass question. That is not my fault. Why don't you just take the cue or is your method a one way street. Do you want to have our input or not.
When I say help, it's not help for us, it's help to turn your question into a real question. Start there and we will see. Yes I can play your EE game any way you want. You think not but that's because I am on another road from now on but it does not mean I cannot play the EE game. I now consider myself a bilingual OUer. I can speak EE and now SC, but you know what, SC is so much more in tune with OU then anything EE can even start to muster because EE is just a convoluted mess full of freebies. Remember the 5 simple questions I asked and no one dared answer. hahahaha You have just been trained to think otherwise because it paid the bills. But I can play the game. The only reason I ask EE questions is to have the answer come from an EEer so it "sounds" official. It's not because I do not have the answer. hahaha
But your attitude, day after day, If you can't answer this, then you are that. Who the hell are you to say such a thing. If I was the moderator I would have deleted you weeks ago and saved everyone one whole pile of junk talk. You accuse @tinman after 6 years for what. Dammit he did more in 6 years of benching then you have since you every started on this forum so what's the problem here. Who should have the say? Then you say I will be just as stupid after another 10 years. What the hell are you saying. What I am working on is levels harder then anything you have ever brought forward to help Ouers. So you think we will arrive at OU by strictly adhering to your EE doctrine. Fine you lead the way. You have one week to provide an OU solution with your EE doctrine. Good luck. Oh but you should not need luck because you have all the answers right. Wake the hell up man. The world is going to shit and we need OU right now and will give it out free or charge and you are worried about what? Wake up man.
You want something to really think about. Look at post 143.
http://overunity.com/16500/mechanical-resonance-projects/msg483154/#msg483154
Do not post there because that is not the place. I will open a new thread called "wattsup with AC" when I'm ready but look man, I am not the enemy and you should not be the EE protector. You should be looking for the truth in these questions just like any other sane person should.
wattsup
-
Well like usual Brad you are saying stuff that is totally whackadoo and I am sure some of your friends around here are reading it and know that you are saying stuff that is totally whackadoo but so far none of them are saying anything about it. That is a "sickness" you see on these forums. If nothing happens then perhaps the usual will happen, a spoon feeding session from a guru. But why always a spoon feeding session when you are living in the information age, and you can educate yourself if your friends refuse to help you? For you spoon feeding is clearly not working. Like I have said many times, you would not survive half a day on a real electronics forum. You are getting the real deal from me about the easy question and the tough one that I answered, and all that you can do is obstinately refuse to try to do some critical thinking.
Here is the big exercise in critical thinking for you: For the sake of argument and for your own benefit, assume that I am right and then take it from there. Come up with an action plan and do something.
There is nothing wackadoo about my answer to your question,as it is the correct answer to your question.
Your question was-->You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
The correct answer to this question !is!-at T=0 ,when the voltage connects to the coil,the current rises instantly to an infinite value.
How do we know the current rises instantly?, Because T=L/R,and as R=0,then T also =0-->instant.
How do we know the current rises to an infinite value?,because the ideal coil has no resistance to appose the rise of current,and the voltage applied across the 0 value of resistance is also ideal.
So there you go MH,you asked me to answer your question,and i have--that is my answer.
So,am i right or wrong?
I am sure some of your friends around here are reading it and know that you are saying stuff that is totally whackadoo but so far none of them are saying anything about it.
Perhaps,like your EE friends,they are not interested in getting involved in yet another argument between myself and you MH.
Perhaps the EE guys know that i am correct,but will not say anything,as that would put you in a worse position than you are in now.
If i am wrong,then i would hope that those better versed in EE than myself,would post a comment,and say that i am wrong--along with why i am wrong--as long as it refers directly with your question,and not some random !if we change this,if we change that! changes made to your original question,then this would happen,and that would happen.
Your question can be answered when compressed into a very simple question.
Can an ideal voltage exist across an ideal inductor?.
Your answers say that it can,and my answer says it cannot.
When is an inductor considered !ideal!-->when it has no capacitance,and no resistance,but only inductance.
When is a voltage considered !ideal!-->when it maintains a fixed voltage drop across it's two terminals.
So you are saying MH,that you can have a fixed voltage drop across an inductor that has !no! resistance-->an ideal resistance value of 0 ohms.
Perhaps you can find some one that is willing to stick there neck out,and back you up on this one.
Why have not the EE guy's here,not yet jumped on me,and said that i answered your question wrong?.
Brad
-
The analogy of water and electricity. voltage is the pressure like water pressure ,current is amount of charge ether or amount of water. All interrelating with the size, length, resistance, contours of the pipe work..
-
Brad:
Perhaps the EE guys are fed up and want to see you sink or swim on your own. We both know that if Poynt came here and backed me up then you would stop being belligerent and shut up and listen.
Here is a good example of why they might be fed up:
<<< Because T=L/R,and as R=0,then T also =0-->instant. >>>
Firstly, there is no bloody resistance in the example, so why in hell are you even mentioning a resistance? Secondly, let's put that issue aside and look at your statement. You are saying that "Tau is also equal to zero" but Tau = L/R so when R is zero then Tau is equal to infinity, not zero. What the fuck??
Right now you are completely mixed up and apparently don't know where to start. You looked up some stuff online and presented some links but you draw incorrect conclusions from the links. The question is very basic. It's an important question because if you know how to answer it then you can look at a circuit on paper and get a preliminary sense of how it works.
I think you should try to get a discussion going with your peers but leave out the gurus. Figure it out among yourselves. Whatever you do is up to you but I am telling you with 100% certainty that right now you are dead wrong and all of your trash talk about me is bouncing right back at you.
MileHigh
-
<<< The correct answer to this question !is!-at T=0 ,when the voltage connects to the coil,the current rises instantly to an infinite value. >>>
Really, eh? The current rises instantly to an infinite value for an ideal inductor when connected to an ideal voltage source. That's a pretty striking fact. So striking in fact that you would think it's something that you would have heard about before. Christ, it's such a striking statement that you might hear about it just as often or even more often than the bloody Schumann resonance.
But in fact you never hear about it. And the reason you never hear about it is because it's a nonsensical "fact" that you made up on the spot when we got into this discussion. You invented it out of thin air using your own convoluted "logic."
That's something for you to think about.
-
Not really MH,, your ideal parts provide for an infinite condition which is absolutely stupid to begin with,, things stop in science when you have an infinite answer,, no duh!!
Wrong.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg483359#msg483359 date=1462682924]
MileHigh
[/quote]
Your so confused MH,your disproving your self in your own statements.
Firstly, there is no bloody resistance in the example, so why in hell are you even mentioning a resistance?
You cant be serious :o
Because MH,you have stated in your question that you have 4 volts for 3 seconds over--you guessed it,a coil that has zero resistance.
Perhaps the EE guys are fed up and want to see you sink or swim on your own. We both know that if Poynt came here and backed me up then you would stop being belligerent and shut up and listen.
We both know Poynt will not back you up,as he knows as well as i do that you cannot have 4 volts over a coil that has no resistance.
<<< Because T=L/R,and as R=0,then T also =0-->instant. >>>
Secondly, let's put that issue aside and look at your statement. You are saying that "Tau is also equal to zero" but Tau = L/R so when R is zero then Tau is equal to infinity, not zero. What the fuck??
Well first up ,T represents Time.
The time required for the current to rise to 63.2% of the maximum value after the switch is closed is the ratio of inductance to resistance (L/R). As there is no resistance,the the value of T(time) is an instant value. As to get to the 63% mark is instant,then maximum current is also instant. As there is no resistance,then the current maximum is infinite.
I see that bad language is coming back MH ::)
Right now you are completely mixed up and apparently don't know where to start. You looked up some stuff online and presented some links but you draw incorrect conclusions from the links. The question is very basic. It's an important question because if you know how to answer it then you can look at a circuit on paper and get a preliminary sense of how it works.
I have answered your question correctly.
I think you should try to get a discussion going with your peers but leave out the gurus. Figure it out among yourselves. Whatever you do is up to you but I am telling you with 100% certainty that right now you are dead wrong and all of your trash talk about me is bouncing right back at you.
I am telling you i am correct,and you are wrong.
Find just one(yes-just one) example of an ideal voltage being placed across an ideal inductor--you will not--well maybe in MH fairyland.
An ideal inductor/coil cannot dissipate any real power,it does not have resistance nor hysteresis loss and does not heat up,and there for cannot dissipate the power being created when you place your ideal voltage across it. And so that in it self proves your answers incorrect,and also shows why an ideal voltage cannot be placed across an ideal inductor--as i stated some time back.
As i said before,i believe the reason that no EE guy here has said anything MH,is because it will show that you are incorrect. As sad as it may be,you guys tend to stick together,whether one of you know the other is wrong or not. It would be nice if those in the know stood for accurate and correct answer's,and not swayed by the !lets stick together! motto that seems to exist here.
Are you saying MH,that you can have a DC current flowing through an ideal inductor/coil,and also have a voltage across it at the same time?.
Brad
-
<<< The correct answer to this question !is!-at T=0 ,when the voltage connects to the coil,the current rises instantly to an infinite value. >>>
Really, eh? The current rises instantly to an infinite value for an ideal inductor when connected to an ideal voltage source. That's a pretty striking fact. So striking in fact that you would think it's something that you would have heard about before. Christ, it's such a striking statement that you might hear about it just as often or even more often than the bloody Schumann resonance.
But in fact you never hear about it. And the reason you never hear about it is because it's a nonsensical "fact" that you made up on the spot when we got into this discussion. You invented it out of thin air using your own convoluted "logic."
That's something for you to think about.
Thats exactly what would happen-->if it could happen,which as i stated many times already,cannot happen. You cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor or coil.
A voltage cannot exist across an ideal coil/inductor while a DC current flows through it.
So your answer to your own question is wrong,as it cannot happen.
If by some !ideal! chance that this could be done,then it would be as i said it would be--the current would rise to an infinite amount in an instant the moment the ideal voltage is placed across that ideal coil/inductor.
Brad
-
Alrighty then lets start with the first simple question.
If I have 1V source with an endless supply of charge carriers and connect a 0.0 ohm wire across that source,,
How much current will flow while the circuit is connected?
How much energy is there when an almost mass-less object is instantly accelerated to any change in velocity?
So an ideal wire will pass an infinite amount current if connected to an infinite supply that is at some voltage.
Now the question becomes,, is there a relaxation time period for a wire with no resistance??
If the answer is no then the universe just blew up,, if the answer is yes then what is causing the delay which in and of itself would be providing for a resistance.
Anyway I look at it I see that an infinite source with any "ideal" conductor\coil setup will have a moment at least upon contact of an instant movement of charge carriers which are almost mass-less objects that would be accelerated instantly to some change in velocity.
So to consider the questions posed one of the parts can NOT be ideal.
MH, you posed the questions with all ideal parts,, and well you can not argue with f=ma
If the answer is no then the universe just blew up,,
Bingo Webby.
An unstoppable force,meets an unmovable object.
To quote Poynt-post 2334-->At t=0, I think the universe might blow up :(
I have provided the correct answer to MHs question he asked EMJ,Wattsup,and anyone else that cared to take it up. MH did not answer his own question correctly,but feels he can still pass judgment on those he thinks got it wrong.
Brad
-
Perhaps,like your EE friends,they are not interested in getting involved in yet another argument between myself and you MH. Why have not the EE guy's here,not yet jumped on me,and said that i answered your question wrong?.
Brad
Simple: Tinman is not needing help, he manage on his one perfect, because a free critical thinking connected soul, with a better karma connected queer than he is self realising, thats real beauty without a arrogant teachers ego, and free sharing!
We did see here EE-fan's pass, some also blind from: Prince: Not seeing all the frame's from a self presented movie?, his ego guitar solo?, or with his FACE on chicken?, out compensating walking to fast away?, ask if you need again the pic's!
But check what he did do, with and between: SheilaE and Candy Dulfer, PurpleRain singing loud, but not understanding, blind slave from WTC/JH, Brooklyn or like EE?
String puppets NO thanks: Real nice for mine / other kids looking here?!
Regards, Johan
Churchill: Journalist without ................ , is simple a Escaped-Prisoner, with a bigmouth so lets make him leader, has the perfect credentials for selecting him as a PrimeMinister in UK, as Thatcher & FalkLands.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094822/Photo-Winston-Churchill-horseback-daring-Boer-War-prison-camp-escape-auction.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094822/Photo-Winston-Churchill-horseback-daring-Boer-War-prison-camp-escape-auction.html)
-
The internet is a wonderful thing MH,it truly is amazing what you can find out there.
I was looking back on some old threads at OUR,and have found some very good topics related to your question.
I see you asked such a question before
Quote MH: you connect the ideal inductor across the ideal power supply that is supplying 10 volts, so the question is what happens?
Poynt replied -Quote: The current and field continue to grow larger and larger (linearly) for ever and ever, until the 10V supply is turned off.
ION replied-Quote: The current in the inductor would approach infinity.
There would be no saturation or ohmic loss because it is an ideal inductor.
The magnetic field would also go towards infinity
The ideal power supply would have no problem delivering infinite current as it also is ideal.
Anyone guess what x is after one time constant? After one second?
Now here is your outstanding reply to ION--this is a kicker :D
MHs reply-Quote: There is no time constant because it's a "trick" question! :P
Now aint that a hoot.
Here you are today,trying to post answers to your own question that you have previously claimed to be a trick question :o
And to think of all the times you have called EMJ and Wattsup out on your question,and the posts you have made stating that i dont know what im talking about,how stupid i am,how much i need to go and learn basics,when all along,you yourself have no idea what the answer to your !!trick!! question is.
I can provide the link to that thread -if you so wish MH,so as you can review it for your self.
But wait-there's more :)
So my question to you-
In your question,you state that there is an ideal voltage of 4 volts across the ideal coil for 3 second's,and being that the voltage is ideal,and has a given value of 4 volts,that means that the supplied voltage is 4 volts DC,as an ideal voltage dose not change in value.
Q1-So can there be a voltage across an ideal coil/inductor when a DC current is flowing through that ideal coil/inductor?
As it is obvious that none of the EE guys here are going to say whether your right or wrong,or im right or wrong,lets debate this question of yours together,and come to the correct answer--and try to leave the bad language and profanities out of it MH.
My answer for Q1 is-no,there cannot be a voltage across an ideal coil/inductor when there is a DC current flowing through it.
What is your answer MH?
Brad
-
I have a better idea MH.
I will make up a thread devoted to getting the correct answer to your question,so as not to take up space on this thread,as it is an unrelated topic.
See you there soon-MH's ideal coil and voltage question.
Brad
-
As an American,it may be hard to see,due to loving your country--blind is love some times.
Brad
For that reason the Pic, from the UK ass with Rosa glasses, and most sad: His blind followers creating the real extended problem over Years, thousand of young kids involved! Funny, after that, I did get some private e-mail: With thanks!
Seems, Nicky/DottyDot is not so ............. !
----------------
Proven US, when they don't understand Series-Resonance-Tuning, they simply create there own invented so called true / formula:
"There’s no Substitute for Cubic Inches" ??? ???
And so World and CO2 all egaal!!!!!!!!!!!
Again, proven proud on filling a: 2-Stroke Oily mix in a 4-Stroke!?!?
Better IS, Goegle: 6-Stroke, or place a Steam-Engine direct behind a 3- or 4-stroke, that is here working and over ~62% eff., did invite 10 EE-people from here, for TD and EE but nothing, silencio, small CHICKENs!!
Now ~10 years member, see them come, and fade .................
Still waiting for the very loud announced: "Proto-Raggea", 8 years ago, so a no hands dreaming teacher, he could be a journalist, shouting: Je SUIS, but NOT for every!
Sad, they should understand, why a Serpent could not get Legs in al those years of there own promoted: Adjusting Evolution!?
Regards, Johan
-
The internet is a wonderful thing MH,it truly is amazing what you can find out there.
I was looking back on some old threads at OUR,and have found some very good topics related to your question.
I see you asked such a question before
Quote MH: you connect the ideal inductor across the ideal power supply that is supplying 10 volts, so the question is what happens?
Poynt replied -Quote: The current and field continue to grow larger and larger (linearly) for ever and ever, until the 10V supply is turned off.
ION replied-Quote: The current in the inductor would approach infinity.
There would be no saturation or ohmic loss because it is an ideal inductor.
The magnetic field would also go towards infinity
The ideal power supply would have no problem delivering infinite current as it also is ideal.
Anyone guess what x is after one time constant? After one second?
Now here is your outstanding reply to ION--this is a kicker :D
MHs reply-Quote: There is no time constant because it's a "trick" question! :P
Brad
Elizabeth, I'm coming, my hart ;-))
You Aussie :-)), you should warn the more sensible people here, before you post rock solid PROOF like this, there are people here without a programmed Alu-Cap!
Slowly we understand: The Royals of UnitedKingdom, did deport the best and most creative artists to ............. , 6-stroke! ;-))
Regards, Johan
-
Ok, I will answer on the other thread.
-
What I find curious about the whole 'Ideal' scenario no matter how useful it may be in real world applications.. An Ideal inductor is said to dissipate or radiate 0 energy, so technically it only passes current by putting faith in Ohms law's ability to handle the number 0.
I would think that in an ideal voltage source, connecting to an ideal inductor, nothing at all would happen because the voltage cannot waver, and the lack of resistance in the inductor would cause an infinite current were it not for an ideal inductor being unable to dissipate energy. If it cannot dissipate energy it perfectly contains on faith, we cannot possibly observe this energy and it might as well be at rest with no charge.
So even in the fantasy realm of imaginary voltage sources and coils that are ideal, an inductor can do no work unless it actually becomes something we cannot call 'ideal'. further evidence against this paradox of passing infinite current at 0 resistance.
-
I would think that in an ideal voltage source, connecting to an ideal inductor, nothing at all would happen because the voltage cannot waver, and the lack of resistance in the inductor would cause an infinite current were it not for an ideal inductor being unable to dissipate energy. If it cannot dissipate energy it perfectly contains on faith, we cannot possibly observe this energy and it might as well be at rest with no charge.
I am just letting you know as a courtesy that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you join Brad on the other thread and brainstorm with him and try to figure out the correct answer to what is actually a very simple question? Two heads bouncing ideas off of each other are better than one.
-
What I find curious about the whole 'Ideal' scenario no matter how useful it may be in real world applications.. An Ideal inductor is said to dissipate or radiate 0 energy, so technically it only passes current by putting faith in Ohms law's ability to handle the number 0.
I would think that in an ideal voltage source, connecting to an ideal inductor, nothing at all would happen because the voltage cannot waver, and the lack of resistance in the inductor would cause an infinite current were it not for an ideal inductor being unable to dissipate energy. If it cannot dissipate energy it perfectly contains on faith, we cannot possibly observe this energy and it might as well be at rest with no charge.
So even in the fantasy realm of imaginary voltage sources and coils that are ideal, an inductor can do no work unless it actually becomes something we cannot call 'ideal'. further evidence against this paradox of passing infinite current at 0 resistance.
Well this could get confusing --we have Magluvin,and now Magneticitist :)
Are you the Magneticitist from IAEC?--if so,great to see you again.
Anyway,what would happen if an infinite amount of current was trying to be contained by an ideal inductor that cannot dissipate any energy?.
Brad
-
I am just letting you know as a courtesy that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you join Brad on the other thread and brainstorm with him and try to figure out the correct answer to what is actually a very simple question? Two heads bouncing ideas off of each other are better than one.
I would love to join Brad in a brainstorming session, and no, I have no idea what I'm talking about with these ideal scenarios because they don't make much logical sense to me. Of course with your approach, your response would attempt to belittle those who disagree with altogether, alter, or misunderstand the teachings you earned your degree upon. I feel like spending too much time pondering ideal scenarios would have me lose touch with how to manipulate tangible reality. You can explain how these ideal scenarios are a part of the foundation of basic EE study and I won't argue that, but you yourself, have even managed to turn an ideal scenario perverse in one of your spoon feeding sessions. I came here referred by a lidmotor video and I wanted to get peoples opinions, (yourself included), on the Joule Thief circuit he was showing in response to Brads video. I t became a filter session trying to find the information among some battle session over some mysterious question not being answered, or answered incorrectly.
Since Brad clearly has proven his knowledge in tangible works, some of which have been the most amazing tinker-creations I have ever witnessed, I would much rather brainstorm real-world scenarios with him, kind of like what the original topic of this thread was focusing on. Of course, so far it seems he doesn't need any help he's doing just fine holding his own weight.
I would rather not continue some shit slinging contest where you pretend as if anyone here that disagrees with you is bereft of any intelligence. I don't recall anyone ever actually trying to claim you are some fool who doesn't actually possess a highly respectable level of engineering knowledge. Your attitude seems to reflect that implication though and if you are going to put yourself in the position as some 'teacher', for 6 years to Brad for example, then even in your own admittance you have been a horrible stubborn abusively condescending teacher not even being able to convince a technically and mechanically inclined person such as Brad to gain some real knowledge from your lesson properly.
But anywho, back on the subject of the ideal scenario, you were stating some decline in voltage which I didn't understand. Is that supposed to make sense to me? If you have an ideal inductor that doesn't lose any energy in principle, how can it possibly relate to any real world scenario when the entire basis for no energy dissipation is a 0 resistance. How does something store infinite current then return it back? it MUST return it to an ideal voltage source being that an ideal voltage source has an infinite current in nature. These are two hypothetical things that logically cannot even work together to perform anything in actual reality even if they magically became a tangible reality because it would tear the fabric of our known physical world.
So, that statement was me providing my current understanding of the lesson given the provided information. Allow me to re emphasize, that was NOT me making some ridiculous attempt at claiming you are a fool and clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I would rather instead of you going to some other thread to bounce ideas off of 'other idiots', you remain here and attempt to convey your message in another route if so far the current approach is proving ineffective. This is because I do not consider you a fool with no idea what you're talking about.
-
Yes, Magneticttist, if you want to get more out of your hobby, you should learn how an inductor actually works.
As far as your tirade goes, here is what your buddy Brad had to say to me when I gave him a bare-bones answer to the question (which he forced me to state BTW so I said what the question was in order to get him off my back) in the form of a formula:
You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster
Your (sic) a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.
Isn't that nice?
-
Yes, Magneticttist, if you want to get more out of your hobby, you should learn how an inductor actually works.
As far as your tirade goes, here is what your buddy Brad had to say to me when I gave him a bare-bones answer to the question (which he forced me to state BTW so I said what the question was in order to get him off my back) in the form of a formula:
You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster
Your (sic) a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.
Isn't that nice?
Ok, well all that aside, this was the meat of our argument this time, and any time in the past regarding inductors.. You claim I and others need to learn how an inductor "actually works" to make better use of our time.. Well yes sir, I am in total agreement. That seems to have been the goal from day one realizing inductors are the mystery foundation of what I and a lot of us play with mostly.
However it seems you follow that statement by talking about ideal inductors and ideal voltages etc.. That does not seem to convey how an inductor "actually works". That seems to convey how an imaginary scenario plays out when our inductor possesses characteristics less likely to find than actual overunity in a circuit you critique.
This is why my argument is usually along the lines of - well crap man.. since we clearly don't even understand this ideal lesson, and it doesn't actually have anything to do with anything inductors actually do in the real world, what help is it really to this conversation? Even if I were to be in total agreement and understanding with you about your ideal coil question, I don't think that would bring me anywhere closer to understanding what may actually be going on in Brad's joule thief, for example. If that was your attempt at a clarification of what's going on in the real world inductor in that joule thief, then I must resign to the understanding that I'm simply too much of an idiotic buffoon to even comprehend it in any other manner since the lesson you have already given is among the most elementary of EE basics. In which case, maybe you're right, brainstorming with the actual physical creator and demonstrator of that device may be a better journey.
-
You know, more importantly MH... I want to ask you something important..
Do you believe Overunity is possible? If not, I'm not going to make some cheap statement about how you don't belong browsing overunity.com then.. but if not, do you genuinely wish to help others possibly achieve what you believe to be impossible, or do you genuinely wish to dissuade others from attempting what you believe to be a fruitless journey in the long run?
I'm always wondering what personal tinkerings those with the high level of knowledge such as yourself are doing in their personal time.. and no this is not some sneaky jab at you somehow having no actual experience in comparison to someone such as Brad being that he has 'things to show' and you have 'things to speak'. That would imply you are incapable.. however I would rather assume you avoid the effort altogether mostly because you have insofar been unable to mathematically work out a viable option in the first place, so why build a failure, or some simple device that revolutionizes nothing? I am genuinely curious.. what route would you take?
how would you relate your understanding of how inductors work using analogies such as the ideal coil situation to create what would be a device that is over 100% electrically efficient?
-
You're a thinking man so let me run a few things by you.
Suppose for the simple question the inductor was not an ideal inductor of 5 Henrys. Let's discuss variations 2.X of the question/experiment. Supposing it was a real inductor that was 50 milli-Henrys made from a big coil of very thick copper wire where the wire resistance was two milli-ohms. That gives a Tau of 25 seconds. Instead of the ideal voltage source outputting a 4-volt pulse for 3 seconds, let's change that to a 0.4 volt pulse for 0.3 seconds. Let's call that version 2.0 of the question/experiment.
Now, when running experiment version 2.0, is there any real difference between a 50 milli-Henry coil with a two milli-ohm resistance and running experiment version 2.1 with a 50 milli-Henry ideal coil?
When you look at the actual results of experiment 2.0 and compare them with experiment 2.1 are you go going to see any significant differences in the results?
The answer is NO, you will not see any major differences. So why are you, and Brad and others always moaning and complaining when somebody talks about an ideal coil? It is in reality very EASY to run experiments where the wire resistance of the coil can be ignored, primarily by ensuring that your experiment runs under certain timing constraints.
I will repeat it to you again: You can run experiments where your real-world coil is for all practical intents and purposes indistinguishable from an ideal coil.
So what's the problem? What's wrong with talking about ideal coils when they can perform almost identically to real coils?
Then there is a final ironic twist that you probably will not get, but the fact is discussing tests or experiments with ideal coils is generally SIMPLER. You don't have to worry about the "hassle" of the series resistance of the wire.
Discussing ideal coils is 100% valid and applies directly to the real world.
And the pause for thought is that here we are discussing a very very simple question/experiment and people are totally stumped.
-
Now I am going to address the moaning and groaning about the ideal voltage source. People say, "There is no such thing as an ideal voltage source." Or sometimes people have "stuck preconceptions" in their heads, like Brad says, "An ideal voltage source must be a fixed value." Fixed value my ass.
Are you by any chance a car audio buff? You can buy something like a 2x800-watt stereo amplifier for your car. You can get those giant supercapacitors to make sure you can supply the peak currents to your big woofers and sub-woofers.
I have news for you. Those are just big beefy negative-feedback MOSFET-based servo voltage amplifiers. They are giant operational amplifiers.
Within certain bandwidth limits, and certain IV limits (800 watts is nothing to sneeze at) those car audio amplifiers ARE ideal voltage sources.
And on top of that, they are ideal voltage sources that are NOT limited to a fixed voltage. They can be an ideal voltage source that outputs Ozzy Osbourne or the Star Spangled Banner.
What's the moral of the story? You can connect your super-duper car audio amplifier acting as an ideal voltage source to version 2.0 of the experiment and replicate it in real life.
So you have an ideal voltage source driving a coil that is very very close to an ideal coil and make measurements.
But you know what's even better than that? Use your brain and do the experiment right here on this forum without even having to build it.
You are supposed to know what will happen with the super-duper car audio amplifier acting as an ideal voltage source driving version 2.0 of the experiment before you even build it. That's the difference between a true experimenter and just being a Joe Blow and building pulse motors year after year and passively observing the scope traces and measuring the RPM.
That is kind of the essence of this discussion that I didn't even really want to get into. You guys can play with coils until you are blue in the face without understanding how they actually work. That is being made pretty clear with the resurrection of this very simple question/thought experiment. So you guys can discuss it and brainstorm and do the work to educate yourselves so that all of your future experiments are better and more rewarding because you have more insight into what is going on, or you can keep on doing what you are doing.
-
You are out of your element, you don't really know what you are talking about, and as a result it adds up to more trolling.
The attached graphic shows the four-quadrant output of a voltage source that is constrained by how much voltage it can output and how much current it can source or sink. As long as the output voltage and current remain within the "working envelope" of the square, then it is able to act like an ideal voltage source. Car audio amplifiers act the same way.
-
MH
As to the difference between ideal and non ideal coils.. is the difference not obvious?
When you remove the possibility of a coil having 0 resistance, and therefore creating some
time paradox involving unlimited values, which imo do not belong in the realm of real world
applications.. (if you can agree a super duper wuper trooper amount of current is not actually anywhere near inifinity), it then becomes just a regular coil. so I'm not arguing why this thought model was created, I'm asking why are you using it in these scenarios when you could just, quite easily, take the values of the circuit in question, work your mathematical magic and explain to use exactly what's happening since you do indeed possess the experience to provide that answer. you don't actually have to bypass that with some rationalization that spoon feeding inductor 101 basics is an absolute pre requisite.
-
There is no "time paradox involving unlimited values." You are talking crazy stuff.
It doesn't matter if you discuss inductor basics with ideal coils or with real-world coils. It's essentially the same discussion but you omit the resistive effects of the wire. That's it. There is no reason to object to discussing ideal coils.
Why did I use 5 Henrys as an example coil? The answer is because it's easier, it makes the discussion easier as compared to using 2 milli-Henries, that's all.
There is no special "mind bending" required to discuss ideal coils or ideal capacitors or ideal voltage sources. It does not detract from the real-world applications for coils. And in a way you are in a Catch-22. If you understood how coils work then you would agree with me.
The entire question could be restated and you say that the coil is 5 Henrys with a wire resistance of 0.0001 ohms. Then the results would be nearly identical, but much more complicated to pin down precisely.
This reminds me of setting up my neighbour, who is an older lady, with a computer for the first time last year. She never touched a computer in her life. She could not understand why she needed a junk email, a personal email, and a gmail for her Android phone. She wanted one email only to keep things "simpler." Six months later and she finally has a vague understanding for why she needs three emails.
-
No MH, there isn't some time paradox with unlimited values.. not in a regular real world coil and source.
the unlimited values exist when an ideal voltage source connects to an ideal conductor.
then we are talking unlimited, and infinity.
simply using Ohms law makes it clear the closer to 0 resistance you get.
-
What you should do is wipe the slate clean of whatever preconceptions you have, and brainstorm with Brad.
-
here's a more basic beef I have with it and why I consider it a paradox or as you say catch 22. I've been told I overthink things.
when I imagine infinite absolute current over absolute 0 resistance, the further away I move from this tiny 'window' of real world relation where math can approximate physical outcome, the more clear it becomes that 0 resistance, or ideal conductor, absolutely requires an ideal source. I figure that because how does one calculate the current across 0 resistance? we can calculate it across .00000000000000000001 resistance, but not 0. it doesn't exist at 0. I have a hard time seeing it any other way.
but thanks for trying anyway I guess.
-
here's a more basic beef I have with it and why I consider it a paradox or as you say catch 22. I've been told I overthink things.
when I imagine infinite absolute current over absolute 0 resistance, the further away I move from this tiny 'window' of real world relation where math can approximate physical outcome, the more clear it becomes that 0 resistance, or ideal conductor, absolutely requires an ideal source. I figure that because how does one calculate the current across 0 resistance? we can calculate it across .00000000000000000001 resistance, but not 0. it doesn't exist at 0. I have a hard time seeing it any other way.
but thanks for trying anyway I guess.
When there is no resistance,it becomes a dead short. A true dead short dose not restrict the flow of current in any way. An ideal voltage dose not change,regardless of the load--which is now an ideal dead short.
No point in running for the hill's,as they will be gone with the rest of the universe.
My theory in this situation is a reverse big bang,where all the energy that exist in the universe is consumed by the ideal voltage source device to maintain the ideal voltage across the ideal dead short. If the ideal dead short is not going to give,and the ideal voltage is not going to change,then it will continue until all the energy in the universe has been consumed,and now is stored in the ideal dead short mass--and so is the conservation of energy--not created,not destroyed ,but now stored.
Brad
-
I can understand that we arbitrarily set a point where we say "ok.. that's close enough to max" when it comes to inductor charging. it's based upon a constant. using this 'constant' for all models, we can approximate inductor behavior over time given inductance.. but it's like asking your meter to give you the amp reading on a circuit with 0 resistance. it just can't be done because all of our figures are based off one another. even if we say 'OK', instead of 0 resistance, let's say .000000000001.. that's kind of like somehow thinking .000000000001 is anywhere close to 0. you cannot get 'close' to 0.
you cannot approximate 0.. The actual existence of 0 means we can divide up 0-1 an infinite number of times.
Any thoughts of a coil with 0 resistance acting like a coil with .000000000000000000000001 ohms resistance is utterly ridiculous because it has never been demonstrated how a coil with 0 ohms resistance acts, as of yet in our currently defined laws of conservation, right?
to me resistance is not just some factor we can remove from an equation altogether, and say the
result will be the same approximation as if there was "close to 0" resistance. this is a fallacy i cannot get around mentally.
-
A coil with no resistance and a coil with very low resistance will act in fundamentally the same manner. We know absolutely and with 100% certainty how a coil with zero resistance acts. That's what you need to believe instead of believing in superstition. If only the log jam could be broken on the other thread and you guys could move forward and try to answer the question.
-
A coil with no resistance and a coil with very low resistance will act in fundamentally the same manner. We know absolutely and with 100% certainty how a coil with zero resistance acts. That's what you need to believe instead of believing in superstition. If only the log jam could be broken on the other thread and you guys could move forward and try to answer the question.
But, do we agree that a coil with 0 resistance does not/can not exist? I hope that we do, otherwise, I am missing something major.
IF I am correct about this, then what good does "knowing" how a coil with 0 resistance will act do for us?
I am not arguing anything as this is not my field and I am here to learn.
Bill
-
But, do we agree that a coil with 0 resistance does not/can not exist? I hope that we do, otherwise, I am missing something major.
IF I am correct about this, then what good does "knowing" how a coil with 0 resistance will act do for us?
I am not arguing anything as this is not my field and I am here to learn.
Bill
out of fairness one could say that he IS trying to argue that, but only in his exercise.
in his exercise he is trying to establish that a 0 resistance is for all intents and purposes the same
as .0000001 resistance, so in his exercise, current would indeed flow as proven by the flow shown in the inductors with extra low resistance. however he asked it in a question you could say some of us are simply overthinking because we feel the need to establish 0 resistance is an impossibility because it is a word we give to a key factor in circuit theory and how we calculate many other factors we have names for. so basically MH wanted to show that Brad didn't have the EE knowledge to do the math on the exercise and Brad is trying to show once again that MH's answer cannot be right due to the simple fact that R=0. even if Brad answered the questions assuming in this exercise R=0 indeed behaves like R=.0000001 in a window of time, I personally don't see the point of it. Brad could then pop quiz MH on how his Joule Thief worked and it would be the same argument all over again.
-
But, do we agree that a coil with 0 resistance does not/can not exist? I hope that we do, otherwise, I am missing something major.
IF I am correct about this, then what good does "knowing" how a coil with 0 resistance will act do for us?
I am not arguing anything as this is not my field and I am here to learn.
Bill
If an ideal inductor existed,one having no resistance,no capacitance,and did not dissipate any power,then no current would flow through it,as the CEMF would also be ideal,and equal to that of the EMF. Both would produce the same amount of current,but which flow in opposite directions--and so the net result is 0 current flow.
This is the behaviour of an ideal inductor--everything is !ideal!.
Brad
-
But, do we agree that a coil with 0 resistance does not/can not exist? I hope that we do, otherwise, I am missing something major.
IF I am correct about this, then what good does "knowing" how a coil with 0 resistance will act do for us?
I am not arguing anything as this is not my field and I am here to learn.
Bill
How can you possibly understand how a real-world coil will behave if you don't also know how an ideal coil behaves? A real-world coil is the synthesis of an ideal coil and a resistance. Deriving how a real-world coil works and generating the formula comes directly from fully understanding how an ideal coil works, and how a resistance works. Makes sense?
What good comes from knowing this? What good comes from knowing how an aircraft wing gives you lift? Honestly, it's a ridiculous question.
Let's take an example of an ICE. Say we have a 300 HP 8-cylinder engine. I am just going to guess some numbers now. We know from measurements let's say at idle in a real car it burns off 2 HP of gas. Let's say that we also know that the HP drain from the main bearings in the engine is 1/2 HP.
Now, can we imagine replacing the bearings with "magic" perfectly frictionless bearings? We can do that pretty darn easily. If the engine had perfectly frictionless bearings would it still pretty much run the same way? For sure it would, except now when it is at idle, it will burn 1 1/2 HP of gas instead of 2 HP of gas.
Now, is this frictionless-bearing ICE that hard to imagine in your engine designer's brain? The answer is no, the ICE will perform almost identically. Who does not have the capacity to imagine that? Not many people at all.
It's the same thing with a 5 Henry ideal coil and a 5 Henry coil with a wire resistance of 0.001 ohms. It is no stretch of the imagination at all to imagine how the ideal coil will behave if you assume that you know how the real 5 Henry coil will behave. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, a waste of time.
-
If an ideal inductor existed,one having no resistance,no capacitance,and did not dissipate any power,then no current would flow through it,as the CEMF would also be ideal,and equal to that of the EMF. Both would produce the same amount of current,but which flow in opposite directions--and so the net result is 0 current flow.
This is the behaviour of an ideal inductor--everything is !ideal!.
Brad
It's time to get real Brad. The real coil and the ideal coil both produce equal CEMF to counter the EMF applied by the voltage source.
How does either type of coil respond to the EMF? Continuously increasing current flows through the coil as long as the EMF is applied. The CEMF is a direct result of increasing current flowing through the coil. That's how a bloody inductor works!
Get yourself out of this quagmire and move forward and try to answer the question.
-
What good comes from knowing this? What good comes from knowing how an aircraft wing gives you lift? Honestly, it's a ridiculous question.
Well, thanks for the response but, I do not think it was a ridiculous question. Your wing analogy is a poor one as you are talking apples and oranges here. The more accurate comparison would have been knowing how an "ideal" aircraft wing works (One with 0 drag) which also does not exist. So, to me, knowing how an ideal (non-existent) aircraft wing performs is useless if I already know how a real life aircraft wing works. You see? Why get involved with 0 drag and infinity lift when studying airfoil designs when neither is possible? (If you have L/D and D=0 then we are diving by 0 again and..well...you know...)
Also, in the wing example, you can not say that an ideal wing (airfoil design) will perform almost identically to a real wing design like you are saying with your coil. Same with the ICE analogy.
To me, it is useless and a total waste of time considering how an "ideal" anything, (which does not/can not exist) performs under imaginary conditions.
We can agree to disagree on this point but, I have been involved in many, many engineering design projects over the years and never, ever...even once, did we model something that did not, or could not exist to determine our final design.
Bill
PS Maybe the guys that designed the components for my computer did as you are saying, maybe the folks that built the hard drives and servers for the net did so also...if so, I take my hat off to them. I just can not picture them wasting valuable time
considering impossible design parameters.
-
Okay, let me bounce this one back at you.
For starters, almost the entire world economy now depends on transistors, capacitors, and inductors. Take those three things away, and we would have to deal with the fact that there is 3-5 days worth of food available before starvation sets in. There is a huge magnetics industry. You can say that every single computer motherboard built in the last 15 years relies on pulsing inductors to generate different voltages. Design teams that design basic components like this do their best to approach what they know an ideal inductor can achieve.
I am no aeronautics guy, but let's say there is an ideal lift and drag for a wing design if you assume perfectly laminar air flow over the wing. However, in the real world you don't have perfectly laminar air flow. So the design team can compare the theoretical ideal numbers with the real-world numbers they are getting and then iterate on that and tweak their wing design and try to approach the ideal numbers. So if they know the ideal numbers they will know how close their design is compared to the ideal.
Countless performance measurements are compared against theoretical ideal performance numbers so that designers know how well their designs are performing.
Beyond that, anybody that studies electronics learns about ideal capacitors and inductors. It's the path towards understanding real-world capacitors and inductors. I am truly fed up with this "what good is an ideal inductor" debate. It's the way electronics works in the real world, and to truly understand real capacitors and real inductors you must understand ideal capacitors and ideal inductors, period.
When I read between the lines in some of the comments I am hearing, "That's hard, I don't want to deal with it, let me play with my coils and leave me alone." It's a cop out and if you want to play with coils, being able to deal with very simple ideal coil scenarios and understanding them is extremely important. You can apply that knowledge in the real world.
-
It's time to get real Brad. The real coil and the ideal coil both produce equal CEMF to counter the EMF applied by the voltage source.
How does either type of coil respond to the EMF? Continuously increasing current flows through the coil as long as the EMF is applied. The CEMF is a direct result of increasing current flowing through the coil. That's how a bloody inductor works!
Get yourself out of this quagmire and move forward and try to answer the question.
Yes,and normally the voltage across the coil would drop as current starts to flow--but you have an ideal voltage,and so it dose not drop.
You need to brush up on what an ideal coil is MH,and stop thinking in terms of real coils/inductors.
Brad
-
To properly use an ideal inductor you would need to use constants in place of the rest of the parts,, you can turn those components of the normal real world item into ideals as well.
So with the inductor you would have an inductance value set, then you would have a resistance value set and then a capacitance value,, now you can change these values independent of the others to find the optimum values for what it is you are designing for.
The ideal model is a tool,, you can use the tool to get the best that you can,,
somewhere in MH' effort to help us understand his point, there is a real good lesson to be learned I just think it could be portrayed in a way where we could have the ability to see in real life how similar the math was to the real world outcome.. it's like the famous experiment where Lewin calculates where a swinging bowling ball looking weight is sure to stop at x time provided at random by his students (or something along those lines I don't quite remember)... how cool is it to see the real world result match the math? or when he showed conservation of energy, him place his face right in front of a swinging weight as you see the math work out in the real world?
-
Let's call the current kinetic energy, imagine a rolling ball on a level surface,
if there's no friction it'll go forever.( Inductor no resistance) once you add resistance
it will slow down and stop,the higher the resistance the quicker it stops.
Let's look at an ideal power supply, call it the Atlantic Ocean, call the level the
voltage, take a cupful out and you're not going to notice much difference.
An Ideal inductor WILL do what Henry says and react to a change in CURRENT.
Each Henry will be what he says, a change of an Ampere in a second or however
the definition goes.
Take a schematic, how would you treat an inductor? At a basic level as ideal. After
that you'd have to go to the specs and the calculations are going to be a lot harder!!
John.
-
It's time to get real Brad. The real coil and the ideal coil both produce equal CEMF to counter the EMF applied by the voltage source.
How does either type of coil respond to the EMF? Continuously increasing current flows through the coil as long as the EMF is applied.
Get yourself out of this quagmire and move forward and try to answer the question.
As i said MH,you need to understand what ideal means.
In an ideal inductor,the CEMF would be equal and opposite to the EMF--ideal.
The CEMF is a direct result of increasing current flowing through the coil. That's how a bloody inductor works!
And the CEMF apposes that which created it,and in an ideal situation,that CEMF is equal and opposite to the EMF.
Why is it so hard for you to understand what !ideal! means.
Maybe you should choose your words a little more carefully when asking a question.
Show me a circuit designers use with just an ideal coil. You will find they always add a series resistor in there design to mimic the resistance of a real world inductor.
If a simulator can simulate any real world circuit,why dose it crash when trying to simulate the operation of just an ideal inductor ?,why the need to add a series resistor to get the sim to run the simulation?
Why can you calculate the values and operation of your ideal inductor,and yet the sim crashes?.
Brad
-
As the EE World Turns............... just for the fun of it let's play around.
Pushing it further, if you divide something by 1 you get that same thing. Now if you divide something by zero meaning nothing, you are not left with nothing because you still have that something. Your answer is nothing but you still have that something. If you divide it by 2, that something becomes two something halves. Dividing by nothing would mean doing nothing. The zero would mean, don't bother dividing this even though I am asking you to.
So we are taught that 10 / 0 = 0 when we should be taught to not even bother. So to make it more interesting some now say when you divide something by nothing you get infinity. WOW. So now we go from nothing to infinity. Were did that happen in our world. Where is there any infinity in our world. Why would you even want to consider infinity when even the number of brain cells in your grey matter are too finite to even hold that thought.
So first you need to justify what is this famous zero. Why is it equated to infinity. What use does it have besides implying you have zero money in your pocket or is it really you have infinite money in your pocket. Now that would be great would it not. He is so rich he is worth zero. Let's shed them bucks quick.
It's as if this ideal business is a right of passage. After we tell you how to think, this final test of illogical mind games will determine how willing you are to bypass your own god given powers of observation to abdicate it to our teachings and thus earn your position as an EE bread winner. This is more of a cult indoctrination where the leaders of the cult know that if this new mind can accept something as illogical as this ideal construct, even if this person fakes accepting it, he will learn to bow to our intellectual authority. If you learn to play the game, you will feed your family and serve our needs without objection. You will become our new toy and all you needed was zero.
But these ideas are only possible because your main actors are actually unknown to you. They are portrayed as mystical electrons and fields, they flow like Aladdin on his magic carpet. You are like the musician, once you have practiced the notes for however many years it takes, the music plays on its own and you just become the automated vector perceiving yourself as a master in full control.
Zero resistance in an ideal inductor does not provide the copper atoms the bonding strength to withstand infinite current. Oh I forgot, this is let's pretend.
wattsup
-
As the EE World Turns............... just for the fun of it let's play around.
Pushing it further, if you divide something by 1 you get that same thing. Now if you divide something by zero meaning nothing, you are not left with nothing because you still have that something. Your answer is nothing but you still have that something. If you divide it by 2, that something becomes two something halves. Dividing by nothing would mean doing nothing. The zero would mean, don't bother dividing this even though I am asking you to.
So to make it more interesting some now say when you divide something by nothing you get infinity. WOW. So now we go from nothing to infinity. Were did that happen in our world. Where is there any infinity in our world. Why would you even want to consider infinity when even the number of brain cells in your grey matter are too finite to even hold that thought.
So first you need to justify what is this famous zero. Why is it equated to infinity. What use does it have besides implying you have zero money in your pocket or is it really you have infinite money in your pocket. Now that would be great would it not. He is so rich he is worth zero. Let's shed them bucks quick.
It's as if this ideal business is a right of passage. After we tell you how to think, this final test of illogical mind games will determine how willing you are to bypass your own god given powers of observation to abdicate it to our teachings and thus earn your position as an EE bread winner. This is more of a cult indoctrination where the leaders of the cult know that if this new mind can accept something as illogical as this ideal construct, even if this person fakes accepting it, he will learn to bow to our intellectual authority. If you learn to play the game, you will feed your family and serve our needs without objection. You will become our new toy and all you needed was zero.
But these ideas are only possible because your main actors are actually unknown to you. They are portrayed as mystical electrons and fields, they flow like Aladdin on his magic carpet. You are like the musician, once you have practiced the notes for however many years it takes, the music plays on its own and you just become the automated vector perceiving yourself as a master in full control.
Zero resistance in an ideal inductor does not provide the copper atoms the bonding strength to withstand infinite current. Oh I forgot, this is let's pretend.
wattsup
So we are taught that 10 / 0 = 0 when we should be taught to not even bother.
If 0 is nothing,and we divide 10 by nothing,then we have not divided 10. So we are left with the full 10 :o
Or,if we ask how many 0's are in 10,there there would be an infinite amount of 0's in 10 :o
The same could apply when you calculate the time constant for an inductor.
Tau=L/R. In an ideal inductor there is no R-->Tau=L/nothing-->Tau=L :o
So now,some how,our time constant has turned into inductance ::)
See,wasnt that hard to stop time :P
Brad.
-
Yes,and normally the voltage across the coil would drop as current starts to flow--but you have an ideal voltage,and so it dose not drop.
You need to brush up on what an ideal coil is MH,and stop thinking in terms of real coils/inductors.
Brad
In both cases for the coil, real and ideal, the voltage across the coil is whatever the voltage is coming from the source, whether that be a real or ideal voltage source. As current starts to flow, the voltage will be whatever the real or ideal source is imposing on the coil. There will be no drop like you are suggesting. The only drop would be from a real voltage source under load, and that has nothing to do with whether the coil is real or ideal.
It's not me that needs to brush up on anything, it's you that needs to understand how a coil works. Once you achieve that, then hopefully you will be able to answer the question properly and demonstrate that you understand what is going on and can demonstrate competency.
-
If a simulator can simulate any real world circuit,why dose it crash when trying to simulate the operation of just an ideal inductor ?,why the need to add a series resistor to get the sim to run the simulation?
Why can you calculate the values and operation of your ideal inductor,and yet the sim crashes?.
Brad
Poynt has already explained this to you. Do you really need for it to be explained to you a second time? Playing the game of "missing" the first time something is stated and forcing it to be reposted again is just plain silly.
-
Zero resistance in an ideal inductor does not provide the copper atoms the bonding strength to withstand infinite current. Oh I forgot, this is let's pretend.
wattsup
Honestly, you should be embarrassed by the series of ridiculous comments you have been making. "But the wire is not thick enough." "But the coil is going to burn up."
Hey! We are looking at a problem on paper. The thickness of the wire and the supposed heat dissipation (none in an ideal coil) have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of discussion. Nothing at all. What are you even mentioning stuff like this for? It's like you are a kid in kindergarten with a limited ability to conceptualize that has been plopped down into a grade five class and they are discussing fractions. You only learn fractions in grade four, so you as the kid in kindergarten are lost. Some kid says, "I want half of that dollar bill to buy candies and John and Robbie will split the other half for their piggy banks." You are totally confused and you say, "But you how can you do that, there is only one dollar bill?" Really, it's annoying to read the nonsense you post sometimes. It contributes nothing to the discussion, it's like you're on another planet.
Here is the the solution to the divide by zero business: In a real coil there is a resistance and therefore there is a formula to solve for how it behaves built around an exponential function. In an ideal coil there is no resistance so the formula does not even apply. There is no more exponential curve, period. So you use the right formula to apply to the new circuit, it is as simple as that.
Why all of this discussion about infinite time constants and dividing by zero? This is all about the mathematical construct of using limits. What is the limit in the size of the time constant as the resistance approaches zero? What is the limit in the way the current trace curves as the time constant approaches infinity? What is the limit in the curvature of a circle as the radius approaches infinity? This stuff is used every day in science and engineering and mathematics. It's not a huge intellectual exercise to realize that the trace for the current becomes a straight line as the resistance approaches zero and the time constant approaches infinity. More importantly, you use the equation that matches the circuit. There is a different and much simpler equation when discussing ideal coils.
-
Poynt has already explained this to you. Do you really need for it to be explained to you a second time? Playing the game of "missing" the first time something is stated and forcing it to be reposted again is just plain silly.
yes. There needs to be a series resistor added in the circuit,just like they do when designing circuits.
The sim will not solve the unsolvable.
Like you,the sim dose not understand ideal.
Brad
-
yes. There needs to be a series resistor added in the circuit,just like they do when designing circuits.
The sim will not solve the unsolvable.
Like you,the sim dose not understand ideal.
Brad
The sim could solve for the ideal coil easily. But the software designers have limits in how high the floating-point numbers can go. If there is a resistance then the final current through the coil is finite as time goes to infinity. If there is no resistance then the current through the coil goes to infinity as the time goes to infinity.
The software designers of the sim don't want the sim breaking all the time with out-of-bounds errors for the computational variables. They know it would make the program seem buggy and unreliable. So to prevent things like that from happening they force reasonable constraints on what you can enter as a schematic to prevent the software variables from going out of bounds.
If you temporarily remove these intentional restrictions the sim would happily calculate the response of an ideal inductor from t=0 to t=fifty years.
It's you that does not understand "ideal" right now, and like usual you have erected a wall because you are so sure of yourself.
-
Sure indeed whatever,,
The sim chokes because it is trying to solve for an unsolvable calculation.
You are totally our of your element and some Dunning-Kruger is manifesting in you. See my previous posting.
-
Brad,
You may want to refer to Partzman's last sim. He used a very tiny value for his R, and it still gave him the correct answer of 2.4A.
-
yes. There needs to be a series resistor added in the circuit,just like they do when designing circuits.
The sim will not solve the unsolvable.
Like you,the sim dose not understand ideal.
Brad
Tinman,
Have you used or are you familiar with LtSpice? Are you aware there are many various parameters that can be set prior to running a simulation not including the circuit parameters? I can simulate the 5h inductor with a dcr of 1 fohm (1e-15) without crashing so obviously Poynt and I are using different operating parameters. For example, in this particular simulation I am using modified trap for the integration method with the other options being trapezoidal or gear.
Does this possibly change your opinion about simulating this ideal inductor?
Poynt,
I would like to know what parameters you are using to replicate your crash condition.
partzman
-
Tinman,
Have you used or are you familiar with LtSpice? Are you aware there are many various parameters that can be set prior to running a simulation not including the circuit parameters? I can simulate the 5h inductor with a dcr of 1 fohm (1e-15) without crashing so obviously Poynt and I are using different operating parameters. For example, in this particular simulation I am using modified trap for the integration method with the other options being trapezoidal or gear.
Does this possibly change your opinion about simulating this ideal inductor?
Poynt,
I would like to know what parameters you are using to replicate your crash condition.
partzman
No,i am not interested in simulators,i am a hands on man that works with real devices.
Yes,you need to add a resistance to get your sim to work,and as soon as you add that resistance,you no longer have an ideal inductor. You may think it is close,but even that small amount of resistance makes an infinite difference--in other word's,your resistor value looks extremely large as far a a zero resistance value is concerned. You might as well have taken a cup of water from the ocean. To see the difference,take a look below at the screen shots at what ohms law has to say about a very small resistance value ,against no resistance.
Try and get your sim to simulate an ideal inductor(no resistance)--it never will,because like the real world,there needs to be an imperfection added.
Run your sim for 100 seconds like poynt did,and see if the voltage drop's as the current rises--just as a test ;)
Brad
-
Try and get your sim to simulate an ideal inductor(no resistance)--it never will,because like the real world,there needs to be an imperfection added.
Run your sim for 100 seconds like poynt did,and see if the voltage drop's as the current rises--just as a test ;)
Brad
Brad,
I ran the sim for 100s and attached the results below which came out as expected. Using delta I = E*t/L = 4*100/5 = 80 amps. The voltage drop due to this peak current is E = I*R = 80 * 1e-15 = 8e-14 volts which is so small that it doesn't show up on the V(Vin) cursor which indicates 4 volts at the end of the simulation. The netlist is shown to prove the sim was run with a dcr = 1e-15. The timestep used is 10us instead of the previous 1us so the sim completed in a reasonable time.
Now let's reason together on this basic issue. If I understand your position correctly, one could logically assume that the initial current in this example at T=0 when the 4 volts is applied would be I = E/R =4/1e-15 = 4e15 amps. This follows your logic that with a dcr = 0 ohms, the current at T=0 would be infinite. So, as we back off 0 ohms or IOW add an infinitesimally small amount of resistance, the current would no longer be infinite but some finite value following I = E/R.
But this is not what the sim shows which agrees with the real world. Why is this? Because of the self inductance of the coil. IMO, with a dcr = 0, a coil is a pure inductor and still operates as such.
partzman
-
<<< In short MH,, your inclusion of a zero resistance and a zero capacitance was incorrect, you should of asked what they would need to be to match the rating you provided and from there what the rise time or whatever would look like. >>>
No, this is nonsense and foolishness that both you and Brad seem to be subscribing to without any rhyme or reason. Just like Brad claims that "the inductor is producing current equal and opposite to the ideal voltage source so the current is zero and infinity at the same time" or whatever. The inductor is producing squat, it's a passive standard circuit element.
This is nothing more than a refusal to learn and willful ignorance and some kind of hokey superstitious belief system plucked from who knows where or what or when. Just believing that you are right for whatever strange reason does not make it right.
This is just another senseless and ridiculous argument that is hindering progress with respect to the question and actively destroying the learning process for the participants and for those that are reading and want to learn.
-
<<< In short MH,, your inclusion of a zero resistance and a zero capacitance was incorrect, you should of asked what they would need to be to match the rating you provided and from there what the rise time or whatever would look like. >>>
No, this is nonsense and foolishness that both you and Brad seem to be subscribing to without any rhyme or reason. Just like Brad claims that "the inductor is producing current equal and opposite to the ideal voltage source so the current is zero and infinity at the same time" or whatever. The inductor is producing squat, it's a passive standard circuit element.
This is nothing more than a refusal to learn and willful ignorance and some kind of hokey superstitious belief system plucked from who knows where or what or when. Just believing that you are right for whatever strange reason does not make it right.
This is just another senseless and ridiculous argument that is hindering progress with respect to the question and actively destroying the learning process for the participants and for those that are reading and want to learn.
I have never personally believed you to be absolutely wrong, I just personally disagree with the logic behind 0 resistance in the real world so far. And so far, I don't see how any math or sims can provide us the absolute answer. That has absolutely nothing to do with the potential faith I can put into you knowing what you're talking about regarding any other scenario regarding an R value that is not absolute 0. If we were all discussing an R value that is ANYTHING other than 0, this would not be so frustrating.
So I don't see why you feel the need to get offended or lose patience. It's not like anyone is saying, "Oh wow, you ACTUALLY think that? you must have no idea what you're doing in any other equations then"..
It's more like, "wait.. are you ACTUALLY saying you know for sure what would happen in the real world with your 5h R=0 inductor?" this is because, I can't really tell to be honest, but it seems like you are saying that with the confidence that it is more than hypothesis..
you said " Just believing that you are right for whatever strange reason does not make it right."
Isn't this what the argument is really about?
-
No MH,, it is not a refusal from me to learn.
Because at resistance =0 the amps are infinite and you do not have a change of any sort when you are using a percentage of infinite, or any partial value of infinite because they are all infinite.
The reasons the sim needs a small resistance was explained by Poynt, myself, and perhaps Partzman. So that amounts to a refusal on your part to learn.
Believing that stating that the amps will go to infinity when the resistance is zero is nothing more than you cloning Brad. And what does that mean? It means that right now both of you don't have the slightest clue what inductance means, or how an inductor, real or ideal, behaves.
So you have a choice, keep parroting or try to learn what this subject matter is all about.
-
I have never personally believed you to be absolutely wrong, I just personally disagree with the logic behind 0 resistance in the real world so far. And so far, I don't see how any math or sims can provide us the absolute answer. That has absolutely nothing to do with the potential faith I can put into you knowing what you're talking about regarding any other scenario regarding an R value that is not absolute 0. If we were all discussing an R value that is ANYTHING other than 0, this would not be so frustrating.
So I don't see why you feel the need to get offended or lose patience. It's not like anyone is saying, "Oh wow, you ACTUALLY think that? you must have no idea what you're doing in any other equations then"..
It's more like, "wait.. are you ACTUALLY saying you know for sure what would happen in the real world with your 5h R=0 inductor?" this is because, I can't really tell to be honest, but it seems like you are saying that with the confidence that it is more than hypothesis..
you said " Just believing that you are right for whatever strange reason does not make it right."
Isn't this what the argument is really about?
It is really not such a huge mental leap to imagine an inductor with zero resistance. Can you imagine an inductor with 0.000001 ohms resistance? Can you imagine an internal combustion engine where the main crankshaft bearings are replaced by "magic" bearings having no resistance?
I told Brad to go ahead and try to answer the question by adding a 0.000001 ohm resistor to the inductor to "fix the problem" and he passed on that. So zero ohms or 0.000001 ohms, Brad was incapable of answering the question. Progress is currently running at about one millimeter per day.
Anybody can open up a book or do some Googling. Every single student that takes an electronics course ends up perfectly understanding ideal capacitors and ideal inductors. Think of the ICE as a very similar hypothetical example.
Sometimes things seem to be tough and you have to learn then. That's all there is to it, you have to learn them and master them. Repeatedly saying "the current goes to infinity because the resistance is zero" is ridiculous, you absolutely must learn what inductance is if you are going to progress and get more out of your experimenting. If you truly knew what inductance really is, you would scoff at the notion that the current goes to infinity in an ideal inductor.
-
It is really not such a huge mental leap to imagine an inductor with zero resistance. Can you imagine an inductor with 0.000001 ohms resistance? Can you imagine an internal combustion engine where the main crankshaft bearings are replaced by "magic" bearings having no resistance?
I told Brad to go ahead and try to answer the question by adding a 0.000001 ohm resistor to the inductor to "fix the problem" and he passed on that. So zero ohms or 0.000001 ohms, Brad was incapable of answering the question. Progress is currently running at about one millimeter per day.
Anybody can open up a book or do some Googling. Every single student that takes an electronics course ends up perfectly understanding ideal capacitors and ideal inductors. Think of the ICE as a very similar hypothetical example.
Sometimes things seem to be tough and you have to learn then. That's all there is to it, you have to learn them and master them. Repeatedly saying "the current goes to infinity because the resistance is zero" is ridiculous, you absolutely must learn what inductance is if you are going to progress and get more out of your experimenting. If you truly knew what inductance really is, you would scoff at the notion that the current goes to infinity in an ideal inductor.
It's not much of a mental leap when we look at it entirely in experimental terms. But it actually becomes a very interesting discussion and a quite a "thinker" when you really get to the meat of the 0 resistance argument in the real world. Maybe not to you, but to someone like me, it is an intriguing area of circuit theory to think about because it potentially has to do with the very nature
of how things 'actually work'. I understand by simply thinking into any further than you personally would like to is almost an insult to the established way of things but I don't feel you should see it that way.
I mean really is it not interesting to think about? It has actually sparked the interest and desire in me to really take your advice, look more into the nature of how these things work. I am gaining the drive to get back into at least trying to allocate reasonable time into getting the popcorn and watching back to back Lewin lectures.
As I said before I agree everyone could technically just put the 0 resistance debacle aside and simply assume R=0 is similar to R=.00000000000001 is an empirical comparison only in the parameters of your test.. but I personally would find the ensuing debate much less interesting than what is currently being discussed because the point would simply be to do sort of a "haha see! you don't know nuffin about circuit theory!". You don't think at least Brad would be offended by that? What would we really learn in comparison to if we were to practice your same exercise, in a different way, using the types of variables we are more likely to find on a work bench?
-
I am glad that you are getting the desire to look into things more and understand better. However...
It's not a case of "Ha! Ha! See!" I have already covered that so I am asking you to stop it.
One more time:
There was a scandal in Canada very similar to the Flint Michigan water crisis. During the investigation they put people on the stand that were responsible for the water filtration and purification system. It turned out those jackasses had no clue, they knew nothing about the system or water purification. They were asked basic questions about water purification on the stand in front of a judge and the public and the press and they had no clue, they broke down and cried. They had a fiduciary responsibility to provide clean drinking water to their town and they were lazy asses and failed miserably. Would you like to be a resident of that city and having your children drink that water? How about hiring a consultant to check out the house you want to buy for $400 and the guy has no clue?
EMJunke was running a thread for months pitching "partnered output coils" (he is still doing it) and I knew that he was bluffing and had no clue. I asked him if he wanted to answer the simple question we are discussing now. He agreed to answer the question and he failed miserably. He was totally clueless.
Now do you get where I am coming from and why I asked EMJunkie? If you get it then you must stop going back into defensive mode and giving me crap.
Brad wanted to discuss the same question of his own volition and that's why we are here now.
Now, all of the "gurus" are chiming in and Brad is clearly in the wrong. The only issue is when is he going to move forward, as well as you and anybody else interested. The goal is try to answer the simple question and get it right, and more importantly, demonstrate that you understand the issues and show competence in the subject matter.
-
I am glad that you are getting the desire to look into things more and understand better. However...
It's not a case of "Ha! Ha! See!" I have already covered that so I am asking you to stop it.
One more time:
There was a scandal in Canada very similar to the Flint Michigan water crisis. During the investigation they put people on the stand that were responsible for the water filtration and purification system. It turned out those jackasses had no clue, they knew nothing about the system or water purification. They were asked basic questions about water purification on the stand in front of a judge and the public and the press and they had no clue, they broke down and cried. They had a fiduciary responsibility to provide clean drinking water to their town and they were lazy asses and failed miserably. Would you like to be a resident of that city and having your children drink that water? How about hiring a consultant to check out the house you want to buy for $400 and the guy has no clue?
EMJunke was running a thread for months pitching "partnered output coils" and I knew that he was bluffing and had no clue. I asked him if he wanted to answer the simple question we are discussing now. He agreed to answer the question and he failed miserably. He was totally clueless.
Now do you get where I am coming from and why I asked EMJunkie? If you get it then you must stop going back into defensive mode and giving me crap.
Brad wanted to discuss the same question of his own volition and that's why we are here now.
Now, all of the "gurus" are chiming in and Brad is clearly in the wrong. The only issue is when is he going to move forward, as well as you and anybody else interested. The goal is try to answer the simple question and get it right, and more importantly demonstrate that you understand the issues and show competence in the subject matter.
I can completely understand your analogy assuming the context of this site being a place to receive electronics tutoring courses. As ironic as that would be on 'overunity.com', I am not prepared to argue against the discussion of basic circuit analysis being an integral part of the entire electronics
field. I appreciate you are willing to help, because nowhere during the course of you earning your credentials were you told you would be absolutely required to tutor others. So having said that we know you are offering aid at your own accord and expense of time, but imo are complicating it without volition because your question takes ones focus from an actual bench experiment to one of imagination, and one that can hardly resemble anything most experimenters would have on the bench. I've said before if this lesson/test was portrayed in a manner that more closely followed the scientific method, which it currently cannot, I would be more glued to the screen than I am now and eagerly suck up the knowledge knowing how easily I would be able to see the real world results before my eyes. I understand that you could be essentially attempting to 'set the stage' and prime someone like myself with the 'simple basics' before moving to a real circuit, but at this point we should be able to admit it has become more complicated than necessary.. If we are to forget the R=0 business and move on, continuing to analyze a circuit that does not closely parallel anything we have going on in the real world right now, I personally have no desire to commit because it totally derails me from the information I came into the forum looking for.
-
Actually all the sims and the gurus have stated otherwise MH,, and that is ONLY because of the extraneous information you provided.
If you only stated that you have a perfect 5h inductor,,
As has been demonstrated, the sim chokes if zero resistance is used and that is for the very reasons I have already posted.
When you set di/dt the other information you posted should be ignored, that is what the gurus have done,, but to do that they have had to include a resistance,, that in and of itself should not a problem until you then require that they use all of the information provided,, then there is a problem.
Brad is simply taking the other information you provided and using that consideration,, 0 resistance and 0 capacitance => ideal coil => ideal inductor which =>? current at 4V?
Being the master that you are MH,, with an inductor with 0 resistance and 0 capacitance and 4V supplied by an ideal source with infinite current available,, what would the current be?
All I did there is remove the 5h value,,
You are lost Webby and an annoyance and I suppose this time you are trolling out of blind ignorance. At this point your best action would be to be quiet, keep your hands in your pockets, and watch the blinking lights.
-
Not trolling and I am not ignorant. ( well maybe somewhat ignorant )
Your best action would be to state the obvious, your question was in error and as the question was stated described an impossible condition.
The question was not in error and it's just ignorance again.
-
I understand that you could be essentially attempting to 'set the stage' and prime someone like myself with the 'simple basics' before moving to a real circuit, but at this point we should be able to admit it has become more complicated than necessary.. If we are to forget the R=0 business and move on, continuing to analyze a circuit that does not closely parallel anything we have going on in the real world right now, I personally have no desire to commit because it totally derails me from the information I came into the forum looking for.
Earlier on in this thread I clearly demonstrated to you that this can be replicated on the bench with 99.99% similarity to what is being discussed here. All that you have to do is reduce the inductance, lower the voltages and shorten the timing. That is the real world.
And I will tell you one more time, this directly applies to building pulse motors and Joule Thieves. If you can't see that right now, it doesn't matter. You would have to figure that out for yourself. Knowledge builds upon knowledge.
-
Earlier on in this thread I clearly demonstrated to you that this can be replicated on the bench with 99.99% similarity to what is being discussed here. All that you have to do is reduce the inductance, lower the voltages and shorten the timing. That is the real world.
And I will tell you one more time, this directly applies to building pulse motors and Joule Thieves. If you can't see that right now, it doesn't matter. You would have to figure that out for yourself. Knowledge builds upon knowledge.
But you did not demonstrate that.. that is the problem! this is the entire debate.
following the scientific method you have constructed your hypothesis
that it will be 99% similar in theory as it would be in the real world.
Until you can obtain an impossible inductor that can be placed within a
circuit that has absolutely 0 resistance, you have yet to even test it in
an experiment. You may have tested a very low resistance coil, so you know,
you can establish that as more than hypothesis.
The 0 resistance circuit you cannot. It shall remain hypothesis until proven
otherwise. Were you to simply concede to that infallible logical conclusion,
some of us would probably provide a little more adherence to the remainder
of your intended lesson. The issue at hand most members (from what I can tell)
at this point have with the argument, is that you are unwilling to concede to
there being no possible way to gain absolute surety about any aspects
of a circuit analysis if we include a variable of 0 resistance, and leave the
rest of the many other possible variables as vague exclusions.
All of that could have easily be sidestepped were you to simply avoid real world
comparisons and state that your test parameters include physics where R=0
and R=.00000000001 yield no great distinction deserving concern.
-
Here is another sim which will be my last on this subject unless requested otherwise.
This shows the same 5 H inductor with a dcr = 1e-15 ohms plus stepped dcr's of .1, .5, and 1 ohm respectively. The resulting current traces are marked on the plot and as can be seen, the current reaches a lower peak level with each increase in dcr. These values can be calculated by using the time constant formula, delta I = Vin/dcr(1-1/Eu^t/tau).
Eu is Euler's constant = 2.7182818 .
t = time Vin is applied in seconds .
tau = time constant = L/R
Solving for the .5 ohm step, we have 4/.5*(1-1/2.7182818^3/10) = 8*(1-1/2.7182818^.3) = 8*(1-1/1.3498588) = 8*.2591817 = 2.07345 amps which agrees with the sim.
The observation to be made here is that as the dcr decreases, the peak current reached in the inductor under the same given conditions increases but always starts at zero. IOW, the trend as we approach zero is that we see more of a pure inductance.
My questions then is, at what point do we all of a sudden lose the property of inductance as we decrease the dcr and become either a short circuit or an infinite inductance?
I might add that with my current LtSpice parameter set, I can run this simulation successfully with a dcr = 1e-320 with the same results as dcr = 1e-15. With a dcr = 1e-325 an error message states it can not properly solve the matrix needed to complete the simulation.
Just for comparison, the current super-conducting electromagnets used in MRI scanners have a typical dcr in the range of 1e-11 to 1e-12.
partzman
-
Magneticitist:
I am not going to argue this any more. You are just going to have to accept or cope with the fact that people can discuss circuit behaviour using ideal components and then very easily apply that knowledge to the actual circuits that they are working with on the bench. Your argument is invalid, and I have heard it countless times before from people in a similar position to you.
The question as posed without a single modification can be answered with 100% accuracy. Then, a keener could get a big negative feedback operational amplifier, insert a resistor for current sensing just before the output of the amplifier and the voltage sense, and then make extremely accurate measurements of the ideal voltage and associated current being put into the device under test. For example, the device under test could be a single low-resistance coil or some kind of filtering circuit.
If you don't accept this, then there is nothing that I can do about it. It's not for me to convince you, it's for you to convince yourself and change your attitude and embrace knowledge and embrace stuff that will help you do better experiments.
MileHigh
-
Partzman:
That's awesome, thank you so much for running that sim! I have to laugh about the dcr = 1e-320. That means you can compute the solution with a time constant that's way way more than 10,000 trillion times the age of the Universe! But if you set the dcr to 0 then we all die and we have a singularity and time folds in upon itself...
MileHigh
-
<<< My questions then is, at what point do we all of a sudden lose the property of inductance as we decrease the dcr and become either a short circuit or an infinite inductance? >>>
Perhaps Brad can shed some light on that one...
-
Magneticitist:
I am not going to argue this any more. You are just going to have to accept or cope with the fact that people can discuss circuit behaviour using ideal components and then very easily apply that knowledge to the actual circuits that they are working with on the bench. Your argument is invalid, and I have heard it countless times before from people in a similar position to you.
The question as posed without a single modification can be answered with 100% accuracy. Then, a keener could get a big negative feedback operational amplifier, insert a resistor for current sensing just before the output of the amplifier and the voltage sense, and then make extremely accurate measurements of the ideal voltage and associated current being put into the device under test. For example, the device under test could be a single low-resistance coil or some kind of filtering circuit.
If you don't accept this, then there is nothing that I can do about it. It's not for me to convince you, it's for you to convince yourself and change your attitude and embrace knowledge and embrace stuff that will help you do better experiments.
MileHigh
I really thought I was making it clear that I was in total agreement with you on that statement in bold. But in this situation the mixture of ideal source and ideal inductor made the real world comparison a mathematical impossibility, that is the problem. The question you posed could not,
cannot, and for all we know, will not be answered 100% 'perfectly'. Your modification of the question involving an R value could however as far as I can tell.
-
does 'pure' inductance mean infinite inductance? which could possibly be construed as 0 inductance?
-
It is really not such a huge mental leap to imagine an inductor with zero resistance. Can you imagine an inductor with 0.000001 ohms resistance? Can you imagine an internal combustion engine where the main crankshaft bearings are replaced by "magic" bearings having no resistance?
I told Brad to go ahead and try to answer the question by adding a 0.000001 ohm resistor to the inductor to "fix the problem" and he passed on that. So zero ohms or 0.000001 ohms, Brad was incapable of answering the question. Progress is currently running at about one millimeter per day.
Anybody can open up a book or do some Googling. Every single student that takes an electronics course ends up perfectly understanding ideal capacitors and ideal inductors. Think of the ICE as a very similar hypothetical example.
Sometimes things seem to be tough and you have to learn then. That's all there is to it, you have to learn them and master them. Repeatedly saying "the current goes to infinity because the resistance is zero" is ridiculous, you absolutely must learn what inductance is if you are going to progress and get more out of your experimenting. If you truly knew what inductance really is, you would scoff at the notion that the current goes to infinity in an ideal inductor.
I dont see the problem with learning inductance while including resistance. My build of Lasersabers motor has 24 coils in series. 3200 turns of 42awg each, 650ohm each coil. 15.6kohm all in series. each is 83mh for a total of near 2h. While running there isnt much if any curve of current rise. Looks fairly square pulses. So on the far end of resistance where it is very high, the field tends to build very quickly with all that resistance (and inductance) because the current is more restricted from rising any further due to high voltage division across the board.
I just dont see that one would have to learn inductance through ideal circumstances. All one has to do is try say 3 different resistance levels, very low, medium and very high, with a known inductor and see the effects, and it would be real world effects that would be learned.
Mags
-
I agree, but this is being approached from the other way, discussing an ideal inductor. Ultimately the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. If you truly understand a real inductor then by definition you have to understand an ideal inductor.
If all of the coils in your motor point with the same polarity outwards, then you probably have a lot of flux cancellation between adjacent coils. I am assuming that you measured the inductance of a sample coil with an inductance meter. Do you know if the inductance meter can be thrown off by the high 650 ohm resistance?
If you are not sure about the total inductance then you could easily measure the time constant for all of the coils in series and see what you get. I would not be surprised if you get a lower inductance than you think.
-
I agree, but this is being approached from the other way, discussing an ideal inductor. Ultimately the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. If you truly understand a real inductor then by definition you have to understand an ideal inductor.
If all of the coils in your motor point with the same polarity outwards, then you probably have a lot of flux cancellation between adjacent coils. I am assuming that you measured the inductance of a sample coil with an inductance meter. Do you know if the inductance meter can be thrown off by the high 650 ohm resistance?
If you are not sure about the total inductance then you could easily measure the time constant for all of the coils in series and see what you get. I would not be surprised if you get a lower inductance than you think.
"If all of the coils in your motor point with the same polarity outwards, then you probably have a lot of flux cancellation between adjacent coils. I am assuming that you measured the inductance of a sample coil with an inductance meter. Do you know if the inductance meter can be thrown off by the high 650 ohm resistance?"
The inductance was measured on 1 coil only connected to the meter. Then measured with all 24 in series. It all calculates to be the same even though the coils are side by side in opposing polarities.
Hmm. Havnt read anything that says that I have to recalculate the inductance read with the meter by introducing the resistance value in the equation. Wouldnt the people that make the meters already have the meter do that for you if it is necessary? Like while the meter is connected to the inductor, it could first do a resistance test and sample then calculate the 'proper' inductance. But I havnt seen any dialog that different inductors with different resistances will produce inaccurate inductance reading directly related to the resistance. So are inductance meters virtually useless? ??? There are many coils, transformers and suce that have very low resistance and some with very high resistance.. I mean if your saying that to find the 'true' ideal inductance of my coils helps me any, then Im not sure how or why, because I will most likely never be working with an ideal inductor. ???
Mags
-
What about the ideal bemf, cemf of the ideal inductor? Why is that not an issue here? We, Brad, AC, Mags, and(the other mags) and Verpies seem to have the idea that the ideal inductor will not let current flow due to ideal cemf. What is the exact explanation that the ideal inductor will flow current when a source is applied, if we agree that the magnetic field and cemf should also be ideal in an ideal inductor? We cant pick and choose what works and what doesnt when talking ideal things. Then we are truly talking fantasy beyond what is really considered ideal.
Why is it just neglected that we have stated this many times already? Do you not agree that the cemf would be ideal also? I mean there has to be cemf if there is to be an inductance, so why is it not considered ideal and equal to the emf applied where we have a condition that no current would flow?
Mags
-
This is what Verpies said:
<<< In an ideal inductor having a finite inductance, in series with an ideal voltage source, the current will be able to flow and it will increase linearly in time without a limit. >>>
It makes sense that the inductance meter would do a resistance check but I thought there might be limits. I don't know, I never played with one. There is no such thing as "ideal CEMF." A regular coil or an ideal coil will give you exactly the same CEMF. This has been stated before.
I think you know the truth.
-
This is what Verpies said:
<<< In an ideal inductor having a finite inductance, in series with an ideal voltage source, the current will be able to flow and it will increase linearly in time without a limit. >>>
It makes sense that the inductance meter would do a resistance check but I thought there might be limits. I don't know, I never played with one. There is no such thing as "ideal CEMF." A regular coil or an ideal coil will give you exactly the same CEMF. This has been stated before.
I think you know the truth.
I think the whole 'ideal CEMF' idea is taken from the general idea that any inductor resists the change in current. the more perfectly it does that the less it wants to return the magnetic field
when there is nothing opposing it.
when we imagine a perfect model of this we picture something that simply will not allow a current rise to begin with so long as it's something that could theoretically become charged and never dissipate over infinite time.
Some are saying this is a simple confusion where that is what would happen if there were infinite inductance but then we are left with the argument of whether or not a true measure of inductance has any relation to resistance in the real world. I just currently do not have the total math understanding to concede that the constitutive equation for the inductor and the calculation of current change over time has no relation to a unit of resistance.
-
I think the whole 'ideal CEMF' idea is taken from the general idea that any inductor resists the change in current. the more perfectly it does that the less it wants to return the magnetic field
when there is nothing opposing it.
when we imagine a perfect model of this we picture something that simply will not allow a current rise to begin with so long as it's something that could theoretically become charged and never dissipate over infinite time.
Some are saying this is a simple confusion where that is what would happen if there were infinite inductance but then we are left with the argument of whether or not a true measure of inductance has any relation to resistance in the real world. I just currently do not have the total math understanding to concede that the constitutive equation for the inductor and the calculation of current change over time has no relation to a unit of resistance.
Wouldnt the magnet floating over the super cooled superconducting disk, block, whatever it is, be a perfect example of ideal cemf producing an equal opposing field in order for the float to happen? ;)
Mags
-
This is what Verpies said:
<<< In an ideal inductor having a finite inductance, in series with an ideal voltage source, the current will be able to flow and it will increase linearly in time without a limit. >>>
It makes sense that the inductance meter would do a resistance check but I thought there might be limits. I don't know, I never played with one. There is no such thing as "ideal CEMF." A regular coil or an ideal coil will give you exactly the same CEMF. This has been stated before.
I think you know the truth.
" There is no such thing as "ideal CEMF." A regular coil or an ideal coil will give you exactly the same CEMF. This has been stated before."
Well because it was stated doesnt mean it is fact. ;) The question would be why is the cemf not ideal? What impedes the possibility of the cemf to be ideal?
" There is no such thing as "ideal CEMF."
And, there is no such thing as an ideal inductor. ;D
Mags
-
Go ahead and define an "ideal CEMF" yourself if you want.
No ideal inductor? That's right, just be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.
What do you yourself think happens when you put voltage across an ideal coil?
-
Go ahead and define an "ideal CEMF" yourself if you want.
No ideal inductor? That's right, just be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.
What do you yourself think happens when you put voltage across an ideal coil?
Ok. Here is my short version of it..... Ive posted it pretty much the same for years now. Just a bit more expanded.
We all should know that when we have a charge between 2 terminals, that there are electric fields surrounding those terminals. They are in attraction, and can exist without an exchange of charge or say electrons.
So what I think is that when we go to hit the ideal on switch that the charge Im speaking of is now at the end leads of the ideal inductor. This could cause some forward vibration of the electrons in the inductor, like an atomic shift or say tension. Just a nudge, not necessarily moved from one atom to another as in current flow,could set up an initial field just in putting the electrons in a forward squeeze bump, of which that field from each winding affecting the others could be enough to have enough cemf reverse field tension to counter the input. Maybe setting up a little resonance thing. Bump and vibrate, standoff. lol
See, when we have resistance and the voltage division that it causes, then I can see that the initial field build would not be completely impeded by the cemf because we have less than 100% eff. Where the ideal inductor should be 100%efficient in all of its abilities it is defined by. To say that the ideal inductor has its shortcomings makes it less than ideal, doesnt it? And if its cemf is not ideal, then the ideal inductor fails to be ideal. So if that is the case, where is the explanation that describes the cemf as not being ideal in an ideal inductor, and how do we 'account' for that inability of the cemf to be equal to the input in an ideal situation?
Just like I posted earlier, the magnet floating above the superconducting material, couldnt you see that as an example of what im trying to convey here? ;) Actually I think it is a near perfect example. And maybe its not just a nudge vibration of the electrons. Maybe there is some initial movement and it then has a standoff with cemf and no current is able to flow from there, just like the floating mag.
Like I also said before, we cannot lay out special rules to define the ideal inductor, especially if the rule affects the actions that the inductor is defined by.
So until there is some 'good explanation' as to why the ideal inductor cannot have an ideal cemf, then we cannot claim the cemf to not be ideal in the ideal inductor just because we eliminated all resistance. ;)
Ok. I handover the microphone. :)
Mags
-
The problem is that CEMF is just a measurement, it's not a tangible entity like a coil or a voltage source or a current source. You should realize this. It's just an electrical version of Newton's third law.
Look at this very familiar differential equation: v = L di/dt.
Whoops, there is no resistance in that equation. That equation is an equation for an ideal inductor and yet it is used all the time. I suppose we are just waiting for this business to be resolved and move forward. I am already smelling the possibility of dismal failure with no resolution to this silly impasse and the question never gets answered. That would really be unfortunate.
Why doesn't somebody just take the lead on the question and leave Brad to stew in his own juices? Move forward and let Brad figure it out for himself.
-
The problem is that CEMF is just a measurement, it's not a tangible entity like a coil or a voltage source or a current source. You should realize this. It's just an electrical version of Newton's third law.
Look at this very familiar differential equation: v = L di/dt.
Whoops, there is no resistance in that equation. That equation is an equation for an ideal inductor and yet it is used all the time. I suppose we are just waiting for this business to be resolved and move forward. I am already smelling the possibility of dismal failure with no resolution to this silly impasse and the question never gets answered. That would really be unfortunate.
Why doesn't somebody just take the lead on the question and leave Brad to stew in his own juices? Move forward and let Brad figure it out for himself.
Only there is no t.
Your imaginary CEMF is what apposes the current rise,if it did not,the current rise time would be instant.
You will not be happy MH, unless everyone agrees with you. But like the ICE and resonance,you just cant grasp the concept of 'ideal',or what it means.
In one statement you say a voltage cannot exist across an ideal inductor while a DC current flows through it,but your question states an ideal voltage of 4 volts is across the ideal inductor while a DC current flows through it.
You have not yet provided a link to anyone that modles a circuit using only an ideal inductor-they always include a series resistor.. your simply blindly following what your books say,and are leaving 'ideal'out of it.
You need to understand what ideal means-go look up its meaning.
Brad
-
Look at this very familiar differential equation: v = L di/dt.
Whoops, there is no resistance in that equation.
Miles, are you certain that is so? Are you certain that
resistance isn't included in its effect on something
in there? ???
Look again! :o
-
In one statement you say a voltage cannot exist across an ideal inductor while a DC current flows through it,but your question states an ideal voltage of 4 volts is across the ideal inductor while a DC current flows through it.
Brad
You need to look at the question again and look at what my question states because it's just another bizarre moment coming from you. You also need to grasp how an inductor works.
-
Miles, are you certain that is so? Are you certain that
resistance isn't included in its effect on something
in there? ???
Look again! :o
BS you bad boy.
-
Here is the reality for you Brad: You have myself, Poynt, Verpies and Partzman telling you how an ideal coil works and we are all in agreement. What do you think PicoWatt is going to say?
I suggest that you hit the books until the light goes off in your head. Then you can move on to the question. There is no point sticking to your guns now. The next logical move is to inform and educate yourself.
-
Wouldnt the magnet floating over the super cooled superconducting disk, block, whatever it is, be a perfect example of ideal cemf producing an equal opposing field in order for the float to happen? ;)
Mags
That is a perfect example Mags.
A magnetic field from a PM inducing a current flow in the super conductor which produces an equal and opposite magnetic field to that which created it. The PM remains perfectly still,and shows us a true equal and opposite reaction--an ideal state.
Of course MH will try and skip past this,as it dose not agree with the answer he wants everyone to believe.
Ask him to work out the math that gives rise to this situation-how is this perfect and ballanced situation allowed to take place?--well because it's an ideal situation.
Brad
-
The superconductor excludes any magnetic field and this must be
considered an effect DISTINCT from zero resistance.
John.
-
The superconductor excludes any magnetic field and this must be
considered an effect DISTINCT from zero resistance.
John.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect
In Type II superconductors, raising the applied field past a critical value Hc1 leads to a mixed state (also known as the vortex state) in which an increasing amount of magnetic flux penetrates the material, but there remains no resistance to the flow of electric current as long as the current is not too large.
Brad
-
Well Brad, you are still stuck in your rut I see.
Here is a little story for you to contemplate.
You go to the supermarket to shop for food. You get a huge amount of stuff and your shopping cart is very heavy. You are stopped, and then you push on the cart with a continuous even force. How about that - the heavy shopping cart is pushing back at you with exactly the same amount of force. You also notice that the shopping cart is starting to speed up and you have to keep quickening your pace.
Think about this: What if the shopping cart was a "magic" 22nd century shopping cart and instead of being on four wheels with bearings, the shopping cart floated one inch above the floor through magnetic levitation. That means when you push on it it glides frictionlessly across the floor.
Think about this: Imagine the shopping cart is stopped, and it has infinite mass. Then, you push on it and then no matter how long and no matter with how much force, the shopping cart doesn't budge an inch.
Can you learn anything from this Brad?
MileHigh
-
Well Brad, you are still stuck in your rut I see.
Here is a little story for you to contemplate.
Think about this: What if the shopping cart was a "magic" 22nd century shopping cart and instead of being on four wheels with bearings, the shopping cart floated one inch above the floor through magnetic levitation. That means when you push on it it glides frictionlessly across the floor.
Think about this: Imagine the shopping cart is stopped, and it has infinite mass. Then, you push on it and then no matter how long and no matter with how much force, the shopping cart doesn't budge an inch.
MileHigh
You go to the supermarket to shop for food. You get a huge amount of stuff and your shopping cart is very heavy. You are stopped, and then you push on the cart with a continuous even force. How about that - the heavy shopping cart is pushing back at you with exactly the same amount of force. You also notice that the shopping cart is starting to speed up and you have to keep quickening your pace.
Maybe the shopping cart is not pushing back at you with exactly the same force,as if it did,it(and you) would not move--how about that?. The shopping cart losses some of that force to motion--think man.
Something ilearned from MarkE,when we were talking about air ram's.
I too thought like you,until Mark explained how when one object is motionless,and the other can move,then the one that is moved by the force that is motionless is not pushing back as hard as the motionless force-something like that,cant quite remember.
Can you learn anything from this Brad?
Yes
You need to touch up on some of the things you believe to be true.
Edited
Brad
-
Here is a bit of news for you MH.
The shopping cart is not pushing back at you with exactly the same force,as if it did,it(and you) would not move--how about that?. The shopping cart losses some of that force to motion--think man.
Brad
So there is your big fail right there.
f = ma
Force = mass x acceleration.
What do you have to say now?
-
Well Brad, you are still stuck in your rut I see.
Here is a little story for you to contemplate.
You go to the supermarket to shop for food. You get a huge amount of stuff and your shopping cart is very heavy. You are stopped, and then you push on the cart with a continuous even force. How about that - the heavy shopping cart is pushing back at you with exactly the same amount of force. You also notice that the shopping cart is starting to speed up and you have to keep quickening your pace.
Think about this: What if the shopping cart was a "magic" 22nd century shopping cart and instead of being on four wheels with bearings, the shopping cart floated one inch above the floor through magnetic levitation. That means when you push on it it glides frictionlessly across the floor.
Think about this: Imagine the shopping cart is stopped, and it has infinite mass. Then, you push on it and then no matter how long and no matter with how much force, the shopping cart doesn't budge an inch.
Can you learn anything from this Brad?
MileHigh
More stories: Jammy!!
But above: UpHill, or ............. without bearings?
-
So there is your big fail right there.
f = ma
Force = mass x acceleration.
What do you have to say now?
Post edidted--forgot the source of the information
-
Brad:
No avoiding this:
<<< In one statement you say a voltage cannot exist across an ideal inductor while a DC current flows through it,but your question states an ideal voltage of 4 volts is across the ideal inductor while a DC current flows through it. >>>
What are you talking about? I never said that.
No avoiding this:
Here is the reality for you Brad: You have myself, Poynt, Verpies and Partzman telling you how an ideal coil works and we are all in agreement. What do you think Picowatt is going to say? And what is your response to the fact that we are in agreement although we still haven't heard from Picowatt?
<<< Of course MH will try and skip past this,as it dose not agree with the answer he wants everyone to believe. >>>
Go ahead Brad and tell us about this: "Wouldnt the magnet floating over the super cooled superconducting disk, block, whatever it is, be a perfect example of ideal cemf producing an equal opposing field in order for the float to happen?"
So you are suggesting that this is like applying voltage to a ideal coil and no current flows? This is not my claim, apparently you agree with Magluvin's statement. Please go ahead and explain how these two things are equivalent.
No avoiding this:
I said to you if you didn't like the ideal inductor, then turn it into a real inductor by putting a 0.00001 resistor in series with the ideal coil and then go and answer the question. I don't care if you want to do that, and now just go ahead and answer the question.
Personally, when I first asked you this I think that you were incapable of answering the question and so you just brushed it off. I am still waiting for you to answer the question and do it with a real inductor if you want.
MileHigh
-
Post edidted--forgot the source of the information
What do you mean?
-
So there is your big fail right there.
f = ma
Force = mass x acceleration.
What do you have to say now?
What i have to say MH,is you have forgotten all about your determining the top speed of a car saga.
Here on earth,Force=mass x acceleration- friction-->you forgot all about the effects of gravity MH.
Hey MH-->how do you determine the top speed of a shopping trolley :D
Brad
-
What i have to say MH,is you have forgotten all about your determining the top speed of a car saga.
Here on earth,Force=mass x acceleration- friction-->you forgot all about the effects of gravity MH.
Brad
You are talking nonsense and I am being serious.
If you stand next to a wall and push on it, it pushes back at you with the same force.
When you push on a shopping cart and it accelerates, it doesn't matter and the shopping is still pushing back at you with the same force.
Do you understand this and agree with this or not?
If you disagree then I want your full explanation.
-
If you stand next to a wall and push on it, it pushes back at you with the same force.
The WALL is pushing back, funny, what is the stroke, trabago? Do you mean resits a force, like wind m2!
When you push on a shopping cart and it accelerates, it doesn't matter and the shopping is still pushing back at you with the same force.
Resistance?
-
Brad:
No avoiding this:
What are you talking about? I never said that.
No avoiding this:
Here is the reality for you Brad: What do you think Picowatt is going to say? And what is your response to the fact that we are in agreement although we still haven't heard from Picowatt?
<<< Of course MH will try and skip past this,as it dose not agree with the answer he wants everyone to believe. >>>
No avoiding this:
I said to you if you didn't like the ideal inductor, then turn it into a real inductor by putting a 0.00001 resistor in series with the ideal coil and then go and answer the question. I don't care if you want to do that, and now just go ahead and answer the question.
Personally, when I first asked you this I think that you were incapable of answering the question and so you just brushed it off. I am still waiting for you to answer the question and do it with a real inductor if you want.
MileHigh
You have myself, Poynt, Verpies and Partzman telling you how an ideal coil works and we are all in agreement.
I do not remember seeing verpies in agreement with you. I did see he agreed with one of my posts--did you miss that?.
Partsman and poynt are yet to show a sim of an ideal inductor doing what you say it dose. Yes that right,they must include some resistance for the sim to sim lol.
Personally, when I first asked you this I think that you were incapable of answering the question and so you just brushed it off. I am still waiting for you to answer the question and do it with a real inductor if you want.
I have answered your question correctly.
You cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor,as an ideal inductor dose not exist.
That being the case,all answers are theories only,as the answer cannot be proven to be correct.
We already know that a superconductor produces an equal and opposite magnetic force to that which created it. We know that current can flow through a superconductor without a voltage across it. An ideal inductor would be wound with superconducting wire-hence no resistance. So what is the difference between the two MH? One has it's current induced by the EMF placed across it,and the other has it's current induced by the external magnetic field.
Your saying one will work--produce the equal and opposite,while the other will not.
Quote me---><<< In one statement you say a voltage cannot exist across an ideal inductor while a DC current flows through it,but your question states an ideal voltage of 4 volts is across the ideal inductor while a DC current flows through it. >>>
What are you talking about? I never said that.
You didnt ? :o
Are you sure?.
Brad
-
Johan:
Yes the wall pushes back and there is no friction in this discussion.
You should be ashamed of yourself for comparing me to a notorious child abuser and you should apologize to me and to everyone on this forum. Your behaviour was disgusting.
-
Johan:Yes the wall pushes back and there is no friction in this discussion.You should be ashamed of yourself for comparing me to a notorious child abuser and you should apologize to me and to everyone on this forum. Your behaviour was disgusting.
Can you back up you'''re claims, or lets agree on: Independent 3e Party, right, is the best!!
-
Brad:
<<< I do not remember seeing verpies in agreement with you. I did see he agreed with one of my posts--did you miss that?.
Partsman and poynt are yet to show a sim of an ideal inductor doing what you say it dose. Yes that right,they must include some resistance for the sim to sim lol. >>>
Verpies is in agreement and you saw his quote. He also made some other somewhat confusing posts, but I am talking about the post that counts. The sim is not relevant to this discussion and it's probably been explained to you at least four times why the resistor has to be added. What they themselves state is what counts and we are in agreement.
So, you are non-responsive to this question and you are avoiding it.
<<< I have answered your question correctly.
You cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor,as an ideal inductor dose not exist.
That being the case,all answers are theories only,as the answer cannot be proven to be correct. >>>
So you are non-responsive on the issue of answering the question where you use a real-world inductor with a series resistor instead of an ideal inductor.
So that means that you are incapable of answering the question at all and you are in the same boat as Wattsup and EMJunkie. Six years of experimenting with coils, countless discussions about electronics on the forums with experts, and when presented with a circuit that consists of a power supply and only two components, a resistor and an inductor, you can't answer it. So much for all the lols and attitude, the real joke is on you.
<<< We already know that a superconductor produces an equal and opposite magnetic force to that which created it. We know that current can flow through a superconductor without a voltage across it. An ideal inductor would be wound with superconducting wire-hence no resistance. So what is the difference between the two MH? One has it's current induced by the EMF placed across it,and the other has it's current induced by the external magnetic field.
Your saying one will work--produce the equal and opposite,while the other will not. >>>
Your example is just two magnets in opposition, and that is in no way comparable to a voltage source exporting power into an energy storing device that also responds with an equal and opposite EMF. Power does not flow in one example and power flows in the other example. (See the shopping cart example.)
<<< You didnt ? (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)
Are you sure?. >>>
You better believe that I didn't say it you naughty little imp. This is your cue to pull up a quote out of context.
So, you are incapable of answering the question and the thread has degenerated into mush. That is par for the course.
MileHigh
-
You are talking nonsense and I am being serious.
If you stand next to a wall and push on it, it pushes back at you with the same force.
When you push on a shopping cart and it accelerates, it doesn't matter and the shopping is still pushing back at you with the same force.
Do you understand this and agree with this or not?
If you disagree then I want your full explanation.
It was a variance to Force=mass x acceleration that MarkE showed me during the air tank transfer thread. As far as i can remember ,it went something like this--it had to do with two variations of the amount of friction in the combined unit.
We have an air ram,where the cylinder is fixed,and so the friction is extremely high due to the fixture of the ram to earth,and cannot move(high friction value). The ram that moves within the cylinder has a much lower friction value,and can move with some force applied to it.
When compressed gas enters the cylinder,this gas pushes against the piston of the ram,and the ram moves. I stated that the piston pushes against the gas as much as the gas pushes against the piston,and he said i was wrong. He stated that if the piston was pushing against the gas as hard as the gas was pushing against the piston,the piston would not move. This was due to taking into account the friction ratio's of the two parts of the air ram as a whole.
With the shopping cart,the persons feet has a higher friction ratio to that of the shopping trolley wheels in reference to the ground/earth. So i would think the same applies here,and that friction offsets your force=mass x acceleration.
If i could find that thread,i could post you the post where MarkE explained this,as i may not have it 100% right. But i know there is a situation that involves friction where force =mass x acceleration deviates. Force =mass x acceleration only in a frictionless environment.
Brad
-
Can you back up you'''re claims, or lets agree on: Independent 3e Party, right, is the best!!
You should be ashamed of yourself for comparing me to a notorious child abuser and you should apologize to me and to everyone on this forum. Your behaviour was disgusting.
Take a look:
http://www.studyphysics.ca/newnotes/20/unit01_kinematicsdynamics/chp05_forces/lesson17.htm
Anytime an object applies a force to another object, there is an equal and opposite force back on the original object.
If you push on a wall you feel a force against your hand… the wall is pushing back on you with as much force as you apply to it.
If this wasn't happening, your hand would accelerate through the wall!
This thread is just filled with rocket scientists and sleazeballs, isn't it Johan?
-
It was a variance to Force=mass x acceleration that MarkE showed me during the air tank transfer thread. As far as i can remember ,it went something like this--it had to do with two variations of the amount of friction in the combined unit.
We have an air ram,where the cylinder is fixed,and so the friction is extremely high due to the fixture of the ram to earth,and cannot move(high friction value). The ram that moves within the cylinder has a much lower friction value,and can move with some force applied to it.
When compressed gas enters the cylinder,this gas pushes against the piston of the ram,and the ram moves. I stated that the piston pushes against the gas as much as the gas pushes against the piston,and he said i was wrong. He stated that if the piston was pushing against the gas as hard as the gas was pushing against the piston,the piston would not move. This was due to taking into account the friction ratio's of the two parts of the air ram as a whole.
With the shopping cart,the persons feet has a higher friction ratio to that of the shopping trolley wheels in reference to the ground/earth. So i would think the same applies here,and that friction offsets your force=mass x acceleration.
If i could find that thread,i could post you the post where MarkE explained this,as i may not have it 100% right. But i know there is a situation that involves friction where force =mass x acceleration deviates. Force =mass x acceleration only in a frictionless environment.
Brad
No, there are not going to be any stream of consciousness plays or bait and switch plays here. There is nothing about friction in this discussion at all, nothing.
You clearly are not able to answer this question.
http://www.studyphysics.ca/newnotes/20/unit01_kinematicsdynamics/chp05_forces/lesson17.htm (http://www.studyphysics.ca/newnotes/20/unit01_kinematicsdynamics/chp05_forces/lesson17.htm)
"For every action force there is an equal and opposite reaction force."
Action-reaction pairs can also happen without friction, or even with the objects not touching each other, known as "action at a distance" forces …
Action: a rocket pushes out exhaust…
Reaction: the exhaust pushes the rocket forward.
The rocket also obviously accelerates. This is basic high school physics. It applies to the shopping cart and when you switch over to the electrical domain it applies to a voltage source energizing an inductor.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg483911#msg483911 date=1463059213]
MileHigh
Verpies is in agreement and you saw his quote. He also made some other somewhat confusing posts, but I am talking about the post that counts.
I dont remember seeing such a quote that he agreed with you--i will have to go find it--it may be there,im not sure.
Your example is just two magnets in opposition, and that is in no way comparable to a voltage source exporting power into an energy storing device that also responds with an equal and opposite EMF. Power does not flow in one example and power flows in the other example. (See the shopping cart example.)
Well fancy that. A permanent magnet inducing a current flow in a superconductor,that creates an equal and opposite magnetic field that apposes that which created it :D
And you said a PM could not do useful work-->wonder what created that current flow in the superconductor?.
Do you remember verpies saying that a voltage could not produce a current flow in a superconductor?,but only an external magnetic field could.
So you are non-responsive on the issue of answering the question where you use a real-world inductor with a series resistor instead of an ideal inductor.
Oh i can do that,if i could be bothered with all the math,and it would take me some time to answer your question if we swapped out ideal for real world stuff. But im interested in the !ideal! part. Infinite Tau's,no resistance,infinite currents-->sounds like much more fun to me.
You better believe that I didn't say it you naughty little imp. This is your cue to pull up a quote out of context.
How could it be out of context MH?. You either stated that a voltage cannot exist across an ideal coil when a DC current is flowing through it,or you didnt say that--which is it?.
Brad
-
MH. the original inductor question was very thought provoking for me and I've
learned quite a bit. I would love to do the experiment.
Obviously people use ideals in circuit calculations every day and they're very
useful.
Unfortunately the tinman can't grasp concepts, he just knows.
John.
-
Webby:
BS the question was "false."
Here is the question:
<<<
You have an ideal voltage source and an a coil that's 5 Henrys with a wire resistance that's 0.00001 ohms. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
What happens starting from t=0?
>>>
So go ahead, and tell us what is "false" about that question.
The simple fact is that Brad can't answer it, or he can give all of us a pleasant surprise and prove me wrong.
Are you talking about the shopping cart moving and the person pushing it moving in the same direction?
Are you talking about the force between the person pushing the shopping cart and the shopping cart?
Are you talking about the common point of observation,, that would be the ground,, which sees the total force and the reaction?
This is a real-life example. The person moves along with the shopping cart as it accelerates. Yes the force is between the person pushing the shopping cart and the shopping cart. The point of observation is not relevant, you have an external force accelerating a mass.
Do not bring resistance into this discussion or angles or anything like that.
MileHigh
-
MH. the original inductor question was very thought provoking for me and I've
learned quite a bit. I would love to do the experiment.
Obviously people use ideals in circuit calculations every day and they're very
useful.
Unfortunately the tinman can't grasp concepts, he just knows.
John.
Well I am glad that you are getting something out of it. That's really what the ultimate goal is.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
<<< I dont remember seeing such a quote that he agreed with you--i will have to go find it--it may be there,im not sure. >>>
This is what Verpies said:
<<< In an ideal inductor having a finite inductance, in series with an ideal voltage source, the current will be able to flow and it will increase linearly in time without a limit. >>>
I already reposted that to Magluvin in post #2554. It comes from his response to you.
<<< And you said a PM could not do useful work-->wonder what created that current flow in the superconductor?. >>>
Mr. Hand created the current flow in the superconductor.
<<< Do you remember verpies saying that a voltage could not produce a current flow in a superconductor?,but only an external magnetic field could. >>>
I don't remember exactly and I would have to see it again to know the context. I found that he was going through a rather cryptic phase in his comments and several of them were puzzling or were too minimalist and left out a lot of details.
MileHigh
-
MH. the original inductor question was very thought provoking for me and I've
learned quite a bit. I would love to do the experiment.
Obviously people use ideals in circuit calculations every day and they're very
useful.
Unfortunately the tinman can't grasp concepts, he just knows.
John.
MH says a voltage cannot exist across an ideal inductor while a DC current is flowing through it,but now he says that he is creating this DC current that flows through this ideal inductor by placing a voltage across it :o
Talk about mumbo jumbo/
Brad
-
Brad:
<<< I dont remember seeing such a quote that he agreed with you--i will have to go find it--it may be there,im not sure. >>>
This is what Verpies said:
<<< In an ideal inductor having a finite inductance, in series with an ideal voltage source, the current will be able to flow and it will increase linearly in time without a limit. >>>
I already reposted that to Magluvin in post #2554. It comes from his response to you.
<<< And you said a PM could not do useful work-->wonder what created that current flow in the superconductor?. >>>
Mr. Hand created the current flow in the superconductor.
MileHigh
Oh right.
So if i place my hand over the superconductor,it will produce a current flow and a magnetic field. :D
What about that fact that the superconductors field matches the every move of the PMs field,and so the PM remains stationary. Try doing that with two PMs in opposition. I remember verpies talking about this frozen field theory some where--will have to find that.
Brad
-
Brad:
<<<
Oh i can do that,if i could be bothered with all the math,and it would take me some time to answer your question if we swapped out ideal for real world stuff. But im interested in the !ideal! part. Infinite Tau's,no resistance,infinite currents-->sounds like much more fun to me.
>>>
I am calling your bluff. I don't believe you for a second.
And you still are clueless with respect to the ideal inductor with "no resistance, infinite currents." If you only knew how you really looked.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
You are clearly, and most unfortunately, back in a bad place again where your thoughts are scrambled.
<<< How could it be out of context MH?. You either stated that a voltage cannot exist across an ideal coil when a DC current is flowing through it,or you didnt say that--which is it?. >>>
I did indeed say that a voltage cannot exist across an ideal inductor when DC current is flowing through it.
But what I did NOT say is this:
<<< In one statement you say a voltage cannot exist across an ideal inductor while a DC current flows through it,but your question states an ideal voltage of 4 volts is across the ideal inductor while a DC current flows through it. >>>
So what is up with you, why are you stating this nonsense?
MileHigh
-
MH says a voltage cannot exist across an ideal inductor while a DC current is flowing through it,but now he says that he is creating this DC current that flows through this ideal inductor by placing a voltage across it :o
Talk about mumbo jumbo/
Brad
One more time, something is scrambled up there in your head.
-
Oh right.
So if i place my hand over the superconductor,it will produce a current flow and a magnetic field. :D
What about that fact that the superconductors field matches the every move of the PMs field,and so the PM remains stationary. Try doing that with two PMs in opposition. I remember verpies talking about this frozen field theory some where--will have to find that.
Brad
You can't possibly not know what I mean by "Mr. Hand," or could you?
Let's forget about superconductors and focus on the question.
We are all waiting for you to shine and answer the modified question with the real coil. I personally don't think you can do it.
-
Here is an interesting discussion and exchange in the link below-
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62664/how-can-ohms-law-be-correct-if-superconductors-have-0-resistivity
Therefore, I ask the following questions. Can an AC voltage be applied to a superconducting coil? If yes, is there a rise time limit and if so why? If there is no rise time limit, can a stepped voltage be applied? If not, why? What happens if we maintain the stepped voltage indefinitely?
partzman
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg483915#msg483915 date=1463060077]
No, there are not going to be any stream of consciousness plays or bait and switch plays here. There is nothing about friction in this discussion at all, nothing.
Wicked,a frictionless shopping kart.
About time,as i hate how those things never want to drive straight ::)
"For every action force there is an equal and opposite reaction force."
Yes,but when there is another force acting upon the two bodies,then the action/reaction forces can be divided between the three forces--not just the two you see MH. All will add up to be the same,but that dose not mean it is between the person pushing the shopping cart,and the shopping cart it self.
and when you switch over to the electrical domain it applies to a voltage source energizing an inductor.
But you said a voltage cannot exist across an ideal inductor when a DC current is flowing through it.
This contradicts you placing a voltage source across an ideal inductor to induce a current flow
WT-* MH ?.
Action: a rocket pushes out exhaust…
Reaction: the exhaust pushes the rocket forward.
Well technically it's not the exaust that pushes the rocket forward,as the accelerated mass pushing on the rocket housing,hasnt actually left the rocket engine housing yet--so it's not yet an exausted gas.
Brad
-
You can't possibly not know what I mean by "Mr. Hand," or could you?
Let's forget about superconductors and focus on the question.
Yes MH. You think it is the energy used to move the magnet into position that creates the apposing magnetic field in the superconductor.
But as we know,we could replace that PM with a piece of non magnetized steel,lift it into position with our hand,and it would have no effect at all--same energy,no result.
We are all waiting for you to shine and answer the modified question with the real coil. I personally don't think you can do it.
I personally dont care what you think,as im interested only in your original question.
Now what you have to do,is explain to everyone here,how you can say that a voltage cannot exist across an ideal inductor that has a DC current flowing through it,and then say you are going to produce a DC current through an ideal inductor by placing a voltage across it :o
Brad
-
Brad:
<<< Wicked,a frictionless shopping kart.
About time,as i hate how those things never want to drive straight >>>
This is just you being the class clown/bozo. The question has nothing to do with friction at all. Another failed attempt to get through to you.
<<< Yes,but when there is another force acting upon the two bodies,then the action/reaction forces can be divided between the three forces--not just the two you see MH. All will add up to be the same,but that dose not mean it is between the person pushing the shopping cart,and the shopping cart it self. >>>
Explain yourself properly if you can. As it stands physics rules and the two forces are equal and opposite while the shopping cart accelerated. This is high school physics.
<<< But you said a voltage cannot exist across an ideal inductor when a DC current is flowing through it.
This contradicts you placing a voltage source across an ideal inductor to induce a current flow >>>
How can it be contradictory if when you place a voltage across an ideal inductor you do not get DC current?
<<< Well technically it's not the exaust that pushes the rocket forward,as the accelerated mass pushing on the rocket housing,hasnt actually left the rocket engine housing yet--so it's not yet an exausted gas. >>>
You are playing the clown/bozo again.
-
Brad:
<<< I personally dont care what you think,as im interested only in your original question. >>>
What a complete farce. You start this thread to specifically answer the question and say there is a problem with an ideal coil and now you are exposed as not being able to answer the same question with a real coil.
<<< Now what you have to do,is explain to everyone here,how you can say that a voltage cannot exist across an ideal inductor that has a DC current flowing through it,and then say you are going to produce a DC current through an ideal inductor by placing a voltage across it >>>
What a complete farce again. I never said that there would be a DC current though an ideal coil if you place a voltage across it.
For the fourth time, what is wrong with you here? What's going on?
-
Brad:
<<< I do not remember seeing verpies in agreement with you. I did see he agreed with one of my posts--did you miss that?.
Partsman and poynt are yet to show a sim of an ideal inductor doing what you say it dose. Yes that right,they must include some resistance for the sim to sim lol. >>>
He also made some other somewhat confusing posts, but I am talking about the post that counts. The sim is not relevant to this discussion and it's probably been explained to you at least four times why the resistor has to be added. What they themselves state is what counts and we are in agreement.
So, you are non-responsive to this question and you are avoiding it.
<<< I have answered your question correctly.
You cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor,as an ideal inductor dose not exist.
That being the case,all answers are theories only,as the answer cannot be proven to be correct. >>>
So you are non-responsive on the issue of answering the question where you use a real-world inductor with a series resistor instead of an ideal inductor.
So that means that you are incapable of answering the question at all and you are in the same boat as Wattsup and EMJunkie. Six years of experimenting with coils, countless discussions about electronics on the forums with experts, and when presented with a circuit that consists of a power supply and only two components, a resistor and an inductor, you can't answer it. So much for all the lols and attitude, the real joke is on you.
<<< We already know that a superconductor produces an equal and opposite magnetic force to that which created it. We know that current can flow through a superconductor without a voltage across it. An ideal inductor would be wound with superconducting wire-hence no resistance. So what is the difference between the two MH? One has it's current induced by the EMF placed across it,and the other has it's current induced by the external magnetic field.
Your saying one will work--produce the equal and opposite,while the other will not. >>>
Your example is just two magnets in opposition, and that is in no way comparable to a voltage source exporting power into an energy storing device that also responds with an equal and opposite EMF. Power does not flow in one example and power flows in the other example. (See the shopping cart example.)
<<< You didnt ? (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)
Are you sure?. >>>
You better believe that I didn't say it you naughty little imp. This is your cue to pull up a quote out of context.
So, you are incapable of answering the question and the thread has degenerated into mush. That is par for the course.
MileHigh
Verpies is in agreement and you saw his quote.
Quote verpies
Since an ideal inductor must have a zero resistance, this means that it must be shorted (if it ain't shorted, it ain't ideal) and it becomes physically impossible to connect any real voltage sources in series with it.
Otherwise, I agree with the above statement. Not only an ideal inductor is devoid of an asymptotic V/R current limit but also the current through an inductor of infinite inductance, that is somehow connected to an ideal voltage source, could never change because of the implied zero di/dt at any voltage.
Of course, it is debatable whether an ideal inductor must have an infinite inductance. Some would say that it is enough for it to have zero resistance and zero parasitic capacitance.
However it is possible to externally change the magnetic flux penetrating a shorted ideal inductor. Doing so will instantaneously cause a current to circulate through it *, in order to maintain the previous flux level penetrating its windings. This is a voltageless current! - it cannot be measured by a voltmeter and it was not caused by a voltage source.
Last but not least - inductors are current devices and voltage creates no effects in them. Voltage cannot even be measured in shorted ideal inductors (neither practically nor theoretically!). Measurement of voltage (emf) is meaningful only for non-ideal inductors (e.g. open inductors or inductors with series resistances). Open inductors or inductors without current flowing though them are dummy inductors - they create no effects on the environment. Voltmeter deflection notwithstanding.
Brad
-
Brad:
The bottom line is that you can't answer the question for a real coil or for an ideal coil. And you don't even understand what an ideal coil is.
It's a farce.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
<<< Quote verpies
Since an ideal inductor must have a zero resistance, this means that it must be shorted (if it ain't shorted, it ain't ideal) and it becomes physically impossible to connect any real voltage sources in series with it. >>>
I assume that the red highlighted text is what you are focusing on?
What he is saying is that if you connect a real voltage source to an ideal coil, then you introduce a resistance into the current loop and the ideal coil will lose it's inherent ideal property of no resistance with respect to the full circuit. The current will not rise indefinitely in this case, it will be limited by the resistance of the voltage source.
On the other hand, if you connect an ideal voltage source to an ideal coil, then the current rises indefinitely.
That's my understanding of what he is saying. So from what I see you are not making any kind of point. He is not backing you up in any way at all.
-
What a complete farce again. I never said that there would be a DC current though an ideal coil if you place a voltage across it.
Have you lost your marbles MH ?
This whole thing you have been peddling is about how you can place a voltage across an ideal coil,and a DC current will flow through that coil.See below
Time..........Voltage.........Current
0...............0.................0
1...............20...............1.33
5...............500.............166.67
10.............2000............1333.33
20.............8000............10666.67
50.............50000..........166666.7[/quote]
For the fourth time, what is wrong with you here? What's going on?
Me?--i think you have gone completely wakadoo MH.
And for the record,i stated that you said that a voltage could not exist across an ideal inductor while a DC current is flowing through it.
And yet above,you have managed to do what you said couldnt happen.
I dont know what is going on with you MH,but you need to make up your mind here.
Can a voltage exist across an ideal inductor that has a DC current flowing through it or not?--it's a very simple question,and you cant have two answers as you have above.
Brad
-
Brad:
<<< Otherwise, I agree with the above statement. Not only an ideal inductor is devoid of an asymptotic V/R current limit but also the current through an inductor of infinite inductance, that is somehow connected to an ideal voltage source, could never change because of the implied zero di/dt at any voltage. >>>
What's highlighted in the Verpies text above is backing up myself, Poynt, and others. He is saying in a roundabout way that the current in an ideal coil can rise indefinitely with the presumption that he is implying that the ideal coil is connected to an ideal voltage source.
-
Brad:
<<< Quote verpies
Since an ideal inductor must have a zero resistance, this means that it must be shorted (if it ain't shorted, it ain't ideal) and it becomes physically impossible to connect any real voltage sources in series with it. >>>
I assume that the red highlighted text is what you are focusing on?
That's my understanding of what he is saying. So from what I see you are not making any kind of point. He is not backing you up in any way at all.
What he is saying is that if you connect a real voltage source to an ideal coil, then you introduce a resistance into the current loop and the ideal coil will lose it's inherent ideal property of no resistance with respect to the full circuit. The current will not rise indefinitely in this case, it will be limited by the resistance of the voltage source.
Just like i said MH,you need to learn what ideal means.
An ideal voltage source has no internal resistance,as if it did,the voltage would drop when connected to the dead short verpies is talking about,and then your voltage source is no longer ideal.
On the other hand, if you connect an ideal voltage source to an ideal coil, then the current rises indefinitely.
Your coil is an inductor MH,and a large one. You have 5 Henry's of inductance--what sre you smoking tonight ?.
Brad
-
Brad:
I am sorry but I am going to be nasty here because you deserve it:
<<< I dont know what is going on with you MH,but you need to make up your mind here.
Can a voltage exist across an ideal inductor that has a DC current flowing through it or not?--it's a very simple question,and you can have two answers as you have above. >>>
Just because the current is flowing in one direction you are calling that "DC current?" This ridiculous nonsense takes its root from my answering the more difficult question and you haven't mastered the concept of what "DC" means relative to talking about coils?
That is not DC current you loonie that is current that is changing in time.
All of this stupid nonsensical idiocy because poor Brad can't make a distinction between constant DC current that does not change with respect to time and current that is flowing in the same direction that does change with respect to time?
Inductors are all about current changing with respect to time and you pull off this silly stunt because you don't know?
You are in the corner with a dunce cap on right now. People reading are aghast.
MileHigh
-
Have you lost your marbles MH ?
This whole thing you have been peddling is about how you can place a voltage across an ideal coil,and a DC current will flow through that coil.See below
Time..........Voltage.........Current
0...............0.................0
1...............20...............1.33
5...............500.............166.67
10.............2000............1333.33
20.............8000............10666.67
50.............50000..........166666.7
Me?--i think you have gone completely wakadoo MH.
And for the record,i stated that you said that a voltage could not exist across an ideal inductor while a DC current is flowing through it.
And yet above,you have managed to do what you said couldnt happen.
I dont know what is going on with you MH,but you need to make up your mind here.
Can a voltage exist across an ideal inductor that has a DC current flowing through it or not?--it's a very simple question,and you cant have two answers as you have above.
Brad
I am quoting this to preserve it for posterity. Good lord love a duck.
-
Just like i said MH,you need to learn what ideal means.
An ideal voltage source has no internal resistance,as if it did,the voltage would drop when connected to the dead short verpies is talking about,and then your voltage source is no longer ideal.
Your coil is an inductor MH,and a large one. You have 5 Henry's of inductance--what sre you smoking tonight ?.
Brad
It's not me that has been smoking anything. Who the hell knows what you have been up to though. You just fell flat on your face and right now your face looks like a pancake.
I am so aghast, you never stood a chance of answering either question, ever. You have been bluffing your whole way through this discussion and you just don't know what you are talking about, at all.
-
Brad:
I am sorry but I am going to be nasty here because you deserve it:
<<< I dont know what is going on with you MH,but you need to make up your mind here.
Can a voltage exist across an ideal inductor that has a DC current flowing through it or not?--it's a very simple question,and you can have two answers as you have above. >>>
Just because the current is flowing in one direction you are calling that "DC current?" This ridiculous nonsense takes its root from my answering the more difficult question and you haven't mastered the concept of what "DC" means relative to talking about coils?
Inductors are all about current changing with respect to time and you pull off this silly stunt because you don't know?
MileHigh
That is not DC current you loonie that is current that is changing in time.
Now we get to see MH redefine DC current.
DC current is a unidirectional current flow MH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_current
Direct current (DC) is the unidirectional flow of electric charge. Direct current is produced by sources such as batteries, power supplies, thermocouples, solar cells, or dynamos. Direct current may flow in a conductor such as a wire, but can also flow through semiconductors, insulators, or even through a vacuum as in electron or ion beams. The electric current flows in a constant direction, distinguishing it from alternating current (AC). A term formerly used for this type of current was galvanic current.[1]
All of this stupid nonsensical idiocy because poor Brad can't make a distinction between constant DC current that does not change with respect to time and current that is flowing in the same direction that does change with respect to time?
Show me the post where you stated constant current MH--you did not.
You clearly stated DC(direct current flow),and no where is direct current describe as constant current flow --you doofuss.
[/b]You are in the corner with a dunce cap on right now. People reading are aghast.
Look in the mirror MH--Mr dont know what a DC current flow is.
Brad
-
It's not me that has been smoking anything. Who the hell knows what you have been up to though. You just fell flat on your face and right now your face looks like a pancake.
I am so aghast, you never stood a chance of answering either question, ever. You have been bluffing your whole way through this discussion and you just don't know what you are talking about, at all.
If you mean constant DC MH,and NOT just DC,you should learn to use correct terms,and understandings.
Did you not read the pole question on the other thread, where i clearly state constant DC current flow,while you just state DC current flow.
Who dosnt know the difference MH ?--yes,you.
Brad
-
No Brad, you look in the mirror. What are you even doing here? Six years of playing with coils and all that you can do is quote a Wiki entry for DC current. Because you cannot understand what "DC current" means relative to a discussion about coils, it's clearly showing how truly limited your understanding is.
I was hoping that you would get up the learning curve and be able to answer the question that was posed to others, but clearly there is not a hope in hell. The gurus won't say anything, but I can assure you they are just as shocked as me. Or perhaps they aren't shocked at all.
-
MH
Now tell everyone here how you can have a coil with an inductance value of 5 Henry's ,and a resistance value of 0. :D
When dose induction end in an inductor ?
-
No Brad, you look in the mirror. What are you even doing here? Six years of playing with coils and all that you can do is quote a Wiki entry for DC current. Because you cannot understand what "DC current" means relative to a discussion about coils, it's clearly showing how truly limited your understanding is.
I was hoping that you would get up the learning curve and be able to answer the question that was posed to others, but clearly there is not a hope in hell. The gurus won't say anything, but I can assure you they are just as shocked as me. Or perhaps they aren't shocked at all.
No Matter how you try and change things around MH,you clearly quoted DC current,and then you admitted that you meant a constant DC current.
Perhaps be a little more accurate in future.
Its much like giving your address as America,rather than your actual street address--no one is ever going to find you.
So now,how did you define your inductance value with an inductor that has no resistance?
The magnetic field will continue to rise as long as the current continues to rise,and having an ideal voltage source feeding this ideal inductor,the current rise will be infinite,and so will the magnetic field. Induction will never stop. Of course in the real world,we also have resistance ,which limits the flow of current,and so limits the increase of the magnetic field to a set amount.
Brad
-
Brad:
Nice little try to say something that actually sounded reasonable in the second half of your posting. The problem is that you completely and utterly destroyed your credibility in your posting #2607.
You are toast.
MileHigh
-
Nice that you added in a resistance and dropped the zero capacitance MH,, that changes the question and as such your posted question now is not the question under scrutiny.
False.
I actually explained that and why friction IS within your real world example you have provided.
Where does the force come from that the arms are pushing against to push against the shopping cart MH,, putting the cart before the arms maybe?? and doing that without any feet,,
Why is it that the legs have a larger input than the arms MH? when down here on the surface of the planet where there is gravity,, you know "in the real world"
Since you can not calculate the inductance of a coil with zero resistance and zero capacitance, (you have not been able to show that you can so you must not be able to do it,, is that not your methodology?) then you must not fully understand inductance. ( again more of your methodology)
Ah yes Webby, you are definitely a soul-mate for Brad. Here we have the poor kid in the grade 11 Physics class that "just doesn't get it" and continuously interrupts the teacher with dumb questions and squanders valuable time from the whole class on a consistent basis.
You are incapable of extracting the relevant information in the story and realizing what the example is actually all about. The example is just about a force pushing on a mass, and the mass accelerating and pushing back with equal force. That's all there is to it and the rest of the story is just window dressing to bring home the point that we experience these kinds of things in real life all the time. It's the same story with the problem student bringing up capacitance in the 5 Henry coil discussion when capacitance has never even been discussed and is not on the table. It's extraneous noise from the problem student.
You can just keep on being the problem "thread child."
MileHigh
-
MH
Now tell everyone here how you can have a coil with an inductance value of 5 Henry's ,and a resistance value of 0. :D
When dose induction end in an inductor ?
The same way you have a 5F capacitor with an ESR of 0.
Both cases are fictitious (ideal components don't exist), but it makes them no less of an inductor or capacitor. In fact, simulations don't require an ESR, and in most cases they are ideal caps.
-
Not that it matters but, back to the shopping cart for a moment...
The frictionless cart will still resist any movement because it has mass, especially if it is full as stated. Yes, it will move more easily due to being frictionless but, F=MA still applies.
I realize that MH was trying to make a point about electronics so my post makes no difference, I just did not want folks to forget about inertia in the cart example.
Bill
-
Webby:
I know, these things are tough:
You go to the supermarket to shop for food. You get a huge amount of stuff and your shopping cart is very heavy. You are stopped, and then you push on the cart with a continuous even force. How about that - the heavy shopping cart is pushing back at you with exactly the same amount of force. You also notice that the shopping cart is starting to speed up and you have to keep quickening your pace.
This just shows that force = mass x acceleration and there are equal and opposite forces, THAT'S ALL. The friction of the wheel bearings is incidental and not discussed. However, since this is a direct analog of a voltage source across an inductor, an astute and wise person would realize that the small friction in the wheels that was not mentioned is a very rough analogy for the wire resistance of a real inductor.
Think about this: What if the shopping cart was a "magic" 22nd century shopping cart and instead of being on four wheels with bearings, the shopping cart floated one inch above the floor through magnetic levitation. That means when you push on it it glides frictionlessly across the floor.
This is mentioned because if you remove the wheel bearing resistance, then the floating shopping cart resembles a dreaded ideal inductor. And YES, I AM EXPECTING the person reading to be wise and astute enough to ignore air friction for this analogy. I have an expectation that some people might be able to appreciate the concept that I am trying to get across.
Think about this: Imagine the shopping cart is stopped, and it has infinite mass. Then, you push on it and then no matter how long and no matter with how much force, the shopping cart doesn't budge an inch.
This is mentioned because the infinitely massive shopping cart is a perfect analogy for the infinitely large inductor. I am expecting some people to clue in on this pretty obvious fact.
Obviously my expectations were too high.
MileHigh
-
Not that it matters but, back to the shopping cart for a moment...
The frictionless cart will still resist any movement because it has mass, especially if it is full as stated. Yes, it will move more easily due to being frictionless but, F=MA still applies.
I realize that MH was trying to make a point about electronics so my post makes no difference, I just did not want folks to forget about inertia in the cart example.
Bill
Bill, Imagine the friction with the mother in Law from Sencellus in the trolly;-))
Mass meat's ..................!?
-
Yes MH,, these things are tough aren’t they.
Are we only looking at your arms and shopping cart?? not if you have to speed up because it is accelerating away from you,, if it only moved and you only had to move your arms the same distance to keep applying the force,, then we are staying with just looking at your arms and the shopping cart.
My response to your questions in post #2590:
<<< This is a real-life example. The person moves along with the shopping cart as it accelerates. >>>
I know, it's too much to expect that you would remember a response to your own question that was made earlier today.
And you are still worried about arms and legs? Are the wheels made of rubber or steel? Are there Brussels sprouts in the shopping cart? It might be critical information.
Abandon hope.
MileHigh
-
For reference, this is the harder version of the question I answered that Brad made reference to in post 2607:
<<<
Here is the harder version of the question and the answer:
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. The voltage source waveform is 20*t^2. So as the time t increases, the voltage increases proportional to the square of the time.
The question is what happens starting at t = 0
The answer:
The current through the ideal coil starts from zero at time t = 0 and then increases with this formula: i = 1.33*t^3.
Time..........Voltage.........Current
0...............0.................0
1...............20...............1.33
5...............500.............166.67
10.............2000............1333.33
20.............8000............10666.67
50.............50000..........166666.7
Brad, you need to try to get up the learning curve such that you get to the point where you come back and acknowledge the answer given above is correct.
>>>
And poor Brad thinks I am talking about "DC current" when I am talking about a rising voltage waveform proportional to t-squared and the resultant rising current waveform that is proportional to t-cubed. The mind boggles.
Quote Brad from post #2607:
<<< Have you lost your marbles MH ?
This whole thing you have been peddling is about how you can place a voltage across an ideal coil,and a DC current will flow through that coil.See below >>>
What's even more of a joke is when I started the process of answering the easier question these were Brad's responses:
<<<
You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster
Your a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.
>>>
Brad: Everything you read in your own quoted text above in reality applies to you yourself. You have been bluffing your way through this whole thing. It's a farce and a fiasco.
MileHigh
-
For reference, this is the harder version of the question I answered that Brad made reference to in post 2607:
<<<
Here is the harder version of the question and the answer:
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. The voltage source waveform is 20*t^2. So as the time t increases, the voltage increases proportional to the square of the time.
The question is what happens starting at t = 0
The answer:
The current through the ideal coil starts from zero at time t = 0 and then increases with this formula: i = 1.33*t^3.
Time..........Voltage.........Current
0...............0.................0
1...............20...............1.33
5...............500.............166.67
10.............2000............1333.33
20.............8000............10666.67
50.............50000..........166666.7
Brad, you need to try to get up the learning curve such that you get to the point where you come back and acknowledge the answer given above is correct.
>>>
And poor Brad thinks I am talking about "DC current" when I am talking about a rising voltage waveform proportional to t-squared and the resultant rising current waveform that is proportional to t-cubed. The mind boggles.
Quote Brad from post #2607:
<<< Have you lost your marbles MH ?
This whole thing you have been peddling is about how you can place a voltage across an ideal coil,and a DC current will flow through that coil.See below >>>
What's even more of a joke is when I started the process of answering the easier question these were Brad's responses:
<<<
You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster
Your a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.
>>>
Brad: Everything you read in your own quoted text above in reality applies to you yourself. You have been bluffing your way through this whole thing. It's a farce and a fiasco.
MileHigh
"And poor Brad thinks I am talking about "DC current" when I am talking about a rising voltage waveform proportional to t-squared and the resultant rising current waveform that is proportional to t-cubed. The mind boggles."
What is an ideal voltage source? Is it not a source that can hold its voltage no matter the load??? So if the ideal inductor is put across the ideal voltage source there should be no rising voltage waveform, as you put it, because the ideal voltage source will maintain its voltage no matter the load. No?? And if the ideal voltage source, as you put it, is directly across the ideal inductors leads. The only thing that could possibly rise is current, that is if current flows at all considering the argument of cemf being ideal also, that Brad, AC and I have posed issue with. ;)
Mags
-
"And poor Brad thinks I am talking about "DC current" when I am talking about a rising voltage waveform proportional to t-squared and the resultant rising current waveform that is proportional to t-cubed. The mind boggles."
What is an ideal voltage source? Is it not a source that can hold its voltage no matter the load??? So if the ideal inductor is put across the ideal voltage source there should be no rising voltage waveform, as you put it, because the ideal voltage source will maintain its voltage no matter the load. No?? And if the ideal voltage source, as you put it, is directly across the ideal inductors leads. The only thing that could possibly rise is current, that is if current flows at all considering the argument of cemf being ideal also, that Brad, AC and I have posed issue with. ;)
Mags
The issue of an ideal voltage source varying in time has already been discussed several times on this thread. Just look at the original question, the ideal voltage source varies with time. I don't know how ideas like "an ideal voltage source cannot change in time" take hold but apparently they do. Somebody says it and nobody thinks to question it.
<<< The only thing that could possibly rise is current, that is if current flows at all considering the argument of cemf being ideal also >>>
We are beating an old horse to death at this time. It's a second strange idea, it's baffling and it and the "fixed ideal voltage source" idea would not last more than eight minutes apiece on a real electronics forum before they were sliced to pieces.
Look at this clip that discusses ideal inductors and brush up on your inductor concepts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8CPGiK59f8
-
The problem is that CEMF is just a measurement, it's not a tangible entity like a coil or a voltage source or a current source. You should realize this. It's just an electrical version of Newton's third law.
Look at this very familiar differential equation: v = L di/dt.
Whoops, there is no resistance in that equation. That equation is an equation for an ideal inductor and yet it is used all the time. I suppose we are just waiting for this business to be resolved and move forward. I am already smelling the possibility of dismal failure with no resolution to this silly impasse and the question never gets answered. That would really be unfortunate.
Why doesn't somebody just take the lead on the question and leave Brad to stew in his own juices? Move forward and let Brad figure it out for himself.
"The problem is that CEMF is just a measurement, it's not a tangible entity like a coil or a voltage source or a current source. You should realize this."
Cemf is just a measurement and not an effect? I fail to realize that. Cemf is an action within the inductor. It is the action that impedes current flow. It is part of the definition of impedance. You should realize this. ;)
Mags
-
"The problem is that CEMF is just a measurement, it's not a tangible entity like a coil or a voltage source or a current source. You should realize this."
Cemf is just a measurement and not an effect? I fail to realize that. Cemf is an action within the inductor. It is the action that impedes current flow. It is part of the definition of impedance. You should realize this. ;)
Mags
I am not going to play a dumb-ass mind game with you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The issue of an ideal voltage source varying in time has already been discussed several times on this thread. Just look at the original question, the ideal voltage source varies with time. I don't know how ideas like "an ideal voltage source cannot change in time" take hold but apparently they do. Somebody says it and nobody thinks to question it.
<<< The only thing that could possibly rise is current, that is if current flows at all considering the argument of cemf being ideal also >>>
We are beating an old horse to death at this time. It's a second strange idea, it's baffling and it and the "fixed ideal voltage source" idea would not last more than eight minutes apiece on a real electronics forum before they were sliced to pieces.
Look at this clip that discusses ideal inductors and brush up on your inductor concepts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8CPGiK59f8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8CPGiK59f8)
lol. You say 'your' ideal voltage source is self varying???????????????? here is a vid for you..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSH3I4cqoJc
So far I do not see an explanation that the ideal voltage source is self varying in any way.
"Being that an ideal voltage source has zero internal resistance, and, thus, 100% efficiency to outputting all of its voltage to a load due to perfect voltage division, its voltage ouput to a load is steady and constant and doesn't fluctuate even if load resistance values change."
http://www.learningaboutelectronics.com/Articles/Ideal-voltage-source.php
So again, you are playing by your own rules with 'your' self imagined ideal voltage source that is self varying.
I dont need to brush up on anything except on how the rules change as you describe them. ;)
Mags ::)
-
"Being that an ideal voltage source has zero internal resistance, and, thus, 100% efficiency to outputting all of its voltage to a load due to perfect voltage division, its voltage ouput to a load is steady and constant and doesn't fluctuate even if load resistance values change."
No a single word there about it not varying in time.
Sometimes you are expected to be able to think on your own. Like this, "Hey, a voltage can have a zero output impedance and change value in time."
-
I am not going to play a dumb-ass mind game with you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Its not a mind game. You cannot just say that this is how things are and refer me to a vid on inductance. ??? If the official definition of the ideal inductor 'includes the reasoning' that the cemf is not ideal, then maybe they do not have that definition down pat with every aspect of the ideal inductor. But you dont seem to be able to find a reference on that other than you just saying so. No mind games. Just prove what you are saying and maybe we can move on. Until then my argument stands. ;)
Please show me some definition of an ideal inductor that explains why the cemf of the ideal inductor is not ideal cemf, rather than just stating that is is so and that I just have to accept that. Please. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Show me the money Jerry Maguire! Show me the money! ;) Otherwise it is just you feeding us your made up rules as we go. How else can I look at it? Why cant you provide a strong definition that states 'why' an ideal inductor cannot have ideal cemf???? I havnt found it yet. Where do I find such info other than what is stated in these 2 threads???
Mags
-
Task yourself with this: Define "ideal CEMF" first. I really want to know what it means. Then go find proof that when you connect a voltage source across a resistor that you get "ideal CEMF" from the resistor.
-
"Being that an ideal voltage source has zero internal resistance, and, thus, 100% efficiency to outputting all of its voltage to a load due to perfect voltage division, its voltage ouput to a load is steady and constant and doesn't fluctuate even if load resistance values change."
No a single word there about it not varying in time.
Sometimes you are expected to be able to think on your own. Like this, "Hey, a voltage can have a zero output impedance and change value in time."
Well Im happy that when I look up 'Ideal Voltage Source" that it is described as a voltage source that the voltage cannot drift, change or vary. So you will have to invent a new name for what you consider a 'Self Varying Ideal Voltage Source" . Because that is not the definition of an 'Ideal Voltage Source'. ;) ;) ;)
Can everyone reading this please look it up and find whether Im wrong or right on this? ;D
"Sometimes you are expected to be able to think on your own. "
Well that is exactly what you are doing is making up your own definitions and calling it an Ideal Voltage Source, is it not? ??? ??? ??? ??? ? You make it up as you go to fit your argument without a shred of proof as to being what you say. Thats a problem when it comes to comprehending what you say. Can you understand that from our point of view? ???
Mags
-
Task yourself with this: Define "ideal CEMF" first. I really want to know what it means. Then go find proof that when you connect a voltage source across a resistor that you get "ideal CEMF" from the resistor.
Dude, that is just a beat around the bush statement. There is not even the word Ideal Resistor in that statement, of which Ideal is what we are talking about. No???
If it were an ideal resistor there wouldnt be any cemf, as the ideal resistor has no inductance to have cemf occur. You act as if we know nothing at all. Gees. Well you are wrong. ;)
Mags ::)
-
"Being that an ideal voltage source has zero internal resistance, and, thus, 100% efficiency to outputting all of its voltage to a load due to perfect voltage division, its voltage ouput to a load is steady and constant and doesn't fluctuate even if load resistance values change."
No a single word there about it not varying in time.
Sometimes you are expected to be able to think on your own. Like this, "Hey, a voltage can have a zero output impedance and change value in time."
"No a single word there about it not varying in time."
I totally agree that there is 'not' ::) a single word in the definition of an Ideal Voltage Source that states that the voltage can vary with time. Only your definition which changes the rules as you need them to be to hold up your argument.
So show me 'thee' definition of Ideal Voltage Source that states the voltage from the source varies with time. ::) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ::)
Mags
-
You are just making a fool out of yourself Magluvin and if you are trying to play me then you are a double-fool. Go chase after Brad because he is the brainiac that invented the term "Ideal CEMF." It's an on-the-fly definition from him, another "pearl of wisdom" from his stream of consciousness. Yes, in the basic definition of the term counter electromotive force, a resistor also generates CEMF in response to the current that is flowing through it. It's a matter of perspective. Deep thoughts Magluvin, deep thoughts. You make me laugh about the "rules" about an ideal voltage source. One more time, you can trace that back to another inspired steam-of-consciousness "pearl of wisdom" from Brad. Go get your training and the definitions of the "new terms" from Brad - he is the originator of this stuff.
-
You are just making a fool out of yourself Magluvin and if you are trying to play me then you are a double-fool. Go chase after Brad because he is the brainiac that invented the term "Ideal CEMF." It's an on-the-fly definition from him, another "pearl of wisdom" from his stream of consciousness. Yes, in the basic definition of the term counter electromotive force, a resistor also generates CEMF in response to the current that is flowing through it. It's a matter of perspective. Deep thoughts Magluvin, deep thoughts. You make me laugh about the "rules" about an ideal voltage source. One more time, you can trace that back to another inspired steam-of-consciousness "pearl of wisdom" from Brad. Go get your training and the definitions of the "new terms" from Brad - he is the originator of this stuff.
Well there ya go! Insult me and call me names. That proves your arguments in a most professional manner. ;) Is that all you got? Are you so frustrated that this bs commentary is what proves you are right and we are wrong. Ha! That aint gunna cut it. But it is all you got, 'apparently'. ;) You couldnt simply provide proof on your end instead of the bs you just posted. But, thats just you and how we get to know 'YOU' better. ;)
So again, tell us the reason cemf is not ideal in the ideal inductor? Can you do that? Can you do that and 'try' to put it to bed instead of just simply saying it is what you say it is and thats it? ???
Back when we were discussing this years ago I questioned the same thing to no resolve from you, Poynt, TK, nobody. it is just brushed off. Well Im not dust Jim. ;)
Put up substantial evidence that.....
1. Cemf in and Ideal Inductor is not ideal cemf
2. An Ideal Voltage Source is one that the voltage varies with time
These are your statements that you do not provide anything substantial to prove your argument. What you do say is that it has been discussed before and that is the end of it. Bull-ony. Just because it was discussed in the past, days ago or years ago, does not prove that the questions or statements were resolved.
It is your baby. You made the statements. ;) Prove what you say instead of just saying we need to go back to school. ;) If you cannot then maybe it is you that needs to go back to school.
If you are not just making up your own rules as it goes, then you should 'easily' provide reference for what you say. On these 2 things you refuse to discuss it further. Just insult me and call me names.. Im not doing that to you. Im asking you to provided proof of your 2 statements. Apparently you cannot. So go ahead and insult me more and call me what you will. Its who you are. ;)
Magluvin ;)
-
Yeah, sure.
And I will remind you again that most viscous relentlessly attacking, insulting, demeaning, and degrading person I have ever seen on this forum is YOU Magluvin. For about one full year you relentlessly attacked me, it was absolutely disgusting. You are just doing a schtick right now, but it is nothing compared to how absolutely grotesque and horrible your behaviour was. A fully grown man acting like a monster and you never had the character or class to apologize for it.
So I am not interested in your techno babble.
-
So I am not interested in your techno babble.
I believe I understand what Miles is saying (or conceding) here. :o
Although I may be wrong. ???
Anyone care to "translate" the Miles-Higher-speak above? ;)
-
Yeah, sure.
And I will remind you again that most viscous relentlessly attacking, insulting, demeaning, and degrading person I have ever seen on this forum is YOU Magluvin. For about one full year you relentlessly attacked me, it was absolutely disgusting. You are just doing a schtick right now, but it is nothing compared to how absolutely grotesque and horrible your behaviour was. A fully grown man acting like a monster and you never had the character or class to apologize for it.
So I am not interested in your techno babble.
So that is your proof for your statements.......
1. Cemf in and Ideal Inductor is not ideal cemf
2. An Ideal Voltage Source is one that the voltage varies with time
Again, the only answer you have is to insult and lay charges on me? Is that your proof of your statements? ::) Go ahead. Keep on throwing it at me as a distraction to why you cannot prove your own words.
So far, I think that you will not prove either statement or you simply would have, to show you have been correct and we were wrong. Why is it not a good way to go about it by providing proof of your statements? Wouldnt this day of discussion be a lot easier if you did so?
So either provide reference proof of your statements or call me names and insult me as a substitute. Your choice. Which one will prove you are right and Brad and I are wrong?? Which is it? For the readers of course. ;D
Mags
-
I believe I understand what Miles is saying (or conceding) here. :o
Although I may be wrong. ???
Anyone care to "translate" the Miles-Higher-speak above? ;)
"So I am not interested in your techno babble."
I can translate it. It means he can not back up his statements or else he would. And he should if he could. But instead we get this babble to brush it off. ;)
MH, give us proof of your statements below....
1. Cemf in and Ideal Inductor is not ideal cemf
2. An Ideal Voltage Source is one that the voltage varies with time
Simple, isnt it? ???
Mags
-
MH, give us proof of your statements below....
1. Cemf in and Ideal Inductor is not ideal cemf
2. An Ideal Voltage Source is one that the voltage varies with time
Mags
It will take some time 'looking for' the references on those, before you have to give up. ;)
See folks, if either statement were 'credible' there would be clear documented explanations for them and most likely would have been posted by at least one those that see over us here. And if there isnt, where did the idea of these statements originate? ??? :o ;)
So I guess thats the end of that. :-\ ???
Mags
-
debating these things should really be more an exercise in furthering
the shared goal of this website than trying to prove someone else wrong.
obviously you are only helping your fellow human out by trying to correct
an obvious error on his/her part, but should there ever come an impasse
such as this.. no need to make it a heated discussion. we are merely
discussing theoretical things.
I can totally respect the defense everyone here applies to their argument with
a fiery passion.. but if some of us believe, myself included, that MH's original
question would not result in any current flow.. and the opposing argument
wishes us to see the light and actual truth of things as they see it.. if there comes the point
at which they feel they have presented more logic than necessary to defend their
conclusion and the opposition has not budged, then eventually there comes a time
to simply agree to disagree. Further discussion could ensue in an attempt to convey
arguments in other ways that may offer new perspective, but not if either side of
the argument simply assumes the opposition is being spiteful and difficult just for the
sake of being spiteful and difficult.
for example I suppose MH and Mags you have history.. well I'm not going
to sit here and try to play Dr. Phil like some jackass, but surely you are
civilized enough to put that history behind you for the sake of an untainted debate.
I wasn't there and don't know what the beef was/is but both of you are intelligent
and formidable so if you can't apologize to each other, or just 'let it go', then I'm
starting to get confused because it honestly seems like the root of the problem
between you two in particular is the ridiculing manner in which each of you have
addressed one another in the past. Those seem like two equal and opposing forces that
should be able to cancel each other out until they could be said to not exist!
see what I did there?
-
Mags:
Nobody that has a clue about electronics can take you seriously about the voltage source. Prancing around and saying "Disprove my statement about 'ideal CEMF'" when everybody knows that that is just a spur-of-the-moment "Bradism" is pure farce. It the old shift-the-burden-of-proof game that has come up ad nauseam on the forums. You know the drill, "Prove my free energy machine doesn't work." So you are a pitch man with a tired old song and dance and a crusty dirty old bow tie that's seen better days.
You are out here prancing around like a tired old song and dance man because poor Brad had a really bad moment and you want to draw attention away from that by doing the Dancing Chicken dance and trying an old carny pitch. It's not working and all of the real electronics people that aren't even on this forum but just lurk for the fun and comedy factor, they are all standing around laughing harshly among themselves and looking at at the poor Dancing Chicken carny guy.
-
:-\
-
Mags:
Nobody that has a clue about electronics can take you seriously about the voltage source. Prancing around and saying "Disprove my statement about 'ideal CEMF'" when everybody knows that that is just a spur-of-the-moment "Bradism" is pure farce. It the old shift-the-burden-of-proof game that has come up ad nauseam on the forums. You know the drill, "Prove my free energy machine doesn't work." So you are a pitch man with a tired old song and dance and a crusty dirty old bow tie that's seen better days.
You are out here prancing around like a tired old song and dance man because poor Brad had a really bad moment and you want to draw attention away from that by doing the Dancing Chicken dance and trying an old carny pitch. It's not working and all of the real electronics people that aren't even on this forum but just lurk for the fun and comedy factor, they are all standing around laughing harshly among themselves and looking at at the poor Dancing Chicken carny guy.
that is what I expected from you. As I just said a post or 2 ago. lol I was right!!! Again, more distraction from the arguments at hand. Still no answers. None.
"Nobody that has a clue about electronics can take you seriously about the voltage source."
Then I challenge that statement! Go ask Poynt or TK to please come here and correct me on this. You made a claim in that statement. Make it happen. They are not doing it on their own, so it may be a tough thing to provide clear explanations as too clearing up your 2 claims below......
1. Cemf in and Ideal Inductor is not ideal cemf
2. An Ideal Voltage Source is one that the voltage varies with time
You have not denied that you make these statement claims after my repeated questioning, yet you will not in any way clearly explain your standing by these statements. Look over the pages and you have not given any. But there is you beating around the bush and resorting to posts such as above and expect that to fix things???? ::)
Magluvin ;)
-
Magluvin:
That's twelve postings from you on the same subject. That's harassment.
You've gotten my answers and that's it and now is the time for you to stop.
MileHigh
-
Magluvin:
That twelve postings from you on the same subject. That's harassment.
You've gotten my answers and that's it and now is the time for you to stop.
MileHigh
lol. So now you 'make up' a 12 post rule? lol. Please post a document that describes that rule exists.. Look at your most recent posts to me. They are just happy happy joy joy? ??? ? Hypocrite.
YOU did not provide the answers. YOU made up the Ideal Voltage Source Where The Voltage Varies Over Time. YOU made it up to fit YOUR argument because the real ideal voltage source does not work for YOUR argument. YOU cannot run around talking Ideal Voltage Source in YOUR argument and say that the voltage varies with time, when THE DEFINITION of ideal voltage source absolutely contradicts YOUR claim. Show me otherwise. Can you or not???
Here is some harassment. :P
Sue me. ;)
You claim that cemf of an inductor is 'just a measurement'. You said it just today. It is YOU that needs to go and learn inductors if YOU cannot say that cemf is a direct action in the function of an inductance.
Now, tell me that cemf is 'only' a measurement when it comes to inductance again. Go ahead. Say it as if it is fact. That was the only thing close to an explanation that you have shown here, and you are wrong. Go ahead and say it again. Then have your electronic guys help you out of that one. ::)
I await more harassment. When what Im really waiting for is answers, that will never come. ;)
Magluvin ;)
-
I can't help it if you are so completely clueless after all the years of tinkering with electronics that you can't conceive of a variable ideal voltage source - or - this is all the fake Dancing Chicken.
I told you, go see Brad about the "Ideal CEMF" source. This is the second and last time I will say it.
-
You are just making a fool out of yourself Magluvin and if you are trying to play me then you are a double-fool. Go chase after Brad because he is the brainiac that invented the term "Ideal CEMF." It's an on-the-fly definition from him, another "pearl of wisdom" from his stream of consciousness. Yes, in the basic definition of the term counter electromotive force, a resistor also generates CEMF in response to the current that is flowing through it. It's a matter of perspective. Deep thoughts Magluvin, deep thoughts. You make me laugh about the "rules" about an ideal voltage source. One more time, you can trace that back to another inspired steam-of-consciousness "pearl of wisdom" from Brad. Go get your training and the definitions of the "new terms" from Brad - he is the originator of this stuff.
MH,you really are full of it,and we are back to the resonance saga,where you feel that you can just rearange terms and meanings at your will,to suit your needs.
An ideal voltage dose not change with time-period. That is what makes it ideal.
If anyone here would like to find any reference that shows an ideal voltage changing with time,please post it here.
If anyone can prove the the CEMF in an ideal inductor is also not ideal,ther please post it here.
If anyone can show that a DC current flow means only a steady state DC current flow,then please post it here.
Brad
-
You poor guys. Here you are struggling to understand that the transition from a real inductor with a 0.000001 ohm wire resistance to an ideal coil is seamless. Instead, you have this crazy belief that no current flows when it is an ideal inductor. What's the root cause? The root cause is that you don't understand what an inductor is. It's "paint by numbers" electronics. If you are given a sheet to paint in all of the areas, and some numbers are missing, you freeze. So many things that should be just a normal learning experience are just another version of the ideal coil fiasco. Simple, understandable things are turned into a crisis. And to make matters worse, illogical things are invented out of thin air and become part of some "electronics superstition." You don't have a hope in hell.
Everybody could have been on board and worked together and the question could have been answered a long time ago and everybody could have been that much smarter. But no, this is the Bizarro world, where your goal is to make it harder and the goal is to fail.
The whole thing is like some Monty Python Black comedy. The answer to the question will never be arrived at.
-
Mags:
Nobody that has a clue about electronics can take you seriously about the voltage source. Prancing around and saying "Disprove my statement about 'ideal CEMF'" when everybody knows that that is just a spur-of-the-moment "Bradism" is pure farce. It the old shift-the-burden-of-proof game that has come up ad nauseam on the forums. You know the drill, "Prove my free energy machine doesn't work." So you are a pitch man with a tired old song and dance and a crusty dirty old bow tie that's seen better days.
You are out here prancing around like a tired old song and dance man because poor Brad had a really bad moment and you want to draw attention away from that by doing the Dancing Chicken dance and trying an old carny pitch. It's not working and all of the real electronics people that aren't even on this forum but just lurk for the fun and comedy factor, they are all standing around laughing harshly among themselves and looking at at the poor Dancing Chicken carny guy.
Your question is clear and precise MH
The first part clearly states-an ideal voltage of 4 volts is placed across an ideal inductor for a time of 3 seconds.
Then your answer shows voltages all over the place.
An ideal voltage dose not vary in time-regardless of the load it is placed across.
You even state in your question 4 volts for 3 seconds across the ideal coil.
We have now entered the realm of the MH paradox,where the meaning of terms can change at MHs will-regardless of facts.
Brad
-
I can't help it if you are so completely clueless after all the years of tinkering with electronics that you can't conceive of a variable ideal voltage source - or - this is all the fake Dancing Chicken.
I told you, go see Brad about the "Ideal CEMF" source. This is the second and last time I will say it.
Go see Brad? Brad and I pose the same argument to you. We are on the same playing field. You are in the make believe playing field. This changing things to fit your argument is a big reason you and I had big arguments in the past. Today didnt have to go like this. You could have tried to clear this up. But I understand that you cannot and are in a corner. And the posts you throw at me show just that.
Can you define counter emf of an inductor? Do you know why it occurs and what effect it has on the input emf? If you do understand those questions and can answer them well, then you should understand why we pose the question as to why you believe that the cemf of an 'ideal inductor' is not ideal cemf. You have not provided anything to counter that argument. You just 'choose' to say that the cemf of an ideal inductor is not ideal and thats all. You cannot see why that is not good enough for anyone. Well then this is why we are talking about it. We have a very valid point on this, and virtually zero reasoning from you as to why the cemf is not ideal in an ideal inductor. You are taking the ideal inductor and defining it as you see fit, with zero reference as to why you can do that when it does not coincide with the real definition.
Magluvin ;)
-
You poor guys. Here you are struggling to understand that the transition from a real inductor with a 0.000001 ohm wire resistance to an ideal coil is seamless. Instead, you have this crazy belief that no current flows when it is an ideal inductor. What's the root cause? The root cause is that you don't understand what an inductor is. It's "paint by numbers" electronics. If you are given a sheet to paint in all of the areas, and some numbers are missing, you freeze. So many things that should be just a normal learning experience are just another version of the ideal coil fiasco. Simple, understandable things are turned into a crisis. And to make matters worse, illogical things are invented out of thin air and become part of some "electronics superstition." You don't have a hope in hell.
Everybody could have been on board and worked together and the question could have been answered a long time ago and everybody could have been that much smarter. But no, this is the Bizarro world, where your goal is to make it harder and the goal is to fail.
The whole thing is like some Monty Python Black comedy. The answer to the question will never be arrived at.
A real inductor reaches its maximum current limit in 5 time constants-or very close to.
An ideal inductor has an infinite time constant.
The MH paradox now takes hold,and real and ideal have now became close enough to the same :D
Brad
-
<<< An ideal voltage dose not vary in time-regardless of the load it is placed across. >>>
I am really sorry that you are unable to conceptualize normal things like v(t) Brad. It is obviously a severe handicap.
-
You poor guys. Here you are struggling to understand that the transition from a real inductor with a 0.000001 ohm wire resistance to an ideal coil is seamless. Instead, you have this crazy belief that no current flows when it is an ideal inductor. What's the root cause? The root cause is that you don't understand what an inductor is. It's "paint by numbers" electronics. If you are given a sheet to paint in all of the areas, and some numbers are missing, you freeze. So many things that should be just a normal learning experience are just another version of the ideal coil fiasco. Simple, understandable things are turned into a crisis. And to make matters worse, illogical things are invented out of thin air and become part of some "electronics superstition." You don't have a hope in hell.
Everybody could have been on board and worked together and the question could have been answered a long time ago and everybody could have been that much smarter. But no, this is the Bizarro world, where your goal is to make it harder and the goal is to fail.
The whole thing is like some Monty Python Black comedy. The answer to the question will never be arrived at.
"You poor guys. Here you are struggling to understand that the transition from a real inductor with a 0.000001 ohm wire resistance to an ideal coil is seamless."
It is not seamless. Neither is .00000000000000000000000000001ohm. Just the difference between your example and mine is NOT seamless. Its far from it.
In your example, 1uohm, the current could double if it were .5uohm. Seamless. More like senseless. ??? What a bad argument.
" Instead, you have this crazy belief that no current flows when it is an ideal inductor. What's the root cause? The root cause is that you don't understand what an inductor is."
What is the root cause? ??? ?? Havnt we been telling you? For how long now? Is your memory that bad that you cant remember the posts of today? ??? ??? ??? ??? ;)
Readers. Are you reading this? ;D Silly isnt it? ;)
" If you are given a sheet to paint in all of the areas, and some numbers are missing, you freeze. "
Freeze? It is you that are frozen. We are not JUST seeing numbers missing, we are pointing out numbers that are missing and are asking why they are missing in your description. That is not us freezing. It is you. You cannot fully explain your claims. Something you blame many here for. Its on the record. The needle has made its groove. ;)
"So many things that should be just a normal learning experience are just another version of the ideal coil fiasco."
The ideal components are far from normal. That is where you have difficulty I suppose. IT IS NOT NORMAL JIM. It is a fiasco when you change definitions to suit your arguments, as you have done in the past. Shall I show the examples of you changing the rules to fit your arguments back in the Larscro deal? I have read through that when I dug up that last dirt on you. So I can do that if you like. ;)
"And to make matters worse, illogical things are invented out of thin air and become part of some "electronics superstition." You don't have a hope in hell."
Cemf of an inductor is what impedes the input emf. Is it not? It is NOT illogical. It is NOT invented. It is NOT superstition. It is fact. A simple fact that you cant seem to handle or comprehend. Clearly. ;)
"But no, this is the Bizarro world, where your goal is to make it harder and the goal is to fail."
You brought up the IDEAL bizarro world to this discussion. And we are all on board, over here. lol We may need to send out a life boat for ya. ;)
Mags
-
<<< An ideal voltage dose not vary in time-regardless of the load it is placed across. >>>
I am really sorry that you are unable to conceptualize normal things like v(t) Brad. It is obviously a severe handicap.
There you go again. The ideal situation is NOT normal MH. That is not our handycap, as we understand that it is NOT normal. But you I guess have lots of normal experience with normal ideal components. ::) Get a grip dude. Your insults are normal, they just dont make any sense. ;)
Over and out.
Magluvin ;)
-
a real level of resentment seems to lie in the fact that we have some
professionals in the field here with academic credentials
deserving some respect. but when dealing with a theoretical
discussion that cannot possibly be proven, the professionals
expect everyone to simply accept their opinion as fact.
any deviation no matter how contrived from sheer pondering
is often shot down to the degree of being idiotic and senseless
rather than simply being disagreed with. I see this happening
all over the internet and especially in physics forums.
Sure, this would make some sense as the professionals
are indeed very likely to know what they are talking about..
But to challenge the established way of things as currently
maintained by the professionals is implied in overunity.com's
mission statement. that goes for the professionals, the students,
and the tinkers alike I'd imagine.
we are supposed to challenge every nook and cranny until we
are absolutely sure for ourselves, without ingesting
every piece of personally untested information as fundamentally
correct, that way we don't have to cross some bridge in the learning
process where we have to accept what 'other people are saying'
without truly believing it. sure this may slow the learning process
but then again it may not, it may enrich the learning process.
This does not mean there is some conscious effort made to oppose
those taught fundamentals just for the sake of being difficult,
or unique, or fringe, or whatever.
If we want to seemingly revert to the stone age and learn
in a manner that professionals often consider a foolish reversal
of logic that follows a path going against the grain those
professionals have tilled, then why not let us pursue that
seemingly foolish path unimpeded if we simply seem too
stubborn to agree with the majority perspective in the field.
No matter how you look at it we are not arguing over a flat earth here
and it's not as simple as merely 'opening your eyes to the obvious provable truth'
-
a real level of resentment seems to lie in the fact that we have some
professionals in the field here with academic credentials
deserving some respect. but when dealing with a theoretical
discussion that cannot possibly be proven, the professionals
expect everyone to simply accept their opinion as fact.
any deviation no matter how contrived from sheer pondering
is often shot down to the degree of being idiotic and senseless
rather than simply being disagreed with. I see this happening
all over the internet and especially in physics forums.
Sure, this would make some sense as the professionals
are indeed very likely to know what they are talking about..
But to challenge the established way of things as currently
maintained by the professionals is implied in overunity.com's
mission statement. that goes for the professionals, the students,
and the tinkers alike I'd imagine.
we are supposed to challenge every nook and cranny until we
are absolutely sure for ourselves, without ingesting
every piece of personally untested information as fundamentally
correct, that way we don't have to cross some bridge in the learning
process where we have to accept what 'other people are saying'
without truly believing it. sure this may slow the learning process
but then again it may not, it may enrich the learning process.
This does not mean there is some conscious effort made to oppose
those taught fundamentals just for the sake of being difficult,
or unique, or fringe, or whatever.
If we want to seemingly revert to the stone age and learn
in a manner that professionals often consider a foolish reversal
of logic that follows a path going against the grain those
professionals have tilled, then why not let us pursue that
seemingly foolish path unimpeded if we simply seem too
stubborn to agree with the majority perspective in the field.
No matter how you look at it we are not arguing over a flat earth here
and it's not as simple as merely 'opening your eyes to the obvious provable truth'
You're sitting in your Electronics 101 class and you are doing a quiz. The first question says, "There is a +/- 10-volt 25 Hz triangle wave across a 2 Henry inductor...." Well that means that it's an ideal voltage source triangle wave because it's a quiz and it is what the question says it is. It doesn't state there is an output impedance associated with a function generator, it just says that there is a triangle wave, period.
So do you make a fuss and object to the question and disrupt the class and claim that the question as it is worded is "impossible," or do you try to answer the question as it is given in the quiz?
The whole thing is ridiculous and the question on the other thread will never be answered. It's beyond the capabilities of the people here and they are severely handicapped with their insane attitude and they seemingly don't want to help themselves. Like I said, it's a farce.
-
You're sitting in your Electronics 101 class and you are doing a quiz. The first question says, "There is a +/- 10-volt 25 Hz triangle wave across a 2 Henry inductor...." Well that means that it's an ideal voltage source triangle wave because it's a quiz and it is what the question says it is. It doesn't state there is an output impedance associated with a function generator, it just says that there is a triangle wave, period.
So do you make a fuss and object to the question and disrupt the class and claim that the question as it is worded is "impossible," or do you try to answer the question as it is given in the quiz?
The whole thing is ridiculous and the question on the other thread will never be answered. It's beyond the capabilities of the people here and they are severely handicapped with their insane attitude and they seemingly don't want to help themselves. Like I said, it's a farce.
tbh this is what I find ironically interesting. I believe the way your question was asked, in the context that it was asked, and during the heated moment of debate it was asked, included
well, not quite a deceptive, but an 'unorthodox' aspect. I know to you it seems common practice but there was a certain degree of "hmmm could this be a trick?".. When I first looked at the varying
voltages I was thinking hmm how does that work.. It never occurred to me the voltage from the
source could vary but then that was sort of the point of you bringing it up, that it's a variable we
are supposed to pick up on and account for given the test parameters. I believe this actually
caused some people to look at it in a much deeper way than they may have prior. It personally
threw me into some deep thought. In the end your question, though not answered satisfactorily
in your opinion, may have taught more than you think. You may have helped to strengthen
a belief some of us would have not held in the first place prior to really analyzing this scenario.
Had you asked a question more like idk let's say solve for current in the inductor at t=0 through t=9 given x voltage at t=0 with an R then Brad would have probably just solved it, and if he didn't know, would have probably brushed up online before solving it. But then, there's the possibility
he may have never thought about this entire 0 resistance superconductive inductor scenario. maybe he has idk..
-
For reference, this is the harder version of the question I answered that Brad made reference to in post 2607:
<<<
Here is the harder version of the question and the answer:
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. The voltage source waveform is 20*t^2. So as the time t increases, the voltage increases proportional to the square of the time.
The question is what happens starting at t = 0
The answer:
The current through the ideal coil starts from zero at time t = 0 and then increases with this formula: i = 1.33*t^3.
Time..........Voltage.........Current
0...............0.................0
1...............20...............1.33
5...............500.............166.67
10.............2000............1333.33
20.............8000............10666.67
50.............50000..........166666.7
>>>
And poor Brad thinks I am talking about "DC current" when I am talking about a rising voltage waveform proportional to t-squared and the resultant rising current waveform that is proportional to t-cubed. The mind boggles.
Quote Brad from post #2607:
<<< Have you lost your marbles MH ?
This whole thing you have been peddling is about how you can place a voltage across an ideal coil,and a DC current will flow through that coil.See below >>>
What's even more of a joke is when I started the process of answering the easier question these were Brad's responses:
<<<
You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster
Your a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.
>>>
Brad: Everything you read in your own quoted text above in reality applies to you yourself. You have been bluffing your way through this whole thing. It's a farce and a fiasco.
MileHigh
Brad, you need to try to get up the learning curve such that you get to the point where you come back and acknowledge the answer given above is correct.
MH
I need to point out to you ,that you are no longer able to confuse people around here,by changing things around to meet your need's--your starting to look silly.
As i said in the other thread,i am not interested in your modified version--it's nothing more than a distraction from the original question.
The original question
Quote: You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
What happens from T=0 when the ideal voltage is connected to the ideal coil?.
It would seem that you need to understand your own question,so we will dissect it piece by piece.
This way you may learn what your question actually means ;)
The very first 5 words seem to have you some what confused
Quote:-You have an ideal voltage
The first thing we do,is find out exactly what an ideal voltage is.
We will look at the definition on the first 5 pages of the google results.
1-wikipedia-->An ideal voltage source is a two-terminal device that maintains a fixed voltage drop across its terminals.
2-http://www.learningaboutelectronics.com/Articles/Ideal-voltage-source.php
-->An ideal voltage source is a voltage source that supplies constant voltage to a circuit despite the current which the circuit draws.
This means that despite the resistance which a load may be in a circuit, the source will still provide constant and steady voltage.
An ideal voltage source has the following characterstic that allows it to act as a 100% efficient source of voltage: it has zero internal resistance.
When an ideal voltage source has zero internal resistance, it can drop all of its voltage perfectly across a load in a circuit. Being that the source has zero internal resistance, none of the power is wasted due to internal resistance. The ideal voltage source can 100% efficiently drop all of its voltage across a load. This is proven by ohm's law. According to ohm's law, voltage is dropped across circuit elements according to the formula, V=IR. If a voltage source has zero internal resistance, it can drop all voltage across a load and none will be wasted internally. This is 100% power efficiency and this is an ideal voltage source.
The above statement MH,dismisses your answer in regards to verpies comment,that by adding the ideal voltage source in series with the inductor,brings in an element of resistance.
As i told you before,and ideal voltage source dose not have a resistance,and so the complete circuit remains void of any resistance.
3-http://www.electrical4u.com/ideal-dependent-independent-voltage-current-source/
But in ideal voltage source this difference is considered as zero that means there would not be any voltage drop in it when current flows through it and this implies that the internal resistance of an ideal source must be zero. This can be concluded that, voltage across the source remains constant for all values of load current.
The above also tells you what a Independent Voltage Source,and a Dependent Voltage Source is. You may want to read up on them as well,as there you will find your voltage source that changes in time.
4http://www.ee.sc.edu/personal/faculty/simin/ELCT102/13%20Voltage%20and%20Current%20sources.pdf
An ideal voltage source is a circuit element that maintains a prescribed
voltage across its terminals regardless of the current flowing in those
terminals
5-http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mastascu/elessonshtml/source/source1.html#WhatIdealVSource
An ideal voltage source is a voltage source that maintains the same voltage across the source's terminals no matter what current is drawn from the terminals of the source or what current flows into the terminals.
So now it should be clear to you that an ideal voltage dose not change in time--unless you change it.
Next
and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys.
First,what is an ideal coil,or inductor.
I will supply only the first two links that have decent explanations--the rest will be the same anyway.
1-wikipedia
An "ideal inductor" has inductance, but no resistance or capacitance, and does not dissipate or radiate energy. However real inductors have side effects which cause their behavior to depart from this simple model.
Please note highlighted ;)
2-http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/72597/what-would-a-perfect-inductor-be-like
The perfect inductor has reactance without any resistance. In other words, the real component of its impedance would be zero. Loss of power as heat within the inductor is thus also zero.
The perfect inductor presents no impedance to a constant current (i.e. DC), yet opposes any slightest change of current. Any non-superconducting material can not meet this condition, as it is bound to have some resistance.
Hence, a perfect inductor would need to be made of superconducting material
So now you should know what an ideal voltage source is,and what an ideal coil/inductor is.
No matter how much you would like to include the MH paradox,you just cannot redefine things as you please MileHigh.
Brad
-
That posting is just sad Brad. It shows how you are so limited in your understanding and how your powers of conceptualization are so weak that you would think that your response to my posting is legitimate. Instead of trying to solve the easier question as is and being puzzled and intrigued by the answer to the more difficult question and how I arrived at it it, you are the "problem student" that can't understand the question and objects to the wording in the question. It's just sad.
-
Brad:
I am sorry but I am going to be nasty here because you deserve it:
<<< I dont know what is going on with you MH,but you need to make up your mind here.
Can a voltage exist across an ideal inductor that has a DC current flowing through it or not?--it's a very simple question,and you can have two answers as you have above. >>>
Just because the current is flowing in one direction you are calling that "DC current?" This ridiculous nonsense takes its root from my answering the more difficult question and you haven't mastered the concept of what "DC" means relative to talking about coils?
That is not DC current you loonie that is current that is changing in time.
All of this stupid nonsensical idiocy because poor Brad can't make a distinction between constant DC current that does not change with respect to time and current that is flowing in the same direction that does change with respect to time?
Inductors are all about current changing with respect to time and you pull off this silly stunt because you don't know?
You are in the corner with a dunce cap on right now. People reading are aghast.
MileHigh
That is not DC current you loonie that is current that is changing in time.
In this lesson MH,you will learn what a DC current is.
Once again,i will provide links that explain this to you.
1-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_current
Direct current (DC) is the unidirectional flow of electric charge. Direct current is produced by sources such as batteries, power supplies, thermocouples, solar cells, or dynamos. Direct current may flow in a conductor such as a wire, but can also flow through semiconductors, insulators, or even through a vacuum as in electron or ion beams. The electric current flows in a constant direction, distinguishing it from alternating current (AC). A term formerly used for this type of current was galvanic current.[1]
That is not DC current you loonie that is current that is changing in time.
2-https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/alternating-current-ac-vs-direct-current-dc
DC is defined as the “unidirectional” flow of current; current only flows in one direction. Voltage and current can vary over time so long as the direction of flow does not change.
Please pay careful attention to the highlighted above,where you will note that a DC current can vary in time,as long as the current flow direction remains in one direction.
3-http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/DC-direct-current
DC (direct current) is the unidirectional flow or movement of electric charge carriers (which are usually electrons). The intensity of the current can vary with time, but the general direction of movement stays the same at all times. As an adjective, the term DC is used in reference to voltage whose polarity never reverses.
4- Here is one you may understand MH-->http://www.physics4kids.com/files/elec_dc.html
The current in DC circuits is moving in a constant direction. The amount of current can change, but it will always flow from one point to another.
Now you should be full bottles on what DC is ;)
Brad
-
That posting is just sad Brad. It shows how you are so limited in your understanding and how your powers of conceptualization are so weak that you would think that your response to my posting is legitimate. Instead of trying to solve the easier question as is and being puzzled and intrigued by the answer to the more difficult question and how I arrived at it it, you are the "problem student" that can't understand the question and objects to the wording in the question. It's just sad.
The wording in your question is very clear MH. An ideal voltage source is supplying 4 volts across an ideal inductor for a period of 3 seconds.
You wrote it your self.
Brad
-
In this lesson MH,you will learn what a DC current is.
Once again,i will provide links that explain this to you.
1-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_current
Direct current (DC) is the unidirectional flow of electric charge. Direct current is produced by sources such as batteries, power supplies, thermocouples, solar cells, or dynamos. Direct current may flow in a conductor such as a wire, but can also flow through semiconductors, insulators, or even through a vacuum as in electron or ion beams. The electric current flows in a constant direction, distinguishing it from alternating current (AC). A term formerly used for this type of current was galvanic current.[1]
2-https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/alternating-current-ac-vs-direct-current-dc
DC is defined as the “unidirectional” flow of current; current only flows in one direction. Voltage and current can vary over time so long as the direction of flow does not change.
Please pay careful attention to the highlighted above,where you will note that a DC current can vary in time,as long as the current flow direction remains in one direction.
3-http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/DC-direct-current
DC (direct current) is the unidirectional flow or movement of electric charge carriers (which are usually electrons). The intensity of the current can vary with time, but the general direction of movement stays the same at all times. As an adjective, the term DC is used in reference to voltage whose polarity never reverses.
4- Here is one you may understand MH-->http://www.physics4kids.com/files/elec_dc.html (http://www.physics4kids.com/files/elec_dc.html)
The current in DC circuits is moving in a constant direction. The amount of current can change, but it will always flow from one point to another.
Now you should be full bottles on what DC is ;)
Brad
This is the takeaway from this discussion: All of this stupid nonsensical idiocy because poor Brad can't make a distinction between constant DC current that does not change with respect to time and current that is flowing in the same direction that does change with respect to time?
Again, it's sad that your understanding is so weak and your ability to conceptualize is so limited.
You were "going after me" because you said that I supposedly said "DC current through an inductor results in no voltage across the inductor and DC current through an inductor also results in voltage across an inductor" as if that is a contradiction.
Your own cited definition of "DC current" includes a variable current so that means that in fact there is no contradiction. So you are bonkers again.
But all that is beside the point, you are simply failing to draw a distinction between unchanging current and changing current in the context of discussing coils. It's just sad and it's a total fiasco.
-
tbh this is what I find ironically interesting. I believe the way your question was asked, in the context that it was asked, and during the heated moment of debate it was asked, included
well, not quite a deceptive, but an 'unorthodox' aspect. I know to you it seems common practice but there was a certain degree of "hmmm could this be a trick?".. When I first looked at the varying
voltages I was thinking hmm how does that work.. It never occurred to me the voltage from the
source could vary but then that was sort of the point of you bringing it up, that it's a variable we
are supposed to pick up on and account for given the test parameters. I believe this actually
caused some people to look at it in a much deeper way than they may have prior. It personally
threw me into some deep thought. In the end your question, though not answered satisfactorily
in your opinion, may have taught more than you think. You may have helped to strengthen
a belief some of us would have not held in the first place prior to really analyzing this scenario.
Had you asked a question more like idk let's say solve for current in the inductor at t=0 through t=9 given x voltage at t=0 with an R then Brad would have probably just solved it, and if he didn't know, would have probably brushed up online before solving it. But then, there's the possibility
he may have never thought about this entire 0 resistance superconductive inductor scenario. maybe he has idk..
Magneticitist
The voltage across the ideal inductor dose not vary with time,as it is from an ideal source,and the value is set at 4 volts,for a time period of 3 seconds.
MH will not attempt to calculate what happens,as he dose not know--he cannot understand the difference between ideal and real. The real coil could have .000000000000000001 ohms of resistance,but it is still an infinite amount away from being ideal--no resistance. He seems to think that 100,000000000 miles is close enough to an infinite mileage--but it is not even a grain of sand on all the beaches of the world.
Brad
-
But all that is beside the point, you are simply failing to draw a distinction between unchanging current and changing current in the context of discussing coils. It's just sad and it's a total fiasco.
This is the takeaway from this discussion: All of this stupid nonsensical idiocy because poor Brad can't make a distinction between constant DC current that does not change with respect to time and current that is flowing in the same direction that does change with respect to time?
One more for the MH paradox,where a DC current has now been redefined as meaning only a steady state direct current. :D
Again, it's sad that your understanding is so weak and your ability to conceptualize is so limited.
As i provided all the proof required that states a direct current(DC) can vary with time,it would be a good idea for you to use correct terms when making statements.
I mean,it wasnt that long ago(on this thread),that you told me to be more accurate with my terms and meanings,so as those new to this sort of thing could understand what is going on. But once we enter the MH paradox,general terms and definitions now describe exact analysis.
You were "going after me" because you said that I supposedly said "DC current through an inductor results in no voltage across the inductor and DC current through an inductor also results in voltage across an inductor" as if that is a contradiction.
Your own cited definition of "DC current" includes a variable current so that means that in fact there is no contradiction. So you are bonkers again.
As you can see by the pole on the MH ideal coil and voltage thread,i define what DC current is flowing when there is no measurable voltage across the ideal inductor--unlike you who just say--a DC current,which could mean variable or a steady state value. If there are those here that assume that you mean any type of DC current,then as soon as you place your ideal voltage across that ideal inductor,then a DC current will flow through that inductor,and there for conclude that you are speaking double dutch.
Practice what you preach comes to mind ATM MH ;)
Brad
-
Magneticitist
The voltage across the ideal inductor dose not vary with time,as it is from an ideal source,and the value is set at 4 volts,for a time period of 3 seconds.
MH will not attempt to calculate what happens,as he dose not know--he cannot understand the difference between ideal and real. The real coil could have .000000000000000001 ohms of resistance,but it is still an infinite amount away from being ideal--no resistance. He seems to think that 100,000000000 miles is close enough to an infinite mileage--but it is not even a grain of sand on all the beaches of the world.
Brad
More complete and utter foolishness because your powers of conceptualization and application of knowledge are almost nil. I sure as hell understand the difference between a real inductor and an ideal inductor. Here is what you don't understand: When you look at the example which is over a period of three seconds, then the real and the ideal coil as defined are virtually indistinguishable. You have to factor in time and you are blind to this fact.
-
@MH
Tell us all here how you calculated your ideal coil of having 5 Henry's of inductance,when it has no resistance?.
What is inductance,and when will that induction stop?
Are you sure the inductance value of an ideal can be anything other than infinite?.
Will induction keep on going until the current reaches a steady state,and the magnetic field is no longer changing in time?.
Quote:
Electromagnetic induction is the production of an electromotive force across a conductor exposed to time varying magnetic fields.
Now,we know that you non ideal inductor can have a defined inductance value,as it will reach a maximum current flow value at 5 time constance,and induction will stop,as the magnetic field is no longer changing. But what happens when that inductor has no resistance,and no time constant. What happens when the current continues to rise to an infinite amount,and the magnetic field never stops increasing over time.
The energy being stored in that inductor rises to an infinite amount over an infinite time--it never reaches a maximum value.
How do you have a 5 Henry ideal inductor ?.
Brad
-
One more for the MH paradox,where a DC current has now been redefined as meaning only a steady state direct current. :D
As i provided all the proof required that states a direct current(DC) can vary with time,it would be a good idea for you to use correct terms when making statements.
I mean,it wasnt that long ago(on this thread),that you told me to be more accurate with my terms and meanings,so as those new to this sort of thing could understand what is going on. But once we enter the MH paradox,general terms and definitions now describe exact analysis.
As you can see by the pole on the MH ideal coil and voltage thread,i define what DC current is flowing when there is no measurable voltage across the ideal inductor--unlike you who just say--a DC current,which could mean variable or a steady state value. If there are those here that assume that you mean any type of DC current,then as soon as you place your ideal voltage across that ideal inductor,then a DC current will flow through that inductor,and there for conclude that you are speaking double dutch.
Practice what you preach comes to mind ATM MH ;)
Brad
You are just spinning and it's all just wasted energy. There is nothing wrong in my use of language when discussing coils and their response to excitation. I make a reasonable assumption that you have a clue and understand context. But of course throughout this whole discussion there have been an endless series of events where you clearly had no clue. Stating that an ideal voltage source "cannot change in time" because you can't conceive of that or can't find a reference to that is a classic example if the insanity in trying to deal with you. You will never be able to answer the question and that is a very sad thing.
-
@MH
Tell us all here how you calculated your ideal coil of having 5 Henry's of inductance,when it has no resistance?.
What is inductance,and when will that induction stop?
Are you sure the inductance value of an ideal can be anything other than infinite?.
Will induction keep on going until the current reaches a steady state,and the magnetic field is no longer changing in time?.
Quote:
Electromagnetic induction is the production of an electromotive force across a conductor exposed to time varying magnetic fields.
Now,we know that you non ideal inductor can have a defined inductance value,as it will reach a maximum current flow value at 5 time constance,and induction will stop,as the magnetic field is no longer changing. But what happens when that inductor has no resistance,and no time constant. What happens when the current continues to rise to an infinite amount,and the magnetic field never stops increasing over time.
The energy being stored in that inductor rises to an infinite amount over an infinite time--it never reaches a maximum value.
How do you have a 5 Henry ideal inductor ?.
Brad
This whole time you have clearly not understood what inductance is and that is the crux of the problem. You have been bluffing your way through for years.
Hit the reset button and open an electronics book from page 1 and start reading.
-
then the real and the ideal coil as defined are virtually indistinguishable
Other than one not having any resistance,and there for dose not dissipate any power,to one that dose have resistance,and dose dissipate power. ;)
I sure as hell understand the difference between a real inductor and an ideal inductor.
I dont think you can.
You just cannot grasp the difference a small amount of resistance to that of no resistance.
As you can see,one has a finite time constant,and one an infinite constant.
But i see now your test is determined by a time limit,and so you think all will be equal--the MH paradox :D
More complete and utter foolishness because your powers of conceptualization and application of knowledge are almost nil.
Hows them understandings on resonant systems coming along MH?
Have you learned what a J/FET is yet,and how it works?.
Here is what you don't understand: When you look at the example which is over a period of three seconds, then the real and the ideal coil as defined are virtually indistinguishable. You have to factor in time and you are blind to this fact.
Along with the fact that your ideal inductor has 4 volts across it for 3 seconds--as stated in your question--along with all your other voltage drops and reversing polarities.
Looking forward to your answer on a finite inductance value for an inductor with no resistance ;)
Brad
-
This whole time you have clearly not understood what inductance is and that is the crux of the problem. You have been bluffing your way through for years.
Hit the reset button and open an electronics book from page 1 and start reading.
I would think that some one that dose not know what a J/FET is,or dose not understand what DC is,or cant grasp the fact that there is a difference between an object vibrating at it's natural frequency to that object resonating,would be far better off hitting the books.
Brad
-
<<< Have you learned what a J/FET is yet,and how it works? >>>
Yes, what is it now, 25 to 35 times you have stated this?
When this first came up I clearly told you that last time I discussed a JFET was 35 years ago sitting in an electronics class and I forgot the the definition. But like a sleaze you are going to repeat that until you are blue in the face.
Let me make it clear to you: You can pretend and make yourself believe that you are 'toying' with me all you want. But at the end of the day you are still the poor schmuck that fell flat on your face with respect to inductors and exposed how clueless you truly are and how you will likely never be able to answer a very simple question about electronics that consists of a power source and a single lousy component.
You have to change your attitude and learn this stuff from scratch.
-
I would think that some one that dose not know what a J/FET is,or dose not understand what DC is,or cant grasp the fact that there is a difference between an object vibrating at it's natural frequency to that object resonating,would be far better off hitting the books.
Brad
That makes 36 times now. The whole arc of this discussion going back a few months now when I decided to treat you as a normal person has been an endless series of complete fiascos, crazy mistakes, and the most ridiculous obstinate refusals from you to accept new ideas or unlearn your crazy ideas so you could advance and accomplish some good things and make good progress.
You do not stand a chance of answering the easy question or the harder question and you bluffed and evaded the easy question when I told you to substitute a real coil for the "problem" ideal coil. You can stew in your juices and pretend that you are doing electronics as long as you want, I don't care.
-
MH, Mags, tinman,
Why are you guys badgering each other like this?
All three of you know very well what an ideal voltage source is (and you know each other does as well), and mags/Brad, you know full well what MH means in his question and/or his posts when he says the voltage source varies.
To be clear, he does not mean that it varies from its set value over time, he means it is one value for time x, and another value for time y.
So please stop this pages and pages of nonsense, and get on with some productive discussions.
-
@poynt99
Too little too late.
@MH
I think you should do like Ben Franklin and just go fly a kite. Preferably in an ideal thunder cloud using an ideal copper string and key.
You said it yourself. Ideal or 0.0000000000000000001 will not make a difference.
You are so wrong and basically a total waste of time. The former cost 150 needless pages, the later could have been done in 2 and we would already be back to discussing the JT. Remember the JT, so simple but you managed to turn this thread into a low rate horror movie. Not me, you and your ego-maniacal EE bullshit on an OU forum.
Your little mind cannot figure out why the question of "is using ideal voltage and ideal coil in the same question appropriate or not" is your problem not ours, but you seem to insist on shoving your EE Kool-Aid no mater what the taste is. That is your own problem an not ours and once you have realized you could have used so many other means to convey your same "little message", then you will have become better otherwise in the next ten years, you will not have advanced one inch.
You are like a low rate salesman trying to sell fly swatters to Eskimos. You will do whatever is necessary to make that sale. No matter what. I see in your attempt this desperate need to be right at all cost even though you know deep down this is all bullshit disguised as an @MH EE Lesson. So let's see what you did to this thread.
So you on this thread you have swung around Mrs. Wine Glass, Joe Car Speed and Mr. Ideal Voltage and his possible concubine Miss Ideal Coil. All four cost how many pages of WHAT? Then you float around Handy Push Cart and company and you just keep it coming one after the other.
Now just for the record I just notice you responded to my last post. I did not see it earlier because of all these pages just add up like leaves falling in an autumn breeze. One after the other and each page adding up to another zero.
And you, after all this have the gal to call me out. You have to be one hell of a demented bastard to stoop so low. That post I did started off by saying what? Pee brain, let's see....
Quote
"As the EE World Turns............... just for the fun of it let's play around."
Unquote
First off I was only pointing out the irony of all this discussion. The irony of you with one big mouth acting like Leghorn Foghorn. Look that up on youtube.
If Aliens landed in your backyard and invited you into their spaceship, and you with your eyes wide open started talking about EE, asking "where is the resistance, inductance, capacitance, voltage, current in the function of all these systems?" they would just give you an angry stare and say "look, shut up, forget everything you have learned about your EE. This has nothing to do with your EE. When you have swiped your slate clean, we will return". If it was me, I would ask them "how are you manipulating those atoms to respond in unison" and they would pull a chair and say "sit down, we have some things to discuss". Maybe what you need is to brain-visit another planet once in a while and stop being the EE traffic cop always directing these threads in your one-way alleys. I told you EE is just so rudimentary it will never touch the object, it only floats around the surface skimming the effects while the real work is being done inside those atoms. That your EE cannot touch. That's where I am looking. Show me where in EE do they actually reserve one single page to discuss about the copper atom. After all that damn little furty critter is in 99% of everything that is EE and is also what has been paying your bills for the last 35 years. You just cannot look any deeper then your little formulas that say nothing and what is happening in the atomic nature of that great copper atom. And you want to teach how a coil works. Small fry.
You took an honest to goodness JT thread and turned it into a low rate horror movie. That's your forté. You did, not me. I had hopes for this thread but as usual you come around and spill EE acid on everything you touch until the subject becomes about you and how @members have to reach an EE ideal in order to advance. Advance to what? OU? Are you out of your mind or what? After 10 years of your EE, where is OU today? F98k all. Not one inch advanced not because of me, because of you. Who here is looking elsewhere? Not you..... me. And who are you chastising for looking elsewhere. Not you for being so brain lazy..... me. That's the reality, that's your reality, not mine.
You have no real ability to teach anything. All you do is stuff EE Kool-Aid down the throats of everyone here and wonder why people just choke. You are the sicky, not me. You need to straight up your presence on this forum, not me. You have no clue that Electrical Engineering has nothing to do with Overunity Engineering (OE). You just push your little formulas thinking they hold the truth when they actually say absolutely nothing about what is occurring in that coil. Nothing. You are like a doctor that measures body temperature, sweat level and excrement make-up and then says, "I know how a human body works". You don't get it do you and you never will.
So here is a very simple OE question for you. As the voltage rises and the current rises, in or out of phase, explain to us what is actually happening inside that coil at the atomic level and how this proves "current flow". Do not use any formulas because those are just convenient deviations from the actual events occurring in that coil. Hint: The answer is not "it just does", even though all your measurements will only ultimately give you that one answer. It just does is not the right answer. Now when you can answer that and when that answer, since it is at an atomic level then has to coincide with every other effect in nature is also right, then you are on the right track. So you have ten years to do that and then we will say you have advanced during the last ten years. That is if you set aside your EE flagelations on everyone here and really start using your brain.
wattsup
-
You do not stand a chance of answering the easy question or the harder question and you bluffed and evaded the easy question when I told you to substitute a real coil for the "problem" ideal coil. You can stew in your juices and pretend that you are doing electronics as long as you want, I don't care.
That makes 36 times now. The whole arc of this discussion going back a few months now when I decided to treat you as a normal person has been an endless series of complete fiascos, crazy mistakes, and the most ridiculous obstinate refusals from you to accept new ideas or unlearn your crazy ideas so you could advance and accomplish some good things and make good progress.
And how far have your theories taken us MH?--how much have we advanced over the last 20 years.
Wow-we have made things smaller and more compact. We have made computers a little bit faster.
We also still have the internal combustion engine ::)
We also still have coal and gas fired powerstations ::)
We now have motor vehicles that are that complicated,fixing them on the side of the road is now impossible.
All told that it makes for better fuel economy ::)--horse shit. I had carby cars(no fuel injection),and points(no electronic ignition),and got just as good a fuel economy as any of the cars today.
Your wonderful books cant even cure the common cold,and have taken us no further than we were 20 years ago. In fact, i think we went backwards some where there.
You think everything we need to know will be found in your books--crap.
The answers we seek are in none of your books,or indoctrination.
Just stand back,and have a look at where you are MH,and where your books have taken you.
I know where i want to be,and it isnt found in your books.
You know all those UFOs sighted throughout the world,doing there little maneuvers that our physics believe are impossible--i bet you think there aliens-right?.
Well that may have been the case 60 years ago,but i bet it aint aliens flying them around anymore ;) Where is your book on that lot?
Here is a fact--you cant possibly know what happens when you place an ideal voltage across superconducting wire--and that is what your ideal coil would have to be wound with to have no resistance. How can you know that that superconductive wire is not going to store all of the induced magnetic field within it,instead of it protruding the outer perimeter of the wire. If that one thing happens--if the produced magnetic field is contained within that superconducting wire,then bye bye inductor--you do not have one.
All your theories could hinge on that one fact,and could all fall apart if what i stated happened.
You are taking a wild guess that the ideal coil,and all that is associated with it,act much the same as a non ideal coil.
Brad
-
MH, Mags, tinman,
Why are you guys badgering each other like this?
All three of you know very well what an ideal voltage source is (and you know each other does as well), and mags/Brad, you know full well what MH means in his question and/or his posts when he says the voltage source varies.
So please stop this pages and pages of nonsense, and get on with some productive discussions.
To be clear, he does not mean that it varies from its set value over time, he means it is one value for time x, and another value for time y.
Well lets hope he can make that clear,and provide an answer to his original question,instead of going on with a different question-like the example he gave us.
The one thing i will not sit back and let fly,is his ongoing name calling ,degrading comments about me--and i dont give two hoots who tells me to settle down.
You know darn well i left it all alone Poynt,but MH kept dragging my name into his deluded ramblings. Perhaps you should take the time to read this thread,and have a look at the profanities he aimed at me,and see if i responded with the same sort of sick replies--you will not find one.
I have taken as much crap from him as i can,and that's that.
From now on,he gets what he gives--although i will leave out the profanities he has posted toward me.
Brad
-
And here is some more info for you MH
The top gun EE guys here on this forum,all believe in one OU device--the TPU.
So these EE guys you think are those that stick strictly to the books,well bad news for you.
Here is a real shocker for you '
One of them has witnessed first hand a self running magnet motor--hows that for a hoot--how are your books going to sort that one out.
And no ,i am not going to put up names--so dont ask. But those EE guys here know that i speak the truth about what i just told you.
We are on a forum that is researching overunity devices,and how to achieve such a device.
Everything you have is just theory,and theory is not fact--it's a best guess on observations so far.
Perhaps if you spent more time looking for the unknown,you wouldnt be sitting here racing shopping carts around the super market.
I tried to show you how resonance can and dose increase efficiency and power from internal combustion engines,and what did you do after i stated that?--you went straight into !it's bullshit! mode,only later to say--i dont know that much about ICEs. This is the way you work,and you need to change. See everything with an open mind,and listen before you make judgments on what others say and tell you.
Brad
-
@poynt99
Too little too late.
@MH
I think you should do like Ben Franklin and just go fly a kite. Preferably in an ideal thunder cloud using an ideal copper string and key.
You said it yourself. Ideal or 0.0000000000000000001 will not make a difference.
You are so wrong and basically a total waste of time. The former cost 150 needless pages, the later could have been done in 2 and we would already be back to discussing the JT. Remember the JT, so simple but you managed to turn this thread into a low rate horror movie. Not me, you and your ego-maniacal EE bullshit on an OU forum.
Your little mind cannot figure out why the question of "is using ideal voltage and ideal coil in the same question appropriate or not" is your problem not ours, but you seem to insist on shoving your EE Kool-Aid no mater what the taste is. That is your own problem an not ours and once you have realized you could have used so many other means to convey your same "little message", then you will have become better otherwise in the next ten years, you will not have advanced one inch.
You are like a low rate salesman trying to sell fly swatters to Eskimos. You will do whatever is necessary to make that sale. No matter what. I see in your attempt this desperate need to be right at all cost even though you know deep down this is all bullshit disguised as an @MH EE Lesson. So let's see what you did to this thread.
So you on this thread you have swung around Mrs. Wine Glass, Joe Car Speed and Mr. Ideal Voltage and his possible concubine Miss Ideal Coil. All four cost how many pages of WHAT? Then you float around Handy Push Cart and company and you just keep it coming one after the other.
Now just for the record I just notice you responded to my last post. I did not see it earlier because of all these pages just add up like leaves falling in an autumn breeze. One after the other and each page adding up to another zero.
And you, after all this have the gal to call me out. You have to be one hell of a demented bastard to stoop so low. That post I did started off by saying what? Pee brain, let's see....
Quote
"As the EE World Turns............... just for the fun of it let's play around."
Unquote
First off I was only pointing out the irony of all this discussion. The irony of you with one big mouth acting like Leghorn Foghorn. Look that up on youtube.
If Aliens landed in your backyard and invited you into their spaceship, and you with your eyes wide open started talking about EE, asking "where is the resistance, inductance, capacitance, voltage, current in the function of all these systems?" they would just give you an angry stare and say "look, shut up, forget everything you have learned about your EE. This has nothing to do with your EE. When you have swiped your slate clean, we will return". If it was me, I would ask them "how are you manipulating those atoms to respond in unison" and they would pull a chair and say "sit down, we have some things to discuss". Maybe what you need is to brain-visit another planet once in a while and stop being the EE traffic cop always directing these threads in your one-way alleys. I told you EE is just so rudimentary it will never touch the object, it only floats around the surface skimming the effects while the real work is being done inside those atoms. That your EE cannot touch. That's where I am looking. Show me where in EE do they actually reserve one single page to discuss about the copper atom. After all that damn little furty critter is in 99% of everything that is EE and is also what has been paying your bills for the last 35 years. You just cannot look any deeper then your little formulas that say nothing and what is happening in the atomic nature of that great copper atom. And you want to teach how a coil works. Small fry.
You took an honest to goodness JT thread and turned it into a low rate horror movie. That's your forté. You did, not me. I had hopes for this thread but as usual you come around and spill EE acid on everything you touch until the subject becomes about you and how @members have to reach an EE ideal in order to advance. Advance to what? OU? Are you out of your mind or what? After 10 years of your EE, where is OU today? F98k all. Not one inch advanced not because of me, because of you. Who here is looking elsewhere? Not you..... me. And who are you chastising for looking elsewhere. Not you for being so brain lazy..... me. That's the reality, that's your reality, not mine.
You have no real ability to teach anything. All you do is stuff EE Kool-Aid down the throats of everyone here and wonder why people just choke. You are the sicky, not me. You need to straight up your presence on this forum, not me. You have no clue that Electrical Engineering has nothing to do with Overunity Engineering (OE). You just push your little formulas thinking they hold the truth when they actually say absolutely nothing about what is occurring in that coil. Nothing. You are like a doctor that measures body temperature, sweat level and excrement make-up and then says, "I know how a human body works". You don't get it do you and you never will.
So here is a very simple OE question for you. As the voltage rises and the current rises, in or out of phase, explain to us what is actually happening inside that coil at the atomic level and how this proves "current flow". Do not use any formulas because those are just convenient deviations from the actual events occurring in that coil. Hint: The answer is not "it just does", even though all your measurements will only ultimately give you that one answer. It just does is not the right answer. Now when you can answer that and when that answer, since it is at an atomic level then has to coincide with every other effect in nature is also right, then you are on the right track. So you have ten years to do that and then we will say you have advanced during the last ten years. That is if you set aside your EE flagelations on everyone here and really start using your brain.
wattsup
wattsup
Champion Post Wattsup ;)
Brad
-
One more thing MH,so as this thread may return to it's original topic
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
What happens from T=0 when the ideal voltage is connected to the ideal coil?.
I cannot answer this question--i do not know the answer.
Brad
-
Oh Wattsup, yet another rant. I have news for you: Sometimes threads around here are about electronics and not OU. In fact a lot of them are about electronics just for the fun of discussing electronics. I see you are just as biased as ever. Spintronics is nonsense, sorry.
Brad, there is no hope for you. Stop trying to play the angel, you get down into the gutter a lot. Look at your own comments to me after I discussed the fist steps towards answering the question:
You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster.
Your (sic) a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.
It's been a miserable horrible experience trying to discuss electronics with you and you will likely never make any real progress unless you change your attitude. I doubt that will ever happen. The miserable horrible experience talking to you and your ridiculous obstinate refusal to listen to sense is the reason it got nasty and the nastiness was a two-way street. Again, don't try to play the angel, it's pure BS.
I was tired of the "let's create a special space for Brad" business. Believe me, you have been given a "special space" all this time because you don't have to be a rocket scientist to get a sense of your psychology. The "resonant Joule Thief," is a Joule Thief an RLC circuit, the wine glass issue, resonance in general, the simple question that you wanted to open a thread for, they have all been epic failures on your part. It's like talking to a stone.
You are not going to change, and it was worth the battle to try to talk some sense into you. It never happened and in a month or two you will do some new pulse motor with the usual cringe-worthy mistakes showing how serious your limitations are and if anyone tries to engage with you and correct the mistakes, they will most likely fail. It certainly won't be me.
So I admit failure in trying to engage with you and get you up the electronics and engineering learning curve. But the real failure is you failing yourself. That's exemplified by you saying, "there is a difference between an object vibrating at it's natural frequency to that object resonating." That says it all right there in a nutshell.
MileHigh
-
And lest we forget that MH was excited to finally show that resonance is nothing special and completely misunderstood here
"nothing But a worthless OU trigger word"
"I can't wait to put an end to this resonance nonsense"
----------
well here is some meat for the table.. regarding resonance and breaking the laws of physics
Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive
M.E. McCulloch
April 13, 2016
Abstract
It has been shown that truncated cone-shaped cavities with microwaves
resonating within them move slightly towards their narrow ends (the emdrive).
Standard physics has no explanation for this and an error has
not yet been found. It is shown here that this effect can be predicted by
assuming that the inertial mass of the photons in the cavity is caused by
Unruh radiation, whose wavelengths must fit exactly within the cavity, using
a theory already applied successfully to astrophysical anomalies such
as galaxy rotation where the Unruh waves have to fit within the Hubble
scale. In the emdrive this means that more Unruh waves are allowed at
the wide end, leading to a greater inertial mass for the photons there, and
to conserve momentum the cavity must move towards its narrow end, as
observed. The model predicts thrusts of: 3.8, 149, 7.3, 0.23, 0.57, 0.11,
0.64 and 0.02 mN compared with the observed thrusts of: 16, 147, 9,
0.09, 0.05, 0.06, 0.03, and 0.02 mN and predicts that if the axial length is
equal to the diameter of the small end of the cavity, the thrust should be
reversed.
-
One more thing MH,so as this thread may return to it's original topic
I cannot answer this question--i do not know the answer.
Brad
Well the first part of the question has already been answered for you. Take that information and try to answer the full question or get some help from somebody else.
-
Oh Wattsup, yet another rant. I have news for you: Sometimes threads around here are about electronics and not OU. In fact a lot of them are about electronics just for the fun of discussing electronics. I see you are just as biased as ever. Spintronics is nonsense, sorry.
Brad, there is no hope for you. Stop trying to play the angel, you get down into the gutter a lot. Look at your own comments to me after I discussed the fist steps towards answering the question:
You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster.
Your (sic) a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.
So I admit failure in trying to engage with you and get you up the electronics and engineering learning curve. But the real failure is you failing yourself. That's exemplified by you saying, "there is a difference between an object vibrating at it's natural frequency to that object resonating." That says it all right there in a nutshell.
MileHigh
As i said MH,you cannot distinguish between oscillations and resonance,nor a high value and infinity.
You lack vision,and wisdom.
Your claim that the first part of your answer has been answered cannot be backed by any real test--so you are guessing as much as you think i am.
I never claimed to have never called you names in return fire,but i refrained from profanities such as you posted.
Many here have explained the difference between an object being in resonance and vibrating at a natural frequency. We tried to explain that resonance is between two oscillating object or forces,when the prime mover oscillates at the natural frequency of the receiver,giving rise to a maximum amplitude of that receiver .
But you dont listen--the MH paradox kicks in,and you change definitions to suit your need to be correct.
You are only fooling yourself MH--no one else.
It's been a miserable horrible experience trying to discuss electronics with you and you will likely never make any real progress unless you change your attitude. I doubt that will ever happen. The miserable horrible experience talking to you and your ridiculous obstinate refusal to listen to sense is the reason it got nasty and the nastiness was a two-way street. Again, don't try to play the angel, it's pure BS.
MH,be honest --you got your knickers in a twist when i proved you wrong about the ICE resonant issue--and you never got over it. It's all on this thread for everyone to see.
Your tunnel vision bought you unstuck,and you have not coped since.
You are not going to change, and it was worth the battle to try to talk some sense into you. It never happened and in a month or two you will do some new pulse motor with the usual cringe-worthy mistakes showing how serious your limitations are and if anyone tries to engage with you and correct the mistakes, they will most likely fail. It certainly won't be me.
MH
You are not my teacher--please do not portray yourself to be such. This thread showed me(and others) how little you know about the subject at hand. When i read your comment about the simple J/FET--well i think that topped the cake. Then saying that a wine glass vibrating at it's natural frequency was resonance--well the hole got deeper for you. And now ,finally,the DC saga,where the MH paradox kicks in again,and you do some more of your redefining work,where DC now means a steady state unidirectional flow of current,rather than it's actaul meaning of !current flowing in one direction,that may vary in amplitude.
I was tired of the "let's create a special space for Brad" business. Believe me, you have been given a "special space" all this time because you don't have to be a rocket scientist to get a sense of your psychology. The "resonant Joule Thief," is a Joule Thief an RLC circuit, the wine glass issue, resonance in general, the simple question that you wanted to open a thread for, they have all been epic failures on your part. It's like talking to a stone.
They havnt been failures MH. They have shown everyone here how you work. You only need to read the comments from many of those members here on this thread to see they all think the same--MH changes things to suit his needs.
Of course we are all wrong,and MH is correct--as usual. But that is the MH paradox.
There is no need for you to engage with me any more MH,as i dont need the MH paradox information or definitions any longer.
Brad
-
One other thing MH
Did you read this quote from me?
How can you know that that superconductive wire is not going to store all of the induced magnetic field within it,instead of it protruding the outer perimeter of the wire. If that one thing happens--if the produced magnetic field is contained within that superconducting wire,then bye bye inductor--you do not have one.
I guessed you laughed at that as well.
Well maybe you might enjoy this bit of information about superconductivity.
Quote:
Superconductivity is a phenomenon of exactly zero electrical resistance and expulsion of magnetic flux fields occurring in certain materials when cooled below a characteristic critical temperature.
I wonder what would be the outcome of that,as far as your ideal coil wound with superconductive wire would be?.
Brad
-
How many Mile'''''s?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh2ZjHvlzE4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh2ZjHvlzE4)
-
Brad:
<<< MH,be honest --you got your knickers in a twist when i proved you wrong about the ICE resonant issue--and you never got over it. It's all on this thread for everyone to see. >>>
Nonsense, that's just you being a sleaze and saying something repeatedly that isn't even true. I didn't even flinch and admitted my mistake. And like a sleaze you have been repeating this business over and over even though I admitted my mistake. That should have been the end of it for a normal person. However, because my challenging you destabilized you and you clearly are "special" this has been going on and on. And that's on the thread for everyone to see.
-
I wonder what would be the outcome of that,as far as your ideal coil wound with superconductive wire would be?.
Large numbers of inductors made from "coiled up" superconductors are in use everyday all over the world.
Even a straight length of superconducting wire is an inductor...
PW
-
Brad:
<<< MH,be honest --you got your knickers in a twist when i proved you wrong about the ICE resonant issue--and you never got over it. It's all on this thread for everyone to see. >>>
Nonsense, that's just you being a sleaze and saying something repeatedly that isn't even true. I didn't even flinch and admitted my mistake. And like a sleaze you have been repeating this business over and over even though I admitted my mistake. That should have been the end of it for a normal person. However, because my challenging you destabilized you and you clearly are "special" this has been going on and on. And that's on the thread for everyone to see.
Thats not true MH,and you know it--along with everyone else.
First i had to spend my time proving to you that resonant systems existed around the base ICE. Then pages after that--after you admitted to not knowing much about ICEs,you went on to say that no resonance existed inside the engine it self. I then once again had to show you that you were wrong.
The only one that is unstable here MH,is you. Once you knickers are twisted that much,you revert to profanities,at which point ,other members that dont frequent this thread,have to tell you to pull your head in,as children are reading these posts.
You challenged me,and i rose to the challenge--and gave evidence to things you claimed did not exist.
There is no point in lying MH,as it's all here on this thread.
Oh,and i have done a lot of research on superconducting materials,and here is a little exert from a paper i have been reading.
Quote:
As we shall see, classical physics cannot explain the behavior and properties
of superconductors. In fact, the superconducting state is now known to be a
special quantum condensation of electrons.
So once again MH,if you think your ideal coil is going to act just like that of a non ideal coil,,you got big troubles coming your way--but i guess these guys dont know what there talking about either.
Just throw in the MH paradox,and everything just works fine :D
Brad
-
One other thing MH
Did you read this quote from me?
How can you know that that superconductive wire is not going to store all of the induced magnetic field within it,instead of it protruding the outer perimeter of the wire. If that one thing happens--if the produced magnetic field is contained within that superconducting wire,then bye bye inductor--you do not have one.
I guessed you laughed at that as well.
Well maybe you might enjoy this bit of information about superconductivity.
Quote:
Superconductivity is a phenomenon of exactly zero electrical resistance and expulsion of magnetic flux fields occurring in certain materials when cooled below a characteristic critical temperature.
I wonder what would be the outcome of that,as far as your ideal coil wound with superconductive wire would be?.
Brad
Yeah Brad, I think this one sums up many of your issues including your serious language problems. I even inserted the missing text in the quote above.
Let's call this the "poster" post from you. I am using "poster" in the sense of "He is the poster boy for ...."
What you are saying is the exact opposite of what the reality is for a superconductor.
You are saying that in a superconducting wire all of the magnetic field is contained inside the wire.
The reference you cite clearly states that all of the magnetic field is contained outside the wire.
So you fall flat on your face and got it completely wrong. You could not understand what you read. Do you not understand what the word "expulsion" means? This has being going on since the beginning. It's enough to drive a person nuts that is trying to deal with you.
I am glad that I am through with this nonsense.
MileHigh
-
I seem to have an idea that super conduction fails at high current levels and that
the vortexes seen in hts become what's known as vortex glass when the temperature
is lowered further.
When vortices are present they are using a tiny bit of energy.
John.
-
MH, Mags, tinman,
Why are you guys badgering each other like this?
All three of you know very well what an ideal voltage source is (and you know each other does as well), and mags/Brad, you know full well what MH means in his question and/or his posts when he says the voltage source varies.
To be clear, he does not mean that it varies from its set value over time, he means it is one value for time x, and another value for time y.
So please stop this pages and pages of nonsense, and get on with some productive discussions.
Here is my problem with how MH conducts himself.......
He claims that brad and I need to go back to electronic school 101. But he himself should be on his list......
"When this first came up I clearly told you that last time I discussed a JFET was 35 years ago sitting in an electronics class and I forgot the the definition. But like a sleaze you are going to repeat that until you are blue in the face."
I have a list of things that I can reference of what MH says that I like to keep on reference. Can you Poynt not say that you have seen this sort of statement from him before? If not I will post them with links.
He consistently puts himself on the highest horse above us, and lays claim to learning all he knows back 30 odd years ago. Well it used to be 30, and now its 35. Has he been saying that for that long? ;D But when it comes down to when he is lacking, he reverses that stance and blames it on the time period and he forgot. So which is true? In one stance he knows it all. But when defending a mistake or lack of certain knowledge, he blames it on "It was so long ago"
So here is my problem with that. many times before he admits to being corrected, his stance is this.......
"You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster.
Your (sic) a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum."
That is what really makes me sign off my posts as Magluvin, instead of easy going Mags, so to speak. ;) But I have some doubt that you can feel me on that as you guys seem more buddy buddy. Which brings me to another point.....
The other day I posted my views on the issues at hand on the Ideal subject. I didnt badger him. I didnt criticize him. I didnt tell him he needs to go back to school. I didnt call him names. I was in no way looking to get into a nasty argument. I just happily posted my view. And what did I get?....... Well you apparently have been reading it or you would not have a complaint. ;D here is the link where I jumped in on the subject..
http://overunity.com/16589/mhs-ideal-coil-and-voltage-question/msg483678/#msg483678
It was in the other thread on the same discussion.
Anyway, I can go on and on. but I wont here. I get tired of typing at times.
I pose this question for you. What is the explanation of when we have an ideal inductor as it is defined, that the CEMF would not be ideal as MH claims? What is the limiting factor that says CEMF of an Ideal Inductor is not 100% efficient in what it does? MH wont attempt it. So I humbly ask you. :) I mean look, if the ideal inductor is everything it is defined to be, then there must be some 'loss' in order for the CEMF to be less than the input. I have described my view on that a few times, whether anyone agrees or not. There has been no explanation from MHs great storehouse of knowledge other than insults, name calling and basically badgering as you say. He cannot give us the answer to that question and he says CEMF is just a measurement as his closest explanation. So maybe you can shed some light on this. ;) By the way. Do you agree that the CEMF that is in opposition to the input is only a measurement? If you prefer not to answer against him, I understand. But that is not helping anyone.
Also. From what I have found, when talking ideal voltage source, there is nothing out there on the voltage being variable over time. So ok. MH made up his own idea of an ideal voltage source. What is so ideal about that? If it changes its voltage it does not fit the definition. So it is just a normal power supply. Here is the problem I had with that....
The original question posed an Ideal Power Supply of 4v. Brad was correct. The voltage would not change over time if the ideal supply that Brad and I are understanding the definition correctly. The Ideal Inductor was directly across the supply.
So where was all that so called unlimited knowledge from MH when he posed that question? And until he changed it to a varying voltage supply, he insisted, insulted and badgered that Brad was incorrect. Where is his apology on that? So when to we get to rebut that? When do we get to say he is playing a shell game with us about his so called super electronics abilities? Im sorry but people can only take so much of wasting their time on his high horse attitude that he has even when he is wrong. So we get what you see here.
So he needs to brush up on his knowledge before he poses a question like that, where he claims to know the answer to, and that we are fools, double fools, know nothings, our knowledge is nil and that we need to start from the beginning. Well he should eat some of that. We are just feeding it to him.
Nobody else is going to tell him of it. Why not us? Why should we have to be controlled by a set of rules but he has free reign? He calls what I posted in that last few days disgusting. And when we look over his posts and compare, whos are more disgusting? Ill let the readers decide. ;)
Mags
-
MH, Mags, tinman,
Why are you guys badgering each other like this?
All three of you know very well what an ideal voltage source is (and you know each other does as well), and mags/Brad, you know full well what MH means in his question and/or his posts when he says the voltage source varies.
To be clear, he does not mean that it varies from its set value over time, he means it is one value for time x, and another value for time y.
So please stop this pages and pages of nonsense, and get on with some productive discussions.
"All three of you know very well what an ideal voltage source is (and you know each other does as well), and mags/Brad, you know full well what MH means in his question and/or his posts when he says the voltage source varies."
What sort of power supply would that be? If the voltage can vary, then so can the current. Are we just saying it has no resistance thus no losses? This would have to be some very intelligent supply architecture for it to have zero internal resistance but the voltage can change as the load requires. Just interested in your explanation beyond just stating it is what it is. ;)
Look. As Brad and I see it, these ideal world devices pose questions beyond what is described or defined. Just because we question things on those basis doesnt mean we are just ignorant or need to go back to school for the basics. It means our minds are at work and I believe the questions we have posed are legit. If not, then please enter the room and give us what you can so we can all just get along. Does that sound so bad?
Mags
Mags
-
"All three of you know very well what an ideal voltage source is (and you know each other does as well), and mags/Brad, you know full well what MH means in his question and/or his posts when he says the voltage source varies."
What sort of power supply would that be? If the voltage can vary, then so can the current. Are we just saying it has no resistance thus no losses? This would have to be some very intelligent supply architecture for it to have zero internal resistance but the voltage can change as the load requires. Just interested in your explanation beyond just stating it is what it is. ;)
Look. As Brad and I see it, these ideal world devices pose questions beyond what is described or defined. Just because we question things on those basis doesnt mean we are just ignorant or need to go back to school for the basics. It means our minds are at work and I believe the questions we have posed are legit. If not, then please enter the room and give us what you can so we can all just get along. Does that sound so bad?
Mags
Mags
If MH actually drew up his own circuit with the associated values that relate to ideal,then he may see the error of his ways.
Brad
-
I pose this question for you. What is the explanation of when we have an ideal inductor as it is defined, that the CEMF would not be ideal as MH claims? What is the limiting factor that says CEMF of an Ideal Inductor is not 100% efficient in what it does? MH wont attempt it. So I humbly ask you. :) I mean look, if the ideal inductor is everything it is defined to be, then there must be some 'loss' in order for the CEMF to be less than the input. I have described my view on that a few times, whether anyone agrees or not. There has been no explanation from MHs great storehouse of knowledge other than insults, name calling and basically badgering as you say. He cannot give us the answer to that question and he says CEMF is just a measurement as his closest explanation. So maybe you can shed some light on this. ;) By the way. Do you agree that the CEMF that is in opposition to the input is only a measurement? If you prefer not to answer against him, I understand. But that is not helping anyone.
Why is cemf being discussed? I don't see it being relevant here. If you believe it is, explain.
Also. From what I have found, when talking ideal voltage source, there is nothing out there on the voltage being variable over time. So ok. MH made up his own idea of an ideal voltage source. What is so ideal about that? If it changes its voltage it does not fit the definition. So it is just a normal power supply. Here is the problem I had with that....
The original question posed an Ideal Power Supply of 4v. Brad was correct. The voltage would not change over time if the ideal supply that Brad and I are understanding the definition correctly. The Ideal Inductor was directly across the supply.
Perhaps you both have misinterpreted what the question is saying? You also seem to be missing two or three other parts of the question, where zero volts and -3V is mentioned. Surely you don't believe MH was saying that the voltage source was varying all over the place when it should have been holding steady? I thought I already addressed that, did you miss it?
-
"All three of you know very well what an ideal voltage source is (and you know each other does as well), and mags/Brad, you know full well what MH means in his question and/or his posts when he says the voltage source varies."
What sort of power supply would that be? If the voltage can vary, then so can the current. Are we just saying it has no resistance thus no losses? This would have to be some very intelligent supply architecture for it to have zero internal resistance but the voltage can change as the load requires. Just interested in your explanation beyond just stating it is what it is. ;)
Mags
Mags, do you have a function generator? Does it produce square waves? Can you center the square wave about 0V so that there is a positive half and a negative half of the wave form? If not, surely you are aware that they exist and that they can produce these and other types of wave forms where the voltage might vary with time as it progresses through its cycle, i.e. 50% at +5V, and 50% at -5V for eg.?
Have you heard of an Arbitrary Wave Form Generator? Check it out (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary_waveform_generator). It can be programmed to generate almost any wave form imaginable, including the one MH posed in his question. It can be set up so that it is a single shot, exactly as in MH's question.
Now, if we pretend this generator is "ideal", i.e. it has zero output impedance, then this is precisely what MH is referring to in his question.
Any component is "ideal" when and if its impedance is zero. An ideal diode would not only have zero ON resistance, but it would require an infinitely small forward voltage to forward bias it. Any inductor is ideal when its series resistance is zero Ohms (we assume it has no capacitance when it is ideal).
-
If MH actually drew up his own circuit with the associated values that relate to ideal,then he may see the error of his ways.
Brad
Like I can imagine the source he describes as being called an ideal source that would be just defined by zero loss source, but not an Ideal Voltage Source. He wants us to go find and figure out stuff. Well we had done that on this way back before this, what is it called again, oh yeah, fiasco. Thats what it was called.
But if we just begin to think of such a supply, it gets to be more and more impossible when we consider it has zero resistance and zero loss. What voltage does it begin with? 4v? ok. So the Ideal Voltage Source is strictly defined when we 'go out and look for the answers and yet we remain wrong', so, no, it cannot be variable over time unless we controlled the output. And that poses another legit question. Why are we adjusting the supply over time to investigate an ideal inductor? Why control the source voltage along the way of watching and measuring the functional tests of an inductor? Is there a problem with using an Ideal Voltage Source across the ideal inductor? What problem may that be? ??? ;) Thus we now have the magical lossless automatically adjusting over time power supply. ;) Lol. What determines the voltage change over time? Current increase? Pre programmed time constant according to the value of the inductor being tested? I dont remember that explanation as to how and why the ideal source does this. That explanation would be good to include along the way, and why. Just for general understanding. ::)
I mean if we were to look at it in the real world, the inductor does what it does and the results fit. Where is it in the real world that the supply voltage needs to be adjusted over time to get to know the inductors characteristics? Could we not just connect it to a decent source and measure the singly cycle till max current and disconnect and get those numbers that determine those characteristics? Heck, put the dang ideal 1 ohm resistor(lossless current limiter, not regulator) in there and just use an ideal voltage supply.
And I believe I understand what you are saying about the inductance being undefined in the ideal world as we never get to a max current level. But maybe what the henry value does affect is the time it takes for current to increase over time. So the inductance value would still be a variable, lol if the thing carries current at all. ;)
Maybe since apparently PW says there is super conducting coils in equipment out there that those inductors, windings, are not yet ideal, while also not being in an ideal world. Consider an MRI may use them. Havnt looked into it but if it is high freq the inductors are dealing with, then we have radiation losses and the coils could conduct and work within the inductor definitions because it is not lossless. ;)
Just some thoughts
Mags
(Fixed a few things. Mys laptop touch pad has been messing with me on typing and sending the arrow all over and have to do editing to fix. Funny when I read it after posting they seem to show up easier than in editing. Need to turn off the touch pad. )
-
Why is cemf being discussed? I don't see it being relevant here. If you believe it is, explain.
Perhaps you both have misinterpreted what the question is saying? You also seem to be missing two or three other parts of the question, where zero volts and -3V is mentioned. Surely you don't believe MH was saying that the voltage source was varying all over the place when it should have been holding steady? I thought I already addressed that, did you miss it?
"Why is cemf being discussed? I don't see it being relevant here. If you believe it is, explain."
No problem. In order for the inductor to impede the input, what needs to occur for that impedance to happen? It isnt just something where we say, Oh, its value is 5H so the time constant for the current rise is what it is. What is it that is pushing back on the input in order to limit it over time? Is that not Counter EMF when it is all said and done? So we apply the input and the intial current sets up the initial building of the field. And that field from each loop cuts the other loops inducing reverse currents that oppose the input. Is that induced reverse current that is opposing the input not called Counter EMF? ??? ??? :)
If you agree, then what causes the CEMF to be less than the input in a lossless world? What is the limiting factor that keeps the cemf always less than the input?
So our stand is the possibility of the cemf being ideal in the ideal inductor. If not, as MH says, then we would like to know why. Its not a crazy thought. Ac has stated the same. If we were not really using our brains at all, this would be a non starter idea. But so far Brad, AC and I, and others along with many more out there, are thinking the same thing. Not just us few. I spelled it out quite a few times on this forum that if there is an ideal inductor, void of resistance, that there might be a chance that current may not flow under those ideal conditions when there is no loss. If it is ideal, then where do we associate losses enough in that ideal situation that the cemf is less than the input so current will flow and gain over time as we know it?
Mags
-
How many Mile'''''s?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh2ZjHvlzE4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh2ZjHvlzE4)
Here is one more. Miles certainly does get around!
-
Mags, do you have a function generator? Does it produce square waves? Can you center the square wave about 0V so that there is a positive half and a negative half of the wave form? If not, surely you are aware that they exist and that they can produce these and other types of wave forms where the voltage might vary with time as it progresses through its cycle, i.e. 50% at +5V, and 50% at -5V for eg.?
Have you heard of an Arbitrary Wave Form Generator? Check it out (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary_waveform_generator). It can be programmed to generate almost any wave form imaginable, including the one MH posed in his question. It can be set up so that it is a single shot, exactly as in MH's question.
Now, if we pretend this generator is "ideal", i.e. it has zero output impedance, then this is precisely what MH is referring to in his question.
Any component is "ideal" when and if its impedance is zero. An ideal diode would not only have zero ON resistance, but it would require an infinitely small forward voltage to forward bias it. Any inductor is ideal when its series resistance is zero Ohms (we assume it has no capacitance when it is ideal).
Yes i am familiar with a function gen. I just have simple ones at the moment but they do it to their limits. Square, sine, pulse, triangle, pulse width, offset, phase shift, modulation, am/fm, etc. Yeah I know them
To say the ideal source has zero impedance, is that impedance a variable resistance in the real world? So we could also say that the zero impedance is like zero resistance, because it remains at zero. No?
If yes, then we cannot have a measurable voltage output as brad says. maybe it seems nitpicky, but if we have to think deep on this, then we are. Ok, its pretend. So I guess the whole ideal thing is not just dealing with supeconducting components, and many more factors are just eliminated for purpose of discussion. ;) Like cemf, as you posed it, you dont seem to know what that is when considering the inductor. At least according to one of your posts to me. So is the cemf just eliminated for discussion in the pretend ideal world? Just wondering.
Like ideal inductors have zero capacitance, and Ideal caps have no inductance, which are further than impossible as compared to just eliminating resistance.
Where this all started I think is when someone brought up the cap to cap scheme. Then the ideal cap to cap thing. We wouldnt be here right now if we had just stuck to real world devices where things are understood as is. Ideal world just doesnt simplify things for me. It doesnt help me understand inductors better than just testing them with a very low resistance, then a medum and then a very high resistance, and then it is what it really is. But all the ideal, pretend as you put it, is just pretend to a point that one could go on questioning pretend things when the real stuff in on our benches. But thats just me. I suppose.
Mags
-
Here is one more. Miles certainly does get around!
Im actually a Fox fan. ;) if they didnt show what they do, we could easily be back in the movie '1984' already. ;)
Mags
-
Im actually a Fox fan. ;) if they dint show what they do, we could easily be back in the movie '1984' already. ;)
Mags
I agree totally.
Bill
-
I agree totally.
Bill
;)
Propaganda is a powerful thing. We just dont have enough counter propaganda to overcome the source propaganda. Not an ideal world, soo. ;D
I talk to people about foods, organics, gmo, etc. Many just say bahh. Your a nut. Just read an article of a dairy farm in N Fl that sells natural milk. They were approached by the FDA and they told them that they cannot print the words 'natural skim milk' on their containers because they did not add 'artificial' vitamin D to it. So they either had to change the label to "artificial skim milk' or stop sales. :o What??? So the farm dumps all the skim milk until it is possibly resolved, as they will not label their product as artificial. These are grass fed cows and no antibiotics or steroids.
There is definitely something very wrong going on in the food industry. At least there are still some that care about their products.
Mags
-
;)
Propaganda is a powerful thing. We just dont have enough counter propaganda to overcome the source propaganda. Not an ideal world, soo. ;D
I talk to people about foods, organics, gmo, etc. Many just say bahh. Your a nut. Just read an article of a dairy farm in N Fl that sells natural milk. They were approached by the FDA and they told them that they cannot print the words 'natural skim milk' on their containers because they did not add 'artificial' vitamin D to it. So they either had to change the label to "artificial skim milk' or stop sales. :o What??? So the farm dumps all the skim milk until it is possibly resolved, as they will not label their product as artificial. These are grass fed cows and no antibiotics or steroids.
There is definitely something very wrong going on in the food industry. At least there are still some that care about their products.
Mags
Ive been doing the raw milk thing for 2 yrs. In the first 2 months, lower back pain, knee pain and arthritis symptoms in the hands, all went away at the same time.
A new guy at work says he is diagnosed lactose intolerant. Cant have it. But then he said he drinks raw milk every day. ;) So, is it milk that is the problem for lactose intolerant people, or is it the modified shmacked up stuff sold in stores? Think. ;) I cannot drink any store bought milk as I will get constipated bad. But the raw is no problem for me. ;) Again, milk as in real natural milk is not the problem, its what they do to it that hurts us.
$10 a gal, 1 gal a week. $1.42 a day for my health is worth it. ;)
Mags
-
"Why is cemf being discussed? I don't see it being relevant here. If you believe it is, explain."
No problem. In order for the inductor to impede the input, what needs to occur for that impedance to happen? It isnt just something where we say, Oh, its value is 5H so the time constant for the current rise is what it is. What is it that is pushing back on the input in order to limit it over time? Is that not Counter EMF when it is all said and done? So we apply the input and the intial current sets up the initial building of the field. And that field from each loop cuts the other loops inducing reverse currents that oppose the input. Is that induced reverse current that is opposing the input not called Counter EMF? ??? ??? :)
If you agree, then what causes the CEMF to be less than the input in a lossless world? What is the limiting factor that keeps the cemf always less than the input?
So our stand is the possibility of the cemf being ideal in the ideal inductor. If not, as MH says, then we would like to know why. Its not a crazy thought. Ac has stated the same. If we were not really using our brains at all, this would be a non starter idea. But so far Brad, AC and I, and others along with many more out there, are thinking the same thing. Not just us few. I spelled it out quite a few times on this forum that if there is an ideal inductor, void of resistance, that there might be a chance that current may not flow under those ideal conditions when there is no loss. If it is ideal, then where do we associate losses enough in that ideal situation that the cemf is less than the input so current will flow and gain over time as we know it?
Mags
In an ideal situation,everything has an equal and opposite,and that would include the CEMF being equal and opposite to the EMF that created it.
As i said,there are those that have a hard time dealing with two words--ideal and infinite.
You will see that there is also an avoidance to answering the simple questions i have asked with the simple attached diagrams in the other thread--no direct answer has yet been given by any of those that deem MHs question has a simple answer.
Brad
-
In an ideal situation,everything has an equal and opposite,and that would include the CEMF being equal and opposite to the EMF that created it.
As i said,there are those that have a hard time dealing with two words--ideal and infinite.
You will see that there is also an avoidance to answering the simple questions i have asked with the simple attached diagrams in the other thread--no direct answer has yet been given by any of those that deem MHs question has a simple answer.
Brad
Yes, I have been seeing it for some time. The avoidance is odd. Like even Poynt asking me what cemf has to do with inductors. ???
Its strange that you and I have the same understanding, yet this episode is the first for us both to be in. I dont get it that they dont get it.
Well its all pretend anyway. ;) Im building the new coils for the resonance. Im feeling good about it after that last learning experience. Learned a lot on the best way to move to the next step, and it can only get better.
Mags
-
So you loose half of the stored energy when doing a cap to cap transfer hey :o
Well that means the motor in the video below,was not only running on nothing,it was also putting energy back into the system :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy2GvLxgSHA
Oh headache :D
Brad
-
So ,after some testing of my own on the cap to cap transfer,by way of a 12 volt LED in series with the caps,i have found that you do not loose half of your stored energy when doing the transfer.
See diagram below for details and circuit used.
Awaiting for the MH paradox to kick in. :D
Brad
P.S--that should be end total of joules x 2= 900.422mJ,not 900.442mJ
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg483226#msg483226 date=1462588590]
Oh,a conundrum :D-->the MH paradox lol.
Here is the simple conclusion: It doesn't matter what value of resistor you use you always lose half the energy. Hence when you short two caps together with "no resistor" you still lose half the energy.
Once again--very wrong.
You do not loose half of the energy--you loose less than that.
Repeated bench experiments prove this to be the case.
So let's switch to plan B and put the ideal inductor between the two ideal caps. Now the energy cycles back and forth between each cap forever.
The ideal inductor give back exactly what it receives-->couldnt agree with you more ;)
When the 10-volt cap is shorted to the 0-volt cap you lose half the energy and both caps are at 5 volts.
Nope--you dont loose half the enrgy :)
Here is another way to look at the same thing: On an axle you have three things: A flywheel, a remote controlled clutch, and then another flywheel. The clutch is between the two flywheels. You spin up the first flywheel to 100 RPM. The other flywheel is not turning. Then you press the button and the clutch engages and connects them together. It takes one second for the clutch to fully engage. The net result is that both flywheels are now spinning together along with the "weightless" clutch at 50 RPM. When the clutch engaged there was friction between the clutch plates producing heat.
So you install a dog clutch that is either engaged or not--no slipping or loss to heat,and you find to your suprised that the flywheels still end up spinning at 50RPM each.
You are now wondering as to where the energy to create the heat in the clutch in the first experiment came from?.
-
[/size] ??? Stefan, you have kicked people from here for much less than what WilbyInebraited has been doing, yet he is untouched.Why are you protecting him? You have repeatedly ignored my PM's about this, why?WilbyInebriated adds nothing of substance to these threads, and only acts to disrupt them. Between him and Rose for example, the Ainslie thread was made into a mockery, and many good folks gave up and left because of this. Now he has moved on to the TPU threads it would seem. Do you want folks to talk technical or let these threads degenerate into the mess that inevitably follows this individual? It is quite obvious what happens when this individual intervenes, and I can not understand why you allow this?WilbyInebriated is an individual that is consistently brazen and incendiary with folks, and seems only to be interested in turning good threads into shambles.Are you trying to instigate a boycott of this forum by it's senior members? I would suggest it might go that way if this continues. Grumpy get's a little out of hand from time to time, but usually only because of folks like WilbyInebriated.I would ask that you re-instate Grumpy, and rightfully set WilbyInebriated to "read-only" in his place. I know there are many many members that agree wholeheartedly with this..99
Look / learn how politics work behind the screen! Its all repeating, and Nicky, what did Grumpy than write, related his kids or mine kids!?
-
[/size] ??? Stefan, you have kicked people from here for much less than what WilbyInebraited has been doing, yet he is untouched.Why are you protecting him? You have repeatedly ignored my PM's about this, why?WilbyInebriated adds nothing of substance to these threads, and only acts to disrupt them. Between him and Rose for example, the Ainslie thread was made into a mockery, and many good folks gave up and left because of this. Now he has moved on to the TPU threads it would seem. Do you want folks to talk technical or let these threads degenerate into the mess that inevitably follows this individual? It is quite obvious what happens when this individual intervenes, and I can not understand why you allow this?WilbyInebriated is an individual that is consistently brazen and incendiary with folks, and seems only to be interested in turning good threads into shambles.Are you trying to instigate a boycott of this forum by it's senior members? I would suggest it might go that way if this continues. Grumpy get's a little out of hand from time to time, but usually only because of folks like WilbyInebriated.I would ask that you re-instate Grumpy, and rightfully set WilbyInebriated to "read-only" in his place. I know there are many many members that agree wholeheartedly with this..99
Look / learn how politics work behind the screen! Its all repeating, and Nicky, what did Grumpy than write, related his kids or mine kids!?
Really ???
You drag up a post from 2009 :o
What are you up to Johan?.
Brad
-
Look / learn how politics work behind the screen! Its all repeating, and Nicky, what did Grumpy than write, related his kids or mine kids!?
Really ???
You drag up a post from 2009 :o
What are you up to Johan?.
Brad
10 years reading, and preparing a Christmass present!
-
Don't even think it Johan. You posting pictures of a notorious child abuser and comparing that to me is grounds for you getting yourself kicked off this forum.
You stop being a hater and instead try to actually contribute to this forum beyond posting pictures of motorcycles and talking about two-stroke engines.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg483226#msg483226 date=1462588590]
Once again--very wrong.
You do not loose half of the energy--you loose less than that.
Repeated bench experiments prove this to be the case.
You are dead wrong. So where did you make your mistake?
-
So here is my problem with that. many times before he admits to being corrected, his stance is this.......
"You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster.
Your (sic) a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum."
As far as your rant about me goes, I may deal with that later. What I don't want to see is predatory harassment from you like you did to me the other day.
The reason for this posting is to clarify the words you quote above. Those are Brad's words, not mine.
MileHigh
-
You are dead wrong. So where did you make your mistake?
No mistake MH.
The results were the same on every test--> 5 tests done.
Should i make a video showing you this?
Did you watch the video i posted the link to a few post back--that will knock ya sock of when you do the calculations.
Here are mine from the video i speak of.
So 2.52 volts across 350F=1111.32 joules of energy in one cap,and none in the other.
The end result was
Cap 1 -1.468v across 350F= 377.129 joules
Cap 2-1.273v across 350F= 283.593 joules.
Total =660.722 joules
If we double this,we have 1321.444 joules.
So yes,he lost less than the half expected.
But there is also one other thing to take into account-->the little motor was running the whole time,and there for was also dissipating power the whole time current was flowing through it,by way of resistive heat loss.
Brad
-
An experiment where the final voltages are not equal is an invalid experiment and is not even applicable to the statement about half of the energy being lost. It is as ridiculously simple as that.
-
An experiment where the final voltages are not equal is an invalid experiment and is not even applicable to the statement about half of the energy being lost. It is as ridiculously simple as that.
Ah,that good old MH paradox kicks into action again lol.
Nice one MH--were all getting the hang of how you work now ;)
So what would you say if i carried out the test again,and included a parallel resistor of 5K across the LED,and i ended up with more than half the starting voltage in both caps?
What paradox inclusion would you use then?
Brad
-
No mistake MH.
The results were the same on every test--> 5 tests done.
Should i make a video showing you this?
Did you watch the video i posted the link to a few post back--that will knock ya sock of when you do the calculations.
Here are mine from the video i speak of.
So 2.52 volts across 350F=1111.32 joules of energy in one cap,and none in the other.
The end result was
Cap 1 -1.468v across 350F= 377.129 joules
Cap 2-1.273v across 350F= 283.593 joules.
Total =660.722 joules
If we double this,we have 1321.444 joules.
So yes,he lost less than the half expected.
But there is also one other thing to take into account-->the little motor was running the whole time,and there for was also dissipating power the whole time current was flowing through it,by way of resistive heat loss.
Brad
Perhaps you missed this one MH.
What paradox will you add to this?
You will note that the lower voltage value cap is more than half the starting voltage that was in the charged cap,and the second cap has an even higher that half voltage value than the starting cap--and he was using a little DC motor to make the transfer,and it was running the whole time :o
Cant wait to see you explain this one ;)
Brad
-
So ,after some testing of my own on the cap to cap transfer,by way of a 12 volt LED in series with the caps,i have found that you do not loose half of your stored energy when doing the transfer.
See diagram below for details and circuit used.
Awaiting for the MH paradox to kick in. :D
Brad
P.S--that should be end total of joules x 2= 900.422mJ,not 900.442mJ
Brad, replace your LED with a silicon diode, and repeat the experiment. Your two caps should be closer in value at the end.
-
No mistake MH.
The results were the same on every test--> 5 tests done.
Should i make a video showing you this?
Did you watch the video i posted the link to a few post back--that will knock ya sock of when you do the calculations.
Here are mine from the video i speak of.
So 2.52 volts across 350F=1111.32 joules of energy in one cap,and none in the other.
The end result was
Cap 1 -1.468v across 350F= 377.129 joules
Cap 2-1.273v across 350F= 283.593 joules.
Total =660.722 joules
If we double this,we have 1321.444 joules.
So yes,he lost less than the half expected.
But there is also one other thing to take into account-->the little motor was running the whole time,and there for was also dissipating power the whole time current was flowing through it,by way of resistive heat loss.
Brad
I can see that the inductance in the motor would act similar to the inductor with series diode to get most from 1 cap to the other. So it would be cool to try some things with this where we tried different motors for possibly better initial results. What I was just thinking of is the difference between draining a battery(or cap) into the motor where the only thing we get out is motor action and we dont charge another cap, vs cap to cap with motor action calculated in as part of the whole energy result. First do the cap to motor only unloaded, then loaded. Not worrying about measuring the motor output yet, do it just to see the difference in time till stop.
Then do the cap to cap and do the test with the motor loaded then unloaded, and see if we lost anything along the way by loading the motor vs unloaded. Get it? like did the other cap not get charged as much when the motor is loaded, etc. I may see what I have and give it a go as it interests me.
Cool stuff ;)
Maybe there is nothing to it. But the only way is to see. ;)
Mags
-
Brad, replace your LED with a silicon diode, and repeat the experiment. Your two caps should be closer in value at the end.
I placed a 5k resistor across the LED Poynt,and ended with a higher than half value on each cap.
Did you see the video i linked some posts back,where the guy used super caps,and made the transfer via a small DC motor.
He ended with a lot more than half the starting energy,and ran a DC motor the whole time of the cap to cap transfer.
Results below.
So 2.52 volts across 350F=1111.32 joules of energy in one cap,and none in the other.
The end result was
Cap 1 -1.468v across 350F= 377.129 joules
Cap 2-1.273v across 350F= 283.593 joules.
Total =660.722 joules
If we double this,we have 1321.444 joules.
So yes,he lost less than the half expected.
But there is also one other thing to take into account-->the little motor was running the whole time,and there for was also dissipating power the whole time current was flowing through it,by way of resistive heat loss.
Brad
-
Cant wait to see you explain this one ;)
Brad
The answer is simple. You are deceiving yourself with a pure bait and switch on yourself. You are using an inductive type of load which by definition facilitates the transfer of energy from one cap to the other with less losses than a resistor, just like Magluvin said. And you are not doing as complete as possible an energy transfer because the final voltages are not the same. The less of an energy transfer you do, the less the losses are going to be.
So your experiment has done absolutely nothing to "refute" the classic example of 50% losses when using a resistor. You are simply doing a different experiment, that's all.
There is no "gotcha," just a completely different experiment.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg483226#msg483226 date=1462588590]
Oh,a conundrum :D -->the MH paradox lol.
Here is the simple conclusion: It doesn't matter what value of resistor you use you always lose half the energy. Hence when you short two caps together with "no resistor" you still lose half the energy.
Once again--very wrong.
You do not loose half of the energy--you loose less than that.
Repeated bench experiments prove this to be the case.
Nope--you dont loose half the enrgy :)
Again, in no uncertain terms, you are dead, dead wrong. You are comparing apples and oranges, which is nothing more than a silly stunt.
The bigger question to ponder is how is it possible that you don't even realize this for yourself?
-
yes,,
the condition set forth is just as nonsensical as saying that I have a full bucket and am going to poor it into a bucket with a hole in it,, see I loose some of what ever was in the bucket.
By the way,, it is not the external resistance that eats up the juice,, it is the internal resistance.
There is a good point in that....
In my opinion, if the ideal inductor does have a 100%efficiency where the impedance mechanism is ideal and 100%, adding a resistor in series still wont cause that ideal insuctors internal mechanism to be less than 100% eff and I think no current would flow then either. So putting a resistor in series with an ideal inductor does not now make the ideal inductor a normal one. That is a good point. ;D ;)
Mags
-
By the way,, it is not the external resistance that eats up the juice,, it is the internal resistance.
If you are talking about the standard setup with a resistor between two capacitors, then I don't know what you mean. The vast majority of the energy is lost in that resistor.
-
As I mentioned Brad, go back to basic principles. Do the basic version of the experiment with just a silicon diode between.
-
The answer is simple. You are deceiving yourself with a pure bait and switch on yourself. You are using an inductive type of load which by definition facilitates the transfer of energy from one cap to the other with less losses than a resistor, just like Magluvin said. And you are not doing as complete as possible an energy transfer because the final voltages are not the same. The less of an energy transfer you do, the less the losses are going to be.
So your experiment has done absolutely nothing to "refute" the classic example of 50% losses when using a resistor. You are simply doing a different experiment, that's all.
There is no "gotcha," just a completely different experiment.
Dear MH
What kind of a load is an LED?
Oop's.
Brad
-
I can see that the inductance in the motor would act similar to the inductor with series diode to get most from 1 cap to the other. So it would be cool to try some things with this where we tried different motors for possibly better initial results. What I was just thinking of is the difference between draining a battery(or cap) into the motor where the only thing we get out is motor action and we dont charge another cap, vs cap to cap with motor action calculated in as part of the whole energy result. First do the cap to motor only unloaded, then loaded. Not worrying about measuring the motor output yet, do it just to see the difference in time till stop.
Maybe there is nothing to it. But the only way is to see. ;)
Mags
Then do the cap to cap and do the test with the motor loaded then unloaded, and see if we lost anything along the way by loading the motor vs unloaded. Get it? like did the other cap not get charged as much when the motor is loaded, etc. I may see what I have and give it a go as it interests me.
Cool stuff ;)
Mag's
I just carried out this very test-a number of times.
I went and bought two new 55 farad caps just for this experiment.
I am using a small DC motor from a drone. The first 5 tests i carried out without a load(propeller removed from motor),the second 5 tests with the propeller on the motor as the load.
Without the load,i ended up with exactly half the voltage on each cap to that of the starting voltage on Cap A.
Start-Cap A=2v, cap B=0v.
End test-cap A=1v, cap B=1v-->half energy lost.
Motor with propeller on--loaded test
Start-cap A =2v, cap B=0v
End test--cap A =1.043v, cap B=1.037v.
As we added a load,we also increase the current flow through the two caps and motor. One would have thought that this means we would loose more of the stored energy to heat,due to resistive losses being higher,due to the higher flow of current.
But seems that is not the case here.
So the next thing to do ,was to find out why we lost less energy by applying a load to the little motor.
I wonder if MH knows the answer?
Why do you think it happened this way Mag's ?.
There is a perfectly good explanation for it ;)
Brad
-
Is it because the backspikes are adding to the stored energy?
artv
-
Is it because the backspikes are adding to the stored energy?
artv
No
Brad
-
Dear MH
What kind of a load is an LED?
Oop's.
Brad
There is no "oops" at all. The fact remains that using a resistor will result in half the energy being lost for two equal sized capacitors, period. I don't think you acknowledged that switching to a motor is false and meaningless and can't be compared to a resistor. Your rebuttal to my statement about using a resistor was nonsense.
Big deal you used a LED. You are doing energy measurements now. That calls for an attempt at precision. What is the tolerance on your capacitors? Since you are doing energy measurements don't you think it is incumbent upon you to actually do serious measurements on the size of each capacitor first, including your own error tolerance? Perhaps try two or three different ways of measuring them and see if they all agree? Because they are supercapacitors, perhaps there are some special considerations when trying to measure their value? Once you have established their actual value, then you can make much more accurate energy measurements.
-
So the next thing to do ,was to find out why we lost less energy by applying a load to the little motor.
I am going to guess that the rotational inertia of the propeller allows the motor to sometimes act as a generator.
-
Your rebuttal to my statement about using a resistor was nonsense.
There is no "oops" at all. The fact remains that using a resistor will result in half the energy being lost for two equal sized capacitors, period.
An LED is a resistive load,and i guess you missed my post to Poynt.
When the LED is in play,then the energy lost is less than half-->and remember,there is a 5k resistor across that LED,so as C1 keeps draining after the LED stops conducting.
But dont get your knickers in a twist yet. :D
If i use just a resistor alone(without the LED),then yes,your are correct,and exactly half the energy is lost. As the LED is also a resistive load,and should not make a difference to the test,i can only conclude that the LED is putting some energy back into the system,by way of the ambient light--as we know,they act like a small solar panel as well.
So i do have the ability to correct my own mistakes MH,and yes,this time i spoke to soon.
This hinges on the fact that the LED is able to return energy to the system by way of acting as a solar panel.
I don't think you acknowledged that switching to a motor is false and meaningless and can't be compared to a resistor.
Of course i do,as a brushed DC motor is not just a resistive load,but also with a small inductive content as well.
What is the tolerance on your capacitors?
We dont need to know what the tolerance of the caps are(but they are +/-2%),as long as there the same cap's. We eliminate the tolerance issue by swapping the cap's around,and carrying out the same test. As long as they are the same cap's,we should get the same results--and we did.
Since you are doing energy measurements don't you think it is incumbent upon you to actually do serious measurements on the size of each capacitor first, including your own error tolerance?
Yes,and that is why we swap the caps around,and carry out the same test. If the caps are equal in there energy storage capacity,then the results should also be equal when the caps are swapped around,so as cap A becomes cap B,and cap B become cap A.
Perhaps try two or three different ways of measuring them and see if they all agree? Because they are supercapacitors,
OK. To clear this up,the caps used in the LED tests were 10 000uF high current caps,and the ones used in the motor tests are the 55F super caps.
perhaps there are some special considerations when trying to measure their value? Once you have established their actual value, then you can make much more accurate energy measurements.
As i said,we swap the caps around,and carry out the same tests. If the results are different,then we look for the issue. If the results end up being the same,then no need to look for issue's regarding the caps actual value.
So the conclusion is-in the LED tests,using the 10 000uF cap's,we can conclude that you are correct,based on the fact (maybe) that the LED it self was adding energy into the system,by way of acting as a solar panel.
Brad
-
I am going to guess that the rotational inertia of the propeller allows the motor to sometimes act as a generator.
No,that is not the reason. In fact,it is opposite to that.
The fact that the propeller acts as a load only,is the reason the energy transfer is more efficient.
So with the load,we get a more efficient transfer of energy from one cap to another,but why.
As i said,the answer is quite simple,and it has to do with more current flowing through the system.
You would think this would produce more waste heat,and there for you would loose more energy to that--and you do. But there is a second effect taking place due to the higher current flow,that increases the efficiency of the transfer to a higher amount than the extra energy that is lost to the waste heat increase.
Hint.
We can clearly see the answer on the scope,when the scope is placed across the motor terminals. ;)
Brad
-
An LED is a resistive load,and i guess you missed my post to Poynt.
When the LED is in play,then the energy lost is less than half-->and remember,there is a 5k resistor across that LED,so as C1 keeps draining after the LED stops conducting.
But dont get your knickers in a twist yet. :D
If i use just a resistor alone(without the LED),then yes,your are correct,and exactly half the energy is lost. As the LED is also a resistive load,and should not make a difference to the test,i can only conclude that the LED is putting some energy back into the system,by way of the ambient light--as we know,they act like a small solar panel as well.
So i do have the ability to correct my own mistakes MH,and yes,this time i spoke to soon.
This hinges on the fact that the LED is able to return energy to the system by way of acting as a solar panel.
Of course i do,as a brushed DC motor is not just a resistive load,but also with a small inductive content as well.
We dont need to know what the tolerance of the caps are(but they are +/-2%),as long as there the same cap's. We eliminate the tolerance issue by swapping the cap's around,and carrying out the same test. As long as they are the same cap's,we should get the same results--and we did.
Yes,and that is why we swap the caps around,and carry out the same test. If the caps are equal in there energy storage capacity,then the results should also be equal when the caps are swapped around,so as cap A becomes cap B,and cap B become cap A.
OK. To clear this up,the caps used in the LED tests were 10 000uF high current caps,and the ones used in the motor tests are the 55F super caps.
As i said,we swap the caps around,and carry out the same tests. If the results are different,then we look for the issue. If the results end up being the same,then no need to look for issue's regarding the caps actual value.
So the conclusion is-in the LED tests,using the 10 000uF cap's,we can conclude that you are correct,based on the fact (maybe) that the LED it self was adding energy into the system,by way of acting as a solar panel.
Brad
Well the LED looks like a dynamically changing resistor and it does not have the IV properties of a resistor so perhaps there is a clue in there somewhere.
But saying this: -
<<< Once again--very wrong.
You do not loose half of the energy--you loose less than that. >>>
- is 100% bullshit. And I see on the other thread you tried to pull off another little stunt. You need to put your head on straight because it's not your nickers, it's your brain that's in a twist.
Then afterwards I say this:
<<< I don't think you acknowledged that switching to a motor is false and meaningless and can't be compared to a resistor. >>?
And you say this:
<<< Of course i do,as a brushed DC motor is not just a resistive load,but also with a small inductive content as well. >>>
You can't have it both ways and contradict yourself so stop it. You should never have said I was wrong about the resistor causing a 50% energy loss in the first place.
With respect to the LED producing power, and considering that you are using 10,000 F supercaps for the LED test, any notion that the LED is putting measurable power into the supercaps makes no sense at all. Here is where you seemingly have no sense of proportion at all. The amount of power produced by the LED would be minuscule. You can just cover the LED completely with black tape as a test and you will not notice any change at all.
-
Well the LED looks like a dynamically changing resistor and it does not have the IV properties of a resistor so perhaps there is a clue in there somewhere.
But saying this: -
<<< Once again--very wrong.
You do not loose half of the energy--you loose less than that. >>>
- is 100% bullshit. And I see on the other thread you tried to pull off another little stunt. You need to put your head on straight because it's not your nickers, it's your brain that's in a twist.
Then afterwards I say this:
<<< I don't think you acknowledged that switching to a motor is false and meaningless and can't be compared to a resistor. >>?
And you say this:
<<< Of course i do,as a brushed DC motor is not just a resistive load,but also with a small inductive content as well. >>>
You can't have it both ways and contradict yourself so stop it. You should never have said I was wrong about the resistor causing a 50% energy loss in the first place.
With respect to the LED producing power, and considering that you are using 10,000 F supercaps for the LED test, any notion that the LED is putting measurable power into the supercaps makes no sense at all. Here is where you seemingly have no sense of proportion at all. The amount of power produced by the LED would be minuscule. You can just cover the LED completely with black tape as a test and you will not notice any change at all.
Oh MH-go and take some valium.
I have clearly stated that i was wrong,and still you carry on like a two bob watch--Mr no resonance in or around an ICE what so ever.
Get your head out of your ass,and stop being a baby.
Why not do some thinking of your own for a change,and answer one of my questions.
Why do we loose less energy from our cap to cap transfer when loading the motor up?
Hell,i have given you half the answer,and a big hint to go with it.
Your not infallible MH,we have all seen that in this thread alone. So stop prancing around like a show pony,and start being a little more positive for a change.
Brad
-
You mean like the benefit of doubt that he gave me regarding the ICE having resonant systems?. Guessed you missed all that. This is the very same situation. He told me i had no idea what i was talking about,when Internal combustion engines are my forte--my area of expertise.
The difference is,i backed up my knowledge with provided fact's,and this is something no one here can do with an actual test,as we are talking about ideals we do not have. What we are doing is placing a theory based around !best guesses!.
So i have given MH no more than he has given me,and in fact,i have never used the foul language he has toward me.
Not once did i see you,or any other EE guy here tell MH to calm it down when the roll was reversed,but i see you are quick to jump on me when i do the same that has been done to me.
I have seen this very same thing with other members that disagree with MHs analogy.
It's an !agree with me! or your wrong attitude MH has--plane and simple.
As i said in the other thread,i will now treat him as he treats me.
As i said,there is a pattern that is followed on this forum,and that is the EE guys stick together--bar one,that being (as i have always said) verpies. I would also put vortex1 in there with verpies,but he dosnt frequent this forum much-sadly.
As verpies said in reply to this question,Quote : The equivalent circuit model for an ideal inductor is not an inductor with a wire shorting across its ends.
verpies-Just because most of the world does it wrong does not mean that we have to.
Brad
So you are admitting that you knew all the time that I was not incapable of answering my own question about the ideal coil and the ideal voltage source. It was just you maliciously faking an allegation that I did not know what I was talking about. It was just a cynical stunt and that's pathetic.
For the ICE business ad nausaem, you had to try quite hard to "back up your knowledge with provided fact's (sic)." You can have tuned air input ports on two-stroke engines, that's fine. But you then scrambled to find something beyond that and your first reference was about resonance in the combustion chamber actually decreasing performance. You posted a linlk without even reading it properly. So then you had to scramble again and you finally found a reference to a special resonant cavity in a cylinder that works to counteract the negative effects of combustion chamber resonance.
All that being said, I admitted my mistake and said that you were right. But honestly, I find the argument rather weak. I seriously doubt that in mainstream car engines in modern cars there are resonant cavities in the cylinders because presumably they don't have that problem. I am going to assume that there is nothing in a car engine that makes use of resonance for the main crankshaft turning frequency.
And here you are repeating this stuff for probably the 40th time now which is just bogan behaviour because I owned up to my mistake. If you were normal you would have moved on after I acknowledged what you said and admitted my mistake.
And your playing of the foul language card is pretty phony, look at what you recently said to me when I gave you the short answer to the ideal voltage source and ideal inductor question:
You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster.
Your (sic) a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.
You don't think that those are foul statements, especially when you are 100% wrong? Magluvin even made a posting citing the comments above mistakenly attributing them to me and complaining about them.
Then you claim that you are "researching superconductivity" and several times you made the claim that "the magnetic field stays inside the wire" and say something like "so that must mean that a coil with superconducting wire will not work." Well you fell flat on your face because in a superconducting wire, it's just the opposite, and the magnetic field is restricted to being outside the wire. So much for your bloody "research," how many times do you want to be reminded of that?
Then on the other thread, you make one of the most blatant bald-faced bait-and-switch lies that everybody clearly saw was a lie and they must have been scratching their heads about you:
Poynt says:
<<< When you place an ideal voltage source across an ideal short, who wins? The voltage source or the ideal wire? verpies seems to indicate that the voltage source wins, as the voltage holds and the inductor still gets some current. >>>
You say:
<<< If there is a dead short across the ideal voltage supply,the current would simply build in the ideal voltage supply until either the short exploded,or the ideal voltage supply exploded. This would depend on which one of the two could contain the most energy before it failed >>>
I say:
<<< An ideal voltage source does not "contain energy" and likewise an ideal short does not "contain energy." You still need to work on that angle. >>>
You then say:
<<< When we are talking about your circuit MH,then while your voltage value from your ideal voltage source is 0v,then yes,the ideal inductor dose contain/store energy,and that energy can be recovered when the shorted(looped) ideal inductor becomes open. >>>
That is a blatant bait-and-switch LIE. We were not talking about "my circuit" we were talking about a hypothetical dead ideal short across an ideal voltage source.
Then there is the beyond-insane attempt by you to "bait me" in a set up with the nonsensical DC current vs. changing DC current and whether or not voltage is observed across an ideal inductor.
Now, do you want me to prepare a text file that makes this stuff into a series of bullet points that I can copy and paste until kingdom come every time you do the stupid "ICE and resonance" play? I have no intention of constantly repeating your blatant lies and beyond-belief ridiculous technical blunders. But if you keep on acting like this uncouth bogan and you try to pull off another similar type of cynical stunt about me with respect to my knowledge about my own question like you just did on the other thread were Poynt backed me up I just might be tempted to.
So I strongly suggest you don't try to pull off a lying cynical stunt like you just did again, and stop the madness with the ICE resonance business. Are we on a bloody forum that is about electronics or gasoline engines? It's time for this nonsense to stop.
MileHigh
-
Oh MH-go and take some valium.
I have clearly stated that i was wrong,and still you carry on like a two bob watch--Mr no resonance in or around an ICE what so ever.
Get your head out of your ass,and stop being a baby.
Why not do some thinking of your own for a change,and answer one of my questions.
Why do we loose less energy from our cap to cap transfer when loading the motor up?
Hell,i have given you half the answer,and a big hint to go with it.
Your not infallible MH,we have all seen that in this thread alone. So stop prancing around like a show pony,and start being a little more positive for a change.
Brad
No, not that "you were wrong," but rather like a bogan you stated that I was "wrong" about a resistor causing a 50% energy loss when in fact that is universally understood and not in dispute at all. Your argument for me being "wrong" was a blatant phony bait and switch where you change the subject completely and aren't even talking about resistors anymore.
I am not going to try to answer your question. My confidence that you can do a proper technical explanation for your observations and come to the correct conclusion is low based on past experience.
-
So I strongly suggest you don't do a lying cynical stunt like you just did any more, and stop the madness with the ICE resonance business. Are we on a bloody forum that is about electronics or gasoline engines? It's time for this nonsense to stop.
MileHigh
So you are admitting that you knew all the time that I was not incapable of answering my own question about the ideal coil and the ideal voltage source. It was just you maliciously faking an allegation that I did not know what I was talking about. It was just a cynical stunt and that's pathetic.
Whats pathetic is you never backing up what you say,where as i do.
You present yourself as the !all knowing!,even when you dont know--example ,ICEs. But still,you post damnations against what i say-even when you have no clue your self.
I go and do the same,and you have a panic attack--lay on the floor ,and have a childish tantrum.
For the ICE business ad nausaem, you had to try quite hard to "back up your knowledge with provided fact's (sic)." You can have tuned air input ports on two-stroke engines, that's fine. But you then scrambled to find something beyond that and your first reference was about resonance in the combustion chamber actually decreasing performance. You posted a linlk without even reading it properly. So then you had to scramble again and you finally found a reference to a special resonant cavity in a cylinder that works to counteract the negative effects of combustion chamber resonance.
Once again,trying to turn the tables on your shitmixer. You stated that there was in no way,shape,or form,any resonant systems what so ever associated with an ICE.
So it dose not matter whether that resonant feature was good or bad for the engine--it did indeed exist--and you were once again !wrong!.
All that being said, I admitted my mistake and said that you were right. But honestly, I find the argument rather weak. I seriously doubt that in mainstream car engines in modern cars there are resonant cavities in the cylinders because presumably they don't have that problem. I am going to assume that there is nothing in a car engine that makes use of resonance for the main crankshaft turning frequency.
As did i with the cap to cap energy transfer with a resistor.
Of course you would consider it a weak argument MH,because you lost the argument.
The fact remains that resonant systems have been used for many years in and around high performance engines.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.
You don't think that those are foul statements, especially when you are 100% wrong? Magluvin even made a posting citing the comments above mistakenly attributing them to me and complaining about them.
Not at all. Not even close to what you posted many times over.
The fact that you are even trying to associate those comments i made,with the filth you posted,just shows what kind of a mindset you have.
And here you are repeating this stuff for probably the 40th time now which is just bogan behaviour because I owned up to my mistake. If you were normal you would have moved on after I acknowledged what you said and admitted my mistake.
You really are a hypocrite MH. How many threads,post after post have we had to endure you ramblings on how EMJ and Wattsup couldnt answer your !ideal! coil question?.
And !highlighted! once again a hypocrite. Go back not even one page MH,where i clearly stated that i was wrong about the cap to cap transfer,and then read your next post.
And your playing of the foul language card is pretty phony, look at what you recently said to me when I gave you the short answer to the ideal voltage source and ideal inductor question:
You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster.
Your (sic) a fraud.
I see no profanities in those comments MH,but only what you have dished out to me.
I will not lower myself to your standards,and use profanities such as you did.
Then you claim that you are "researching superconductivity" and several times you made the claim that "the magnetic field stays inside the wire" and say something like "so that must mean that a coil with superconducting wire will not work." Well you fell flat on your face because in a superconducting wire, it's just the opposite, and the magnetic field is restricted to being outside the wire. So much for your bloody "research," how many times do you want to be reminded of that?
You have a superconductor that was cooled with liquid nitrogen with a magnet floating above it confused with a superconducting wire with current flowing through it MH--but nothing unusual there. Perhaps you should go and do some research of your own.
All you need for some bench tests,is some superconducting wire. Once you have proven you are right by way of actual experiment's,then come back and show me how you went.
Then on the other thread, you make one of the most blatant bald-faced bait-and-switch lies that everybody clearly saw was a lie and they must have been scratching their heads about you:
Poynt says:
<<< When you place an ideal voltage source across an ideal short, who wins? The voltage source or the ideal wire? verpies seems to indicate that the voltage source wins, as the voltage holds and the inductor still gets some current. >>>
You say:
<<< If there is a dead short across the ideal voltage supply,the current would simply build in the ideal voltage supply until either the short exploded,or the ideal voltage supply exploded. This would depend on which one of the two could contain the most energy before it failed >>>
I say:
<<< An ideal voltage source does not "contain energy" and likewise an ideal short does not "contain energy." You still need to work on that angle. >>>
And i say i am right,and you are wrong.
You dont even pay attention to the things you say MH,and in this very post you contradict your self.
Example-- Well you fell flat on your face because in a superconducting wire, it's just the opposite, and the magnetic field is restricted to being outside the wire
Then you say just above-->and likewise an ideal short does not "contain energy.
The ideal short will have a magnetic field around it,if there is current flowing through it.
The magnetic field contains the energy MH.
And no bullshit this time MH--no adding one of your paradoxes. You know dam well that this discussion was in relation to verpies posted ideal shorted ideal inductor.
An ideal voltage source does not "contain energy"
Bullshit MH.
If it dose not contain energy,then were exactly dose your! ideal! circuit get the energy to create this current flow you calculated. Lets take a battery,and make it ideal by removing the internal resistance,so as it's an ideal voltage source. Are you saying that battery contains no energy?.
You then say:
<<< When we are talking about your circuit MH,then while your voltage value from your ideal voltage source is 0v,then yes,the ideal inductor dose contain/store energy,and that energy can be recovered when the shorted(looped) ideal inductor becomes open. >>>
That is a blatant bait-and-switch LIE. We were not talking about "my circuit" we were talking about a hypothetical dead ideal short across an ideal voltage source.
What is a lie MH,is that crap you just posted above,as both of what i said is true.
If a current is flowing through an ideal inductor-such as it dose in your circuit ,even when the voltage from the ideal voltage source is 0v,if the circuit becomes open,then we can recover the stored energy from that inductor.
Second-if there is a dead short across an ideal voltage supply,then i stand by what i say. Both the short(being an ideal wire across the ideal voltage supplies terminals),and the ideal voltage supply will contain the rising energy until one of them give out/explodes/fails--what ever you wish to call it.
So i have no idea what you are harping on about,but you have screwed something up in your head some where.
Now, do you want me to prepare a text file that makes this stuff into a series of bullet points that I can copy and paste until kingdom come every time you do the stupid "ICE and resonance" play? I have no intention of constantly repeating your blatant lies and beyond-belief ridiculous technical blunders. But if you keep on acting like this uncouth bogan and you try to pull off another similar type of cynical stunt about me with respect to my knowledge about my own question like you just did on the other thread were Poynt backed me up I just might be tempted to.
Are you threatening me MH. If you are,i would strongly recommend you do not do that,as i do not take well to threats MH.
I have not lied MH,it is you that is the king of lies.
You just took a mirrid of different discussions ,and posted some scrambled crap,trying to once again,make your self look good,and me look bad.
Poynt backed you up on what?--a leap of faith?,your stupid statement that the ideal voltage source dose not contain energy (that one being the most ridiculous statement i have ever seen you make).
It is apparent in this thread alone,that it is you that has made most of the ridiculous technical blunders here,from the ICE saga,to the variable resister on a JT not being needed,as reducing the resistance value would not make the LED brighter--which i once again proved you wrong on--along with others on this thread also proving you wrong.
So I strongly suggest you don't try to pull off a lying cynical stunt like you just did again, and stop the madness with the ICE resonance business. Are we on a bloody forum that is about electronics or gasoline engines? It's time for this nonsense to stop.
I did not pull off any stunt you disillusioned imbecile--just another lie from your box of warped party tricks.
And for you to think that this is an electronics forum,and nothing to do with ICE's,just go's to show how far your disillusions go. This is not a forum for electronics only MH,and to think that it is,is just more of your arrogance shining through.
This is a forum about overunity devices,and there are just as many mechanical devices as there are electrical devices. So if you think the EE guys here have the run of the show,and there word is law around here,then you are very much mistaken.
What are you MH--why are you here?
You dont build,you dont experiment,you have no vision what so ever,nore have i ever seen you give any encouragement to anyone trying something new. All you do is badmouth those that dont agree with you.
From the attitude you have,i can clearly see why people like Mag's,EMJ-ETC would give you what you deserve,as have i.
You think you are some almighty book of knowledge,but the fact is,(electronics)i could build a much more efficient pulse motor than you ever could--and thats a fact.(mechanical) I could modify and tune an ICE to a much higher standard than you ever could--and thats a fact. (chemical)I could build a much more efficient HHO system than you ever could--and thats a fact.
So tell me Mr threatening man--what can you do better than me?--sit there and quote text book physics?
So lets do it MH
I formally challenge you to a simple pulse motor build off.
We start a thread for the challenge to post our progress.
We set the parameters of the P/in P/out to be measured-be it just electrical,or all three-electrical,heat,and mechanical outputs.
We post our results.
We then send both of our pulse motors to an agreed member for verification of the calculated efficiency of each motor.
Time to put those textbooks to work MH.
Let the other members here see that all your knowledge is correct when put to a practical/real world device.
Show everyone here that you can beat this guy you just said makes--> beyond-belief ridiculous technical blunders
You put all your precision text book stuff to work,and i will put all my ridiculous technical blunders to work.
There is my challenge MH,and dont give not crap about--oh i dont build stuff ::)
And dont ever threaten me again through your lies.
Brad
-
Brad:
I don't present myself as all-knowing and have deferred to people that know more than me many times. So that statement is crap. I an not having a tantrum and you have been freaking out for months because I decided to give you the straight goods about your technical discussions. Calling someone the "laughing stock of the forum" after you are presented with an equation that you clearly didn't even understand is a nasty thing to say and just as bad as any "bad word." You don't think people can get frustrated with you and maybe their language could get strong? Here you are with a bunch of people trying desperately to get you to accept how an ideal inductor works. The same thing has been going on for months for many issues and it's enough to drive any sane person nuts. For the superconductor, you posted saying that the field was contained within the wire and the reference you quoted in the same posting said that the field was all external to the wire. That's a Bradism if there ever was one. An ideal short does NOT have a magnetic field around it, it's a hypothetical entity with no inductance. You are trying to claim an ideal short has characteristics similar to an ideal inductor. That's par for the course. An ideal voltage source is a source of power, period. It does not "contain energy," it's not something that you would ever say. You were not discussing my circuit and you bringing it up again in your reply is another bait and switch. Beyond that, there is no such thing as an ideal voltage source "exploding." It's just another thing that would get you sliced to pieces on a real electronics forum. Get lost with your thug/yob/bogan comments about being threatened. Go find a "super trash talking" forum for that. You did indeed make a vain attempt to pull off a silly stunt. Sure the forum discusses mechanical attempts to achieve OU, but it doesn't really discuss gasoline engines that much at all, does it? I am not going to build a bloody pulse motor and one of the applications related to the question is to give you better skills so you can build a better pulse motor.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
The same thing has been going on for months for many issues and it's enough to drive any sane person nuts. For the superconductor, you posted saying that the field was contained within the wire and the reference you quoted in the same posting said that the field was all external to the wire. That's a Bradism if there ever was one. An ideal short does NOT have a magnetic field around it, it's a hypothetical entity with no inductance. You are trying to claim an ideal short has characteristics similar to an ideal inductor. That's par for the course. An ideal voltage source is a source of power, period. It does not "contain energy," it's not something that you would ever say. You were not discussing my circuit and you bringing it up again in your reply is another bait and switch. Beyond that, there is no such thing as an ideal voltage source "exploding." It's just another thing that would get you sliced to pieces on a real electronics forum. Get lost with your thug/yob/bogan comments about being threatened. Go find a "super trash talking" forum for that. You did indeed make a vain attempt to pull off a silly stunt. Sure the forum discusses mechanical attempts to achieve OU, but it doesn't really discuss gasoline engines that much at all, does it? I am not going to build a bloody pulse motor and one of the applications related to the question is to give you better skills so you can build a better pulse motor.
MileHigh
As i said MH,you just do not remember what you say some times. You make no sense in most of what you say,and you contradict your self more times than no.
You never answer questions asked of you,but get your knickers in a twist when some one dosnt answer yours--childish indeed.
I don't present myself as all-knowing and have deferred to people that know more than me many times. So that statement is crap. I an not having a tantrum and you have been freaking out for months because I decided to give you the straight goods about your technical discussions. Calling someone the "laughing stock of the forum" after you are presented with an equation that you clearly didn't even understand is a nasty thing to say and just as bad as any "bad word." You don't think people can get frustrated with you and maybe their language could get strong? Here you are with a bunch of people trying desperately to get you to accept how an ideal inductor works.
And who has been named the !all knowing! here?. I will not be brainwashed into believing anything ,just because you think they know all there is to know. Your question has not been answered correctly by anybody,and to think that some one is correct just because that is what there area of work is,is nothing more than idiotic science.
Here you are with a bunch of people trying desperately to get you to accept how an ideal inductor works
You are no different than me MH,and you acted in the very same manor about the ICE issue. The ICE is my area of expertise,and yet you still disagreed with me. I had to go and find the proof you wanted,as my word was not good enough for you. As we are yet to see any proof of what or how your circuit will operate,i will continue to put forth my beliefs.
I will be bringing up a couple of core issues on the correct thread for this discussion.
Brad
-
Dont call me a waste of time,you potty mouthed little weasel.
What have you got to show for your self?--yes,nothing.
MHs response to that is--an ideal voltage source dose not contain energy--> so go argue with him.
And you wouldnt try to claim victory when dealing with unknowns and ideals without proof.
You fall under the same spell as MH,and that is not being able to define between a small resistance and no resistance. I have shown you on a number of occasions that the difference is infinite.
Can you accurately calculate the top speed of a Chevy Camaro by measuring the top speed of a mini moke?. No ,i did not think so. But this is what is trying to be done here,using real world applications and devices to conclude how an ideal inductor and an ideal voltage source would react in a circuit,under the conditions that MH has set out.
On the other thread you are seething with anger. It's all fire and brimstone with you. And you are clearly not beyond using some nasty words and throwing around negativity in all directions.
John may not contribute much, but when he does say something he is quite astute and on track. You on the other hand are indeed confused about many issues and every time an issue comes up it's a battle with you. Can an ideal voltage source be variable in time? The answer is yes, the only question is when you will understand this, or perhaps we should all give up the battle and take the strategy of ignoring it altogether and ignoring your objections.
An ideal voltage source does not "contain energy." So do you remain confused about that, or do you understand the meaning of the abstract term "ideal voltage source" or do you battle or should we all just ignore it and move forward?
The difference between a very small resistance and no resistance is not "infinite," it is negligible. Why do I say that? What is not being said that is expected from all participants to be mutually understood when we are talking about an ideal inductor vs. a real inductor with a very small resistance? What you are supposed to understand is that TIME is the big determining factor. You are supposed to know this without it being spelt out for you. A 5 Henry inductor with a 0.001 ohm resistance has a time constant of one hour and 23 minutes. That means that after a measly three seconds the difference in the current flowing through the ideal inductor and the real inductor will be negligible.
It's time for you to move forward. I hope Magluvin comes back to work with you. You need to answer the question properly and understand the issues and demonstrate competence in this stuff.
Partzman gave you a really good intermediate question that sits perfectly between the easy question and the hard question already answered:
<<<
This is for those who hold to the misinterpretation of an ideal voltage source as "not being allowed" to vary. First the question, how do we solve a problem involving an ideal AC voltage source? Do we ignore such problems or do we "not allow" them to exist?
In an effort to help resolve this issue, I pose a new problem which is most relative to MH's original.
We have an ideal voltage source that starts at T0 with zero volts and ramps linearly to 4 volts at t1 = 1 second. In parallel with this ideal voltage source is an ideal inductor of 5h. What is the inductor current at T1?
partzman
>>>
If you can answer that one, then you will be well on the road to understanding the difficult question that has already been answered.
So please, lose the anger and get on with answering the first question.
MileHigh
-
partzman
>>>
MileHigh
On the other thread you are seething with anger.
Your inability to distinguish between anger and being firm MH,is your own undoing.
Please believe me when i say that you will never anger me. I can deal with the likes of you quite well. ;)
It's all fire and brimstone with you. And you are clearly not beyond using some nasty words and throwing around negativity in all directions.
Just responding in kind MH--nothing more.
I only give back to you and minnie me,what you two give--nothing more.
In fact,you will not find one post where i have used the fowl language you have in the past--thats a fact. So it is easy to see who is the one that gets angry--and it aint me :D
John may not contribute much, but when he does say something he is quite astute and on track. You on the other hand are indeed confused about many issues and every time an issue comes up it's a battle with you.
You need to have a good hard look in the mirror MH,as most of the issues that have arisen on this thread,is due to your lack of knowledge--E.G,ICE engines,JTs,simple electronic components like the J/FET--->wine glasses that resonate on there own :D
This is when you get angry MH,when you know you are wrong,and there is no way out for you.
Can an ideal voltage source be variable in time? The answer is yes, the only question is when you will understand this, or perhaps we should all give up the battle and take the strategy of ignoring it altogether and ignoring your objections.
Saying that i dont understand what an ideal voltage source is MH,is just another of your lies.
I was the first to answer that on the other thread,and verpies agreed with how i described it to the letter. So suck it up princess,as i do know exactly what an ideal voltage source is--oh ,and by the way,it dose contain energy that is fed into it-->try and let that sink in for a while.
An ideal voltage source does not "contain energy." So do you remain confused about that, or do you understand the meaning of the abstract term "ideal voltage source" or do you battle or should we all just ignore it and move forward?
You are wrong,and you proved your self wrong on the other thread,--oh ,and that one about the energy just disappearing was a hoot lol--MHs new form of physics--energy can now be transformed from one form to another--and destroyed :D
The difference between a very small resistance and no resistance is not "infinite," it is negligible. Why do I say that? What is not being said that is expected from all participants to be mutually understood when we are talking about an ideal inductor vs. a real inductor with a very small resistance? What you are supposed to understand is that TIME is the big determining factor. You are supposed to know this without it being spelt out for you. A 5 Henry inductor with a 0.001 ohm resistance has a time constant of one hour and 23 minutes. That means that after a measly three seconds the difference in the current flowing through the ideal inductor and the real inductor will be negligible.
You just dont get the difference between ideal and real,but no surprise there.
Do you know why the voltage can appear across the coil before the current starts to flow through it MH?,and why dose it take time for that current to reach a maximum value?
What has the value of the CEMF got to do with the rate of change to the current and the EMF.
Are you able to relate the drop in current draw of an electric motor to the EMF,CEMF and current value?. The fact that you just dismiss the time constant of the ideal inductor,because it is infinite,is your undoing,and why you cannot understand your own circuit operation.
It's time for you to move forward. I hope Magluvin comes back to work with you. You need to answer the question properly and understand the issues and demonstrate competence in this stuff.
Lets have a peak at some of the things you said on the other thread--and in one post too lol.
Quote:
Power just disappeared-gone-vanished-destroyed
Then the next paragraph,Quote: So now we have an ideal voltage !source!,that has power pumped into it,
And then this one--Quote: An ideal voltage source supplies energy, it does not contain energy.
Welcome to MHs mumbo jumbo.
We have a source that contains no energy,but can deliver energy :D
We also know that it dose not receive energy from an outside source,because as you stated above-->Any power that is pumped into an ideal voltage source doesn't go anywhere. It's simply gone
Who is demonstrating competence MH?
Partzman gave you a really good intermediate question that sits perfectly between the easy question and the hard question already answered:
I am interested in your question only.
I can see from your statements above,as to why you would want people to deviate from your original question MH,as it seems that you are getting your self all tied up in knots with your own !!simple!! question ;D
This is for those who hold to the misinterpretation of an ideal voltage source as "not being allowed" to vary. First the question, how do we solve a problem involving an ideal AC voltage source? Do we ignore such problems or do we "not allow" them to exist?
An ideal voltage source MH,is a voltage source that will hold the voltage value as selected or determined by the user,regardless of the load. This includes AC and DC values.
It also has no internal resistance,and there for cannot dissipate power.
Thats an ideal voltage source MH.
Removed the last attempt at diversion,as it is not related to the original question.
If you can answer that one, then you will be well on the road to understanding the difficult question that has already been answered.
Another lie.
The original question has not be answered--fact.
So please, lose the anger and get on with answering the first question.
I have no anger MH. In fact,your posts give me a good laugh most of the time lol---they are comical ,as the ones i have posted above.
Brad
Power just disappears--poof,gone--no longer in existence lol
-
Brad:
You object to my statement stating that when you pump power into an ideal voltage source that that energy is effectively gone and you can forget about it. That's why when Verpies asked the question I cracked a joke.
So I will ask you the question: What happens to the energy if you pump 100 watts of power into an ideal voltage source for 10 seconds?
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg484665#msg484665 date=1463573264]
Brad:
You object to my statement stating that when you pump power into an ideal voltage source that that energy is effectively gone and you can forget about it. That's why when Verpies asked the question I cracked a joke.
So I will ask you the question: ?
MileHigh
First we should ask--what is a source?
Source-a place, person, or thing from which something originates or can be obtained.
--a body or process by which energy or a particular component enters a system.
--Place from where things originate.
So you see MH,understanding what a source is,shows us the the source of your ideal voltage(the ideal voltage source) is what contains the energy delivered to the inductor.
If the energy delivered by the ideal voltage source is infinite,then the energy contained within that source is infinite.
The ideal voltage source that delivers the ideal voltage, !is! the source of the energy.
Now you can try as you wish to redefine !source! as you see fit. But the very definition of !source! is from where it comes from--the energy comes from the source--the source contains the energy that is delivered to the receiver--the coil.
So yes-i object to your definition of a source.
What happens to the energy if you pump 100 watts of power into an ideal voltage source for 10 seconds
As an ideal voltage source dose not dissipate power,then that energy is contained within the source.
Brad
-
As an ideal voltage source dose not dissipate power,then that energy is contained within the source.
Brad
Yeah, so does the ideal voltage source have a counter like a doorman's clicker and it counts Joules that are added to the "container" that contains the energy?
Let me ask you this: Is there any observable difference in the ideal voltage source from before the extra Joules are pumped in to after the extra Joules are pumped in?
-
Yeah, so does the ideal voltage source have a counter like a doorman's clicker and it counts Joules that are added to the "container" that contains the energy?
Let me ask you this: Is there any observable difference in the ideal voltage source from before the extra Joules are pumped in to after the extra Joules are pumped in?
Your lost MH.
Brad
-
I am not in the least bit lost and I am waiting for you to answer this question:
Let me ask you this: Is there any observable difference in the ideal voltage source from before the extra Joules are pumped in to after the extra Joules are pumped in?
-
I am not in the least bit lost and I am waiting for you to answer this question:
Let me ask you this: Is there any observable difference in the ideal voltage source from before the extra Joules are pumped in to after the extra Joules are pumped in?
From my point of view,the ideal source(voltage source) would have an infinite amount of stored energy,and so there would be no point in pumping any more energy in there. From your point of view,any energy that is pumped into the ideal voltage source is just gone-vanished without a trace.
There for,in both cases,there is no point in pumping any more energy into the ideal voltage source.
Poynt has confirmed that any energy absorbed by the ideal voltage source,and where we have all agreed that ideal source dose not dissipate energy,then the energy is stored in the ideal voltage source,and there for , dose not just disappear as you say.
I dont think that statement of you saying--the energy is just gone,did you many favors MH,as it was quite stupid. Im sure you know that energy just dose not disappear,so i am lost as to why you would say such a thing.
Brad
-
When discussing an ideal voltage source, the concept of "an infinite amount of 'stored' energy" is meaningless. I say the energy is "gone" because you can simply forget about it. Saying it is "absorbed" is just about the same thing as saying it "disappears." And ideal voltage source is just an abstraction, so the concept of it absorbing energy or storing energy or even making energy disappear is really meaningless. It just does what it does, and can output an infinite amount of energy, or you can pump an infinite amount of energy into it, it doesn't make a damn difference in the world. In that sense, the law of the conservation of energy doesn't even apply to an ideal voltage source and you can say that energy you pump into it is "destroyed" if you want to, it doesn't make a damn difference in the world. It's really a brain-bender for you, isn't it?
-
When discussing an ideal voltage source, the concept of "an infinite amount of 'stored' energy" is meaningless. I say the energy is "gone" because you can simply forget about it. Saying it is "absorbed" is just about the same thing as saying it "disappears." And ideal voltage source is just an abstraction, so the concept of it absorbing energy or storing energy or even making energy disappear is really meaningless. It just does what it does, and can output an infinite amount of energy, or you can pump an infinite amount of energy into it, it doesn't make a damn difference in the world. In that sense, the law of the conservation of energy doesn't even apply to an ideal voltage source and you can say that energy you pump into it is "destroyed" if you want to, it doesn't make a damn difference in the world. It's really a brain-bender for you, isn't it?
Trying to imagine an infinite amount of anything,is like trying to imagine how large the actual universe is-and were not talking about the !known! universe.
Dose it have an end?,is it just a large dome?,or dose it go on indefinitely?
But just because it has an infinite value,dose not mean you can destroy energy,just the same as you cant make a small part of the universe disappear. The energy being transferred from the coil to the source,is added to that infinite amount-from which it came. Your just sloshing energy back and forth--nothing gained ,nothing lost.
Brad
-
Trying to imagine an infinite amount of anything,is like trying to imagine how large the actual universe is-and were not talking about the !known! universe.
Dose it have an end?,is it just a large dome?,or dose it go on indefinitely?
But just because it has an infinite value,dose not mean you can destroy energy,just the same as you cant make a small part of the universe disappear. The energy being transferred from the coil to the source,is added to that infinite amount-from which it came. Your just sloshing energy back and forth--nothing gained ,nothing lost.
Brad
I told you that an ideal voltage source has nothing to do with the conservation of energy. Supposing there was a DC outlet in your house that came from the electric utility. Supposing that it was seven volts DC. Let's say that you can consider that DC outlet from the electric utility to be an ideal voltage source. Imagine it's very dangerous and there is not even a fuse associated with the source, and the two wires that bring the DC to your house are five inches in diameter. It's so dangerous that if you put a 1" x 1" rectangular bus bar across the source that it would instantly explode and become vaporized metal.
So what if you bought a brand new big beefy car battery and connected it to the seven-volt ideal voltage source and went away for one day? When you returned the next day the brand new battery would be dead, and probably ruined.
So on the first day you had a brand new battery with who knows how many mega Joules stored in it. The next day the battery is dead and has no Joules in it.
Where did the energy go?
The answer is for all practical intents and purposes the energy disappeared.
You don't care what's behind the seven-volt DC ideal voltage source provided by the utility company. As far as you are concerned the DC outlet in your wall and the utility company are just a black box.
So who is the person that is really lost? Who is the person that sometimes has no imagination, or sometimes imagines all sorts of things that make no sense like on the other thread?
Sorry, but you are going to have to eat your words. You were lost, and you still are lost. You still haven't demonstrated that you understand the simple circuit from start to finish, and you are still stuck on another false notion. You still haven't met the two simple goals that I stated, and the hope is still that you will reach those goals.
If you want to take a sobering look at yourself, go and read your technical arguments from the beginning of the question thread and see how ridiculous they are and see how far you have come.
The worst thing that could have been done would have been to give you the answer to the first question at the start of the question thread, and you asked for it repeatedly. For the technical issues being discussed in the question thread, I have probably covered them forty to fifty times over the past six years. You were reading me then so what the hell were you doing? Were you asleep and just ignored what I said, did it all pass right through you like you weren't even there, or did you mutter an arrogant chuckle to yourself because "you knew better?"
You got into the discussion here with me, and you started the brand new question thread, being completely and utterly clueless about inductors, essentially in the very same boat as Wattsup and EMJunkie. Yet you have been playing with coils for six years. Let's hope that in the end you achieve the two goals that I stated for you. That would be a great thing.
MileHigh
-
In the case of an ideal voltage source, it is evident that it can source an infinite amount of energy to an ideal inductor for an infinite amount of time. Does it not make sense that it should also be capable of sinking an infinite amount of energy from an ideal inductor for an infinite amount of time? If not, why?
partzman
-
If you used a resistor to discharge the inductor,, when you connected the resistor what voltage would you see,, I think that would be 4V.
Forget it Webby, you are clutching at straws. The best thing you could do is hope and pray that Brad gets through this to the end and try to ride on his coattails.
-
@MH
This is the last time you will use my @username in your trophy room with the other heads of those you have wangled so long. I tried and tried to explain to you that your question was not properly formulated and that I understood it to be the result of one applied 4 volts. I have known many like. There is no talking to you. So just understand this. Go fuck yourself.
wattsup
-
Wattsup:
You have caused trouble and unneeded drama in this discussion. Technically you contributed nothing. The only person that seemed to be having trouble with the question is you. Then a graph of the voltage waveform was posted, what more do you want? Understand this: Stick to water filtration systems.
MileHigh
-
I like the idea of introducing a resistor,,
What I would notice is that as the resistance I add goes up so does the voltage,, as it goes down so does the voltage.
So If we did not have all these fancy formulas,, and I had made that observation,, I would want to build a formula to model it
The same thing happens with all "new" things we find,, but I ask myself if the observations themselves were complete and if all of the interactions are appreciated and attributed correctly.
The formula works very close in the real world,, so close that you can make very very precise approximations,, but if not all interactions are appreciated and some that are not are attributed to the wrong interaction the formula might still work just as well but only for predicting a specific outcome.
Let's assume we apply a resistor in parallel to the 5H inductor at T5 and at the same time we remove the 4v ideal voltage source. At that instant in time, what in your opinion would be the voltage and the polarity across this resistor relative to ground with the following values?
R = 1.6666 ohms
R = 10 ohms
R = infinity
In general from this instant in time, what type of slope do we see in the voltage and current waveforms as we continue on in time?
partzman
edit
-
let me look it up and see what I find,,, then apply it to give the correct values.
man,, making me work :)
My assumption would be to start with, that at an infinite resistance the voltage would also be infinite,, and then I am assuming that you chose values to make things easy for me :)
Also I would assume that at 0 resistance the voltage would be 0
Yes, you are correct on all the above :)
partzman
-
webby1
You were correct regarding the instantaneous voltages across the resistors at T=5 :) For the question regarding the general shape of the voltages and currents when T>5 secs, I attached a sim showing the results which will speak more clearly than an explanation with words.
The Vin and Vout traces are superimposed until T=5 when Vin goes to zero and Vout shows the voltage across the 1.6666 ohm and 10 ohm resistors respectively. The current from L1 for each resistance is shown and marked as voltage/current pairs. To be clear, R1 has been stepped with 1.6666 ohms and 10 ohms to produce the overall plot with two pairs of voltage and current from T5 to the end.
There are also two cursors on the plot indicating the time and current magnitude for each pair at one time constant or T=L/R which indicates the currents have dropped ~63% from the starting value of 2.4 amps.
Several things to note and that is, the polarity of the voltage(s) across R1 and the shape of the voltage and current waveforms.
Also, we can conclude from this that there is no value of "fixed" resistance that can reproduce the same current waveform as MH's from T5 to T8.
partzman
-
webby1,
I've attached a sim that uses a non-linear resistor R1 from T5 to T8 that creates a complimentary negative going current ramp to the voltage generated positive going current ramp from T0 to T3. This is shown for comparison to the fixed resistor R1s in the previous sim.
Since dI = E*t/L and L is fixed at 5H and we wish to start with I = 2.4 amps at T5 and ramp to 0 amps at T8, we can solve for R using either t or E. I chose to solve using t as follows. With R=E/I and dI = E*t/L, through substitution and simplification we arrive at R = L/t.
The denominator t is actually T-dt with T equal to the overall time from T5 to T8 to ramp from 2.4 amps to zero amps and dt is the incremental change in time during this period. However, R1 is calculated during the entire plot as is seen in the red "5/(8-time)" trace and at t5, the resistance is 1.66666 ohms which is the starting value needed to produce 4 volts at 2.4 amps. Also at T5, S1 is opened to disconnected Vin from L1 and S2 then connects R1 to L1.
To clarify, the label at the far left of the plot is the resistance of R1 so "100s-1" should read 100 ohms, etc.
As we approach T8, "T-dt" approaches zero and R1 approaches infinite resistance.
partzman
-
webby1,
I've attached a sim that uses a non-linear resistor R1 from T5 to T8 that creates a complimentary negative going current ramp to the voltage generated positive going current ramp from T0 to T3. This is shown for comparison to the fixed resistor R1s in the previous sim.
Since dI = E*t/L and L is fixed at 5H and we wish to start with I = 2.4 amps at T5 and ramp to 0 amps at T8, we can solve for R using either t or E. I chose to solve using t as follows. With R=E/I and dI = E*t/L, through substitution and simplification we arrive at R = L/t.
The denominator t is actually T-dt with T equal to the overall time from T5 to T8 to ramp from 2.4 amps to zero amps and dt is the incremental change in time during this period. However, R1 is calculated during the entire plot as is seen in the red "5/(8-time)" trace and at t5, the resistance is 1.66666 ohms which is the starting value needed to produce 4 volts at 2.4 amps. Also at T5, S1 is opened to disconnected Vin from L1 and S2 then connects R1 to L1.
To clarify, the label at the far left of the plot is the resistance of R1 so "100s-1" should read 100 ohms, etc.
As we approach T8, "T-dt" approaches zero and R1 approaches infinite resistance.
partzman
Awesome work Partzman. Getting the current curve to ramp down in a linear fashion with a variable resistor is a not-too-difficult thought experiment but it is really cool, even beyond cool, to see you work the variables to define the variable resistor as a function of time for the simulation and then run it and show the fruits of your labour.
I can imagine the usual grumbling, "That's not ever going to happen in real life," and "That's useless and I can't see any reason for doing that."
Well, what about a rocket? When a rocket launches it obeys the usual f = ma to accelerate and get off the ground. However, the mass of the rocket 'm' is actually 'm(t).' In other words the mass of the rocket is a function of time t and always decreasing because it is burning fuel, i.e.; f = m(t)a. But then there is another thing to consider, let's assume that the force from some rocket engines is proportional to the amount of fuel in the engine, and so we can say that the force is also a function of time. So you get f(t) = m(t)a. So rewriting it, you get a = f(t)/m(t). Now your variable resistor that is a function of time is starting to look a lot more interesting.
Finally, when it comes to launching a rocket, you can't forget the air resistance that is slowing the rocket down. Let's say that we say that the air resistance is a function of both the height h and the velocity v. i.e; The force of the air resistance fair = fair(h,v)
So now you have a new formula for the acceleration of the rocket: a = [f(t) - fair(h,v)]/m(t).
Now all of a sudden that resistance that's a function of time starts to look pretty sweet.
-
Awesome work Partzman. Getting the current curve to ramp down in a linear fashion with a variable resistor is a not-too-difficult thought experiment but it is really cool, even beyond cool, to see you work the variables to define the variable resistor as a function of time for the simulation and then run it and show the fruits of your labour.
I can imagine the usual grumbling, "That's not ever going to happen in real life," and "That's useless and I can't see any reason for doing that."
Well, what about a rocket? When a rocket launches it obeys the usual f = ma to accelerate and get off the ground. However, the mass of the rocket 'm' is actually 'm(t).' In other words the mass of the rocket is a function of time t and always decreasing because it is burning fuel, i.e.; f = m(t)a. But then there is another thing to consider, let's assume that the force from some rocket engines is proportional to the amount of fuel in the engine, and so we can say that the force is also a function of time. So you get f(t) = m(t)a. So rewriting it, you get a = f(t)/m(t). Now your variable resistor that is a function of time is starting to look a lot more interesting.
Finally, when it comes to launching a rocket, you can't forget the air resistance that is slowing the rocket down. Let's say that we say that the air resistance is a function of both the height h and the velocity v. i.e; The force of the air resistance fair = fair(h,v)
So now you have a new formula for the acceleration of the rocket: a = [f(t) - fair(h,v)]/m(t).
Now all of a sudden that resistance that's a function of time starts to look pretty sweet.
Thanks MH,
partzman
-
Going back to the simple JT,which circuit would be more efficient?
We shall use MH's term for efficiency as stated on this thread in reply 166
For purposes of a fair discussion let's put aside the "Thief" part of the Joule Thief that can extract energy from nearly dead batteries. In other words, let's just look at lumens per watt of supplied power.
So what is a JT circuit?
Well to also quote MH on post 166
When is a circuit a Joule Thief or not? I think that there is a simple answer to that one. If the circuit can power a LED with a battery whose output voltage is lower than the normal drive voltage for the LED, and the LED is driven using the technique of a discharging inductor acting as a current source, then you have a Joule Thief.
As some would remember,MH later on decided that the first circuit-circuit 1 is the JT circuit,although it would seem that this go's against his first post on what a JT circuit is.
But for the sake of the discussion,lets just stick to the two circuits below.
Which do you believe to be the more efficient circuit out of the two?
Brad
-
We need a little more information.
Please specify:
-Number of turns of L1 and L2
-Transistor part number (choose one of MPSA18, BC337-25, 2n2222a, 2n3904)
-
As we go along in this thread,i will try and clean up some of the rubbish that has been dumped in the thread as it went on.
The hope is ,that at the end of the day,we will have the !correct! knowledge to build the most efficient JT we can.
The first thing that needs to be cleared up is the below.
Quote MH post 207
Also, the Joule Thief will not work as a Joule Thief, if it woks at all, without the inductive coupling between the two windings. Saying it works because of "the C value of the transistor" is just more word salad.
The fundamental timing and operation of a Joule Thief is based on L/R time constants and there is no resonance at play at all - the Joule Thief timing and operation is governed by the interaction between inductance and resistance and not capacitance.
If we are to go on MHs description of a JT,( If the circuit can power a LED with a battery whose output voltage is lower than the normal drive voltage for the LED, and the LED is driven using the technique of a discharging inductor acting as a current source, then you have a Joule Thief. If the circuit does not meet these two conditions then it is not a Joule Thief.)then the above is not true at all,and the cool joule circuit dose indeed work due to the miller capacitance effect,which is the junction C value of the transistor,and also meets the two conditions set out by MH to qualify it as a JT circuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mbp1iuB7as
MHs answer to the cool joule was this
Quote post 234: So it's not a Joule Thief because it does not do anything special to extract energy from a very-low-voltage battery.You are not going there Brad. You have been fully aware of what the standard Joule Thief circuit is for years
But then we had this a couple of pages before
Quote: If the circuit can power a LED with a battery whose output voltage is lower than the normal drive voltage for the LED, and the LED is driven using the technique of a discharging inductor acting as a current source, then you have a Joule Thief.
Seems to be some conflict going on here ???
Anyway,the aim of the game here,is to decide which of the two circuits is more efficient,in way of MHs example of efficiency=let's just look at lumens per watt of supplied power.
TK has already carried out a few tests to this regard,but i suspect he will be back with some different findings soon.
Brad
-
We need a little more information.
Please specify:
-Number of turns of L1 and L2
-Transistor part number (choose one of MPSA18, BC337-25, 2n2222a, 2n3904)
TK
It dose not matter as to turns or transistor used,as long as you use the very same DUT when testing both LED positions.
I will be using a 2n3055 for most of my experiments on the JT circuits.
Brad
-
To quote MH from other thread.
I think every single time I have asked you to explain one of your procedures you play the bullshit "I won't bow to your demands" card. You clam up and freeze up.
Right now I am operating under the assumption that either you don't know how to measure the output impedance of a battery or you think that you do and whatever you do has some hapless tragic mistake in it. I have seen things like this before.
Or, you can wipe the ridiculous attitude away, and simply explain how you measure the output impedance so we can check if if makes sense.
Why are you freezing up?
The internal resistance value of the battery can be calculated on the fly MH--while the JT circuit is operating.
I wonder if you actually know how to do this?
My bet is-like always,you wait for some one else to give the answer,and then you say--oh yes,that is how it is done.
So not this time MH-this time you will have to work that out for your self.
We could just do the internal resistance test of the battery,while it is not in use in the circuit,but i wanted to be more accurate,and know what it was during use in the JT circuit.
Brad
-
Quote TK
The measurement points are indicated on one of the photos of the apparatus. I am measuring input current by the voltage drop across a 0.1 ohm non-inductive resistor on the negative side of the circuit, and input voltage simply across the input terminals. I have done both measurements with oscilloscope and DMMs. We have seen from Poynt99's work that the DMMs do a very good job of averaging pulsed inputs, and I also used the oscilloscope's "average" measurements of each channel's raw readings to confirm the DMM readings. I used the scope's Math function to multiply the raw (not averaged) instantaneous voltage and current inputs, then had the scope compute the "average" of this power measurement,which I then used in the Lux per Watt calculation. The current traces are very different between the two circuits, as you probably know yourself.
TK
Did you work out as to why when using the battery,the efficiency between the two circuits swapped over from that of using your PSU ?
I think you need to look a little closer as to what happens during the off time(transistor open) of circuit 1--where the battery is included.
If you think about it a little,you will see what changed when switching to the battery,and how all of a sudden,circuit 1 became more efficient--or appeared to ;)
Brad
-
To quote MH from other thread.
The internal resistance value of the battery can be calculated on the fly MH--while the JT circuit is operating.
I wonder if you actually know how to do this?
My bet is-like always,you wait for some one else to give the answer,and then you say--oh yes,that is how it is done.
So not this time MH-this time you will have to work that out for your self.
We could just do the internal resistance test of the battery,while it is not in use in the circuit,but i wanted to be more accurate,and know what it was during use in the JT circuit.
Brad
And now you are back in full-blown stupid-ass trash talk mode. Look at you! Your brain is frying.
My bet is-like always,you wait for some one else to give the answer,and then you say--oh yes,that is how it is done.
That is complete and total BS because your brain is frying and you will say any stupid negative thing about me, even if you have to shamelessly lie like a jackass.
So not this time MH-this time you will have to work that out for your self.
Kiss my butt! O hapless one!
We could just do the internal resistance test of the battery,while it is not in use in the circuit,but i wanted to be more accurate,and know what it was during use in the JT circuit.
Then just state the two procedures and stop the ridiculous soap opera drama, for crying out loud.
-
I am going to give you a little reality check Brad.
I argued the first circuit was "more efficient" because it looked like it offered a longer run time by going down to a lower battery voltage and therefore could extract more energy from a dead battery. That is the basic Joule Thief premise.
Then you discussed the first circuit and the second circuit with respect to looses due to the internal impedance of the battery. Your argument was that since in the second circuit some of the time the battery was OFF and not supplying any current, that there would be less internal battery impedance losses. I proved to you that that notion is false if you assume the exactly the same power draw for both circuits. In fact, it turns out the first circuit will be more efficient using that efficiency parameter which is the opposite of what you thought.
I have no idea where you want to go with this. I proved that your assumption for the second circuit was wrong in terms of internal energy lost in the battery. If you can't understand what I said or how I arrived at that conclusion, then have a good brain fry, bring along some marshmallows.
Beyond that, the issue of most light per unit of input power is interesting. I already indicated in my first long posting that TK responded to that it's a quite complicated matter with many parameters to consider. I am not really that interested in getting into a long discussion about it.
-
Brad:
And so that is the difference between bench workers and pen pushers MH--the bench man will go searching as to why the two efficiency differences between PSU and battery exist,and will find that reason,while you(the pen pusher) will just keep on wallowing in your own self pity,and continue to peddle rubbish-like you are here and now.
For stooping to that low a level of trash talk, go foof yourself you semi-literate jackass. I can assure you like I said before, I can spin circles around you on a bench and its been 25 year now. As of a few months ago, you didn't even understand how a Joule Thief works, you did not understand how resonance works, and you did not understand how an inductor works. You could barely punch your way out of a wet paper bag. Look at what you posted to RMS seven months ago. You tried to make two points to him, and on both of your points you fell flat on your face, wrong and wrong again. That's really impressive "six years under your belt" bench work noggin shining there Brad.
Your bullshit pitch that I am lost and you are the one with all the answers when it comes to a Joule Thief is a joke. It's just you being steaming mad. This is your cue to mention a JFET fool.
So i stand by my answer-->you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor.
If you did(theoretically),the current would rise instantly to an infinite value.
But you were saying just last week that no current would flow because of the CEMF!
Time to crack another egg and put it on that piping hot skillet.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg488201#msg488201 date=1468143779]
For stooping to that low a level of trash talk, go foof yourself you semi-literate jackass.
Foof? ???
I am not sure how dioxygen difluoride fits into it,but anyway :D
But i see it did not take long for those profanities to make an appearance MH ;D
But if it makes you feel better,then you go right ahead,as us Aussies can take a whole lot more than you can give--were all convicts remember lol ;D
I can assure like I said before, I can spin circles around you on a bench and its been 25 year now.
But alas -cannot prove it--even when some one else well gifted in the art of EE was going to do all the bench work for you.
As of a few months ago, you didn't even understand how a Joule Thief works, you did not understand how resonance works, and you did not understand how an inductor works.
It would seem that you have made that assumption based on your own misunderstandings,and lack of knowledge. Kick back a while,you might just learn something :D
You could barely punch your way out of a wet paper bag
.
I think i could manage that MH ;)
Your bullshit pitch that I am lost and you are the one with all the answers when it comes to a Joule Thief is a joke. It's just you being steaming mad. This is your cue to mention a JFET fool.
Why would you think i am mad MH?
And i was not going to mention anything about you not knowing what a J/FET was.
Hang in there MH--we'll learn ya something soon enough-->hows that for some spot on English ;D
But anyway,if you cant keep up,just do the best you can ;)
Brad
-
Everything you just posted was completely FAKE Brad and you are not fooling anybody.
When push comes to shove you degenerate into this weak little fake character and I have no problem being completely real. It must feel miserable inside having to put up this fake front when you know that most people know that you are faking it. Go build a Joule Thief, it will be good therapy for you.
-
Done just that MH ;)
Now it is your turn to explain as to how you think circuit 1 is more efficient than circuit 2.
Below is some ammo for you --you'll love it.
The first scope shot and associated schematic ,is of your !more efficient! JT circuit.
You can see both the current trace and battery voltage,along with the LUX value from my light box.
In the second scope shot and associated schematic,you can once again see the battery voltage,current value,and LUX value from the light box.
The only thing changed,was the position of the LED,from circuit 1 position to circuit 2 position.
Wonder how much the internal resistance would increase as battery voltage drops,and what effect that would have on the efficiency of the circuit? :D
Anyway,things look really good for your circuit MH :D
Now let's see if you can work out the mistake you are making?--you going to have a stab at it MH?
I suspect TK will work it out soon enough.
When push comes to shove you degenerate into this weak little fake character and I have no problem being completely real. It must feel miserable inside having to put up this fake front when you know that most people know that you are faking it. Go build a Joule Thief, it will be good therapy for you.
Strangely odd coming from some one that will not challenge said !fake! person--even when some one else was going to do all the hard work for you. All you had to do was use your great field of knowledge and mathematics,and put that mighty pen to paper,and Itsu would have built the circuit for you. But you couldnt even manage that,and yet you sit there and call me a fake lol.
Everything you just posted was completely FAKE Brad and you are not fooling anybody.
Well lets hope you can explain as to why circuit 1 seems to be more efficient than circuit 2--play !spot the error!.
Ask your self this MH--Why when TK used his PSU,the results showed circuit 2 to be more efficient than circuit 1,but when he used a battery instead of the PSU,some how-without any other changes,circuit 1 miraculously became more efficient than circuit 2 :o
Brad
-
@ TK
It would be good to see you scope this circuit from some time ago,that we were looking at,with your new scope.
I'd love to see just how the wave forms and voltage traces looked across those LED's.
Some accurate power measurements would be great as well.
MH may even remember the 3 of us working on this circuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvf9Uo7UVx0
Brad
-
MH
quote
"Everything you just posted was completely FAKE Brad and you are not fooling anybody."
end quote
Regardless of any other content which your are referring to , the offer By Poynt and itsu to assist in this Friendly competition
is absolutely genuine and completely doable .[Tinsel also is interested !!]
itsu has collaborated as the building Partner in MUCH more complicated projects than the simple experiment presented here
it is actually a wonderful gesture.
** However participating in a Brawl is absolutely not the intent ,nor welcomed.
Perhaps a Log of the procedures could be added to the effort so as to help teach the builders here your techniques?
respectfully
Chet K
-
Here Brad, reality check #1 for you copied from the other thread:
Okay Brad.
Let's just sample some approximate numbers and work out a very simple problem for illustrative purposes.
Let's say we have a source voltage of 1.5 volts and an output impedance of seven ohms.
Let's say that we have circuit #1 that draws 50 milliwatts from the power supply and draws continuous DC current.
Let's say that we have circuit #2 that draws 50 milliwatts from the power supply and draws current with an 80% ON time and a 20% OFF time.
Let's examine these two circuits.
Circuit #1:
The current is 0.050/1.5 = 33.3 milliamps
The power lost in the internal resistance of seven ohms is 0.0333^2 x 7 = 7.78 milliwatts
Circuit #2:
We know from above that the average current is 33.3 milliamps.
Therefore the ON current for 80% of the time is 0.0333 x 5/4 = 41.7 milliamps.
The power lost to the internal resistance of seven ohms is 0.0417^2 x 7 x 4/5 = 9.72 miliwatts
Well look at that Brad. When you put the two circuits on an even playing field where they draw the same amount of power from the fixed 1.5 volt power supply, circuit #2 that has the 80% ON, 20% OFF duty cycle has more losses due to the internal resistance of seven ohms.
Brad, I have made this very easy for you to follow and understand.
MileHigh
This example just illustrates a basic principle. If you can't use your brain and apply it to the two Joule Thief circuits that's your problem not mine.
-
Reality check #2 for you copied from the other thread.
The reason that you do not understand it,is because you have no understanding as to how !your! JT circuit works.
Brad, back in the days when we were discussing the Joule Thief I found the following YouTube clip that describes how a Joule Thief works quite well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg)
You were flustered and confused by that clip. You couldn't understand it, and you disagreed with it and you obstinately refused to accept what it said. This went on for a considerable amount of time. So that means the whole time we were getting into the discussion about the Joule Thief, you didn't even have a clue how one really worked. For sure you can build one on the bench and get it to run. However, at the very same time you can still not have a clue about how one really works. You were in that boat, and for all I know you still might be there.
So you can be a poser all you want, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
MileHigh
Brad had a brain fry and he refused to believe that the YouTube clip was correct. Tough crap for you.
-
Brad:
As far as your Joule Thief scope captures go and your power in to light out data goes, I really have nothing to say. Again, I made a long posting stating that there are many parameters associated with that issue and just throwing your two circuits out there and showing some numbers does not say much. In addition to that, your two circuits are running at about 130 kHz, which is way too fast. Almost certainly you are losing some light output efficiency because they are running so fast.
If you want to play the light output efficiency game, then a Joule Thief clearly sucks because of the sloped current discharge waveform through the LED which is inefficient. A long time ago I said that a brand new circuit that keeps a large cap charged to the optimum LED voltage for maximum light output efficiency while part of the circuit flashes the LED on and off to reduce power by taking advantage of the persistence of human vision would be a great circuit. I said that chances are that it would beat the pants off of a Joule Thief for power in to light output efficiency even if it was a more complex circuit.
But the problem with that circuit is that you actually have to design something yourself, right? There is no more being an "experimenter automaton" copying a Joule Thief schematic and building the same stupid circuit for the thirtieth time. You actually have to THINK and develop a circuit all by yourself from scratch. You actually have to invent something YOURSELF. Mums the word there.
I said that a great pulse motor build-off would be to have a sueprcapacitor energy store and to build a pulse motor with a design goal of outputting the maximum mechanical energy. The goal would be to use the pulse motor to lift up a weight and the winner would be the person that had the best lifting energy to capacitor energy ratio. Another great idea that requires that you have to THINK and INVENT something YOURSELF from SCRATCH. You had nothing to say about that.
I asked you how you would measure your supercapacitor value and any other paramaters and I got one nearly useless response from you. So you apparently don't even know how to come up with your own system to measure the value of a bloody capacitor that you made yourself. I actually would not be surprised if Robert Murray Smith told me to piss off when I asked him for his own measurements on his devices because he is in the same boat as you.
When you are asked to show how you measure the output impedance of a battery you balk. You are given an opportunity to show your own powers of reasoning and you chicken out. There is a decent chance that what you would have to say would be riddled with errors and be a farce.
So your BS fake preening is not impressing me at all. Like it or not, you clearly did not understand how a simple Joule Thief works as of a few months ago, and I am not even sure if you understand how one works now. Like I have already told you several times, if you are serious about your hobby, the best thing you could do for yourself would be to buy yourself three or four books on basic electronics and lock yourself in a room for a month and read them and understand them. Then you won't be saying ridiculous gaffes like there is no voltage drop across a resistor.
MileHigh
-
OK... Brad says that transistor type and coil turns don't matter as long as they are the same for both circuits. I don't fully agree with this but it certainly makes things easier for me. So for all tests, until further notice, I will be using the circuit I built and described in the other thread: MPSA18 transistor, 20+20 turns on the pot-core inductor, low-side current sensing using 0.1 ohm non-inductive CSR, and one of the LumiLed ultra-efficient LEDs for the load. I connect the LED, which is fixed to the inside end of my lightbox, to the circuit with a jumper cable about 18 inches long. All I have to do to switch between circuits is to change the pins where the jumper connects to the circuit board, so the LED isn't touched and remains in the exact same position during testing. These circuits runs at between 9 to 14 kHz or so, depending on voltage.
Lately though I have decided to use an ultracapacitor for the power source. I'll be using a Nesscap 10F 2.7V rated capacitor with 30mOhm (0.030 ohm) equivalent series resistance. See the data sheet attached below (which by the way describes an easy method to determine the actual capacitance of a test capacitor.)
Using the capacitor as power supply has several advantages. It eliminates noise caused by the power supply, it has a much lower impedance than the battery, and it allows one to track changes in light output over time as the voltage drops while running the circuit. Plotting the Lux value against seconds of runtime will allow one to generate a "lux vs. seconds" curve, the area of which will correspond to the total light output in Lux-seconds. Selecting a certain end-point voltage, say 0.450 V, and timing the time taken to reach that voltage from a given starting voltage, say 1.500 V, will give a consistent set of boundaries for measurement. Input power vs. Lux output readings can also be made along the way.
I've already done a couple of sample test runs using the ultracapacitor, charged to 1.5-1.6 V, and it works quite well. It's hard to get valid power readings from the scope at the lowest voltages due to the small current, but the input voltage and Lux values can be read quite precisely. It takes about 11-12 minutes for the voltage to go from 1.500 V to 0.450 V using Circuit 2 (LED across coil). The LED still produces measurable light output down to below 0.420 V after over 17 minutes.
-
TK,
Would you mind re-sizing your images, they are way too big and it forces us to widen the browser window just to read the posts. Sorry, but it's a pain and Stefan apparently can't fix it. If you need hi-res as well you could zip them up and add them as attachments in addition to your reduced-size image.
Thanks. ;)
-
TK,
Would you mind re-sizing your images, they are way too big and it forces us to widen the browser window just to read the posts. Sorry, but it's a pain and Stefan apparently can't fix it. If you need hi-res as well you could zip them up and add them as attachments in addition to your reduced-size image.
Thanks. ;)
Sure, sorry, it's something that I often complain about too, but 1200 pixels wide is perfect for my monitor. I forget that other people may not have widescreen monitors. So I'll keep them to 800 pixels wide in the future. Thanks....
Meanwhile here is some raw data taken with the ultracap as power source. Every 30 seconds I recorded the Lux reading and the voltage in mV. These data can be used to generate curves and get total light output in Lux-seconds as I described earlier. It will take me some time to graph the data as I have to take the dog to the dogpark and do some other things. But if anyone else wants to do it..... welcome to it.
-
Here Brad, reality check #1 for you copied from the other thread:
Okay Brad.
Let's just sample some approximate numbers and work out a very simple problem for illustrative purposes.
Let's say we have a source voltage of 1.5 volts and an output impedance of seven ohms.
Let's say that we have circuit #1 that draws 50 milliwatts from the power supply and draws continuous DC current.
Let's say that we have circuit #2 that draws 50 milliwatts from the power supply and draws current with an 80% ON time and a 20% OFF time.
Let's examine these two circuits.
Circuit #1:
The current is 0.050/1.5 = 33.3 milliamps
The power lost in the internal resistance of seven ohms is 0.0333^2 x 7 = 7.78 milliwatts
Circuit #2:
We know from above that the average current is 33.3 milliamps.
Therefore the ON current for 80% of the time is 0.0333 x 5/4 = 41.7 milliamps.
The power lost to the internal resistance of seven ohms is 0.0417^2 x 7 x 4/5 = 9.72 miliwatts
Well look at that Brad. When you put the two circuits on an even playing field where they draw the same amount of power from the fixed 1.5 volt power supply, circuit #2 that has the 80% ON, 20% OFF duty cycle has more losses due to the internal resistance of seven ohms.
Brad, I have made this very easy for you to follow and understand.
MileHigh
This example just illustrates a basic principle. If you can't use your brain and apply it to the two Joule Thief circuits that's your problem not mine.
Well you screwed that up MH.
Nice try,but far from an even playing field.
Both inductors are supplied with the same(thats right MH--the same) amount of energy,and they are the same inductor. How you ever decided to make the input energies different--well who knows where your head is at some times.
The inductors now have the same !SAME! amount of stored energy.
So now tell us,which of the two circuits will deliver the most of there stored energy to the LED.
That is how simple it is MH.
God knows how you keep screwing these things up ::)
Brad
-
Sure, sorry, it's something that I often complain about too, but 1200 pixels wide is perfect for my monitor. I forget that other people may not have widescreen monitors. So I'll keep them to 800 pixels wide in the future. Thanks....
Meanwhile here is some raw data taken with the ultracap as power source. Every 30 seconds I recorded the Lux reading and the voltage in mV. These data can be used to generate curves and get total light output in Lux-seconds as I described earlier. It will take me some time to graph the data as I have to take the dog to the dogpark and do some other things. But if anyone else wants to do it..... welcome to it.
Good test TK.
There is one problem with it,but we can eliminate a couple of myths from that test.
The first one being that suggested by MH. It was his thought that by including the battery in series with the inductor and LED during the off time of the transistor,that the battery would be drained to a lower voltage,and so more of the energy left in the battery would be used. As we can see,that is not the case,as the cap was left with very close to the same voltage in it with both circuit's--circuit 2 slightly lower,which would indicate a slightly deeper drain of the battery.
Second.
We also see that circuit 2 had a longer run time,and drew less current over that time.
This means that circuit 2 would offer a deeper drain of the battery,and the recovery voltage over that battery would be less,once disconnected from the circuit.
As there is less current flowing through the capacitor during the run,that also means less waste heat dissipated by the capacitor,as the capacitor dose have internal resistance--which brings us to the problem with using a capacitor,in stead of a battery.
When using a battery(as the JT is designed for),the internal resistance of the battery will increase as the voltage drops across it. As circuit 1 has more current flowing through the battery at all times to that of circuit 2,and due to the internal resistance rising in the battery as the voltage across it drops,then the power dissipated as I/R losses(waste heat) in that battery increases per energy volume/per pulse ratio. In other words,the lower the battery voltage gets,the higher the amount of energy total per pulse,is lost to waste heat in the battery,and less is delivered to the LED.
There is also the fact that during the off time of the transistor in circuit 1,energy delivered to the LED is from both the inductor and the battery,and this is confirmed by both the shorter run time,and brighter LED. This also tells us that the battery in circuit 1 will run hotter ,and that it will also dissipate more energy as waste heat.
A battery is a resistor as well,and the resistance value increases as the battery voltage drops.
In regards to a capacitor,how dose the value of internal resistance change as the voltage drops ?.
Something to think about there TK ;).
Brad
-
OK... Brad says that transistor type and coil turns don't matter as long as they are the same for both circuits. I don't fully agree with this but it certainly makes things easier for me. So for all tests, until further notice, I will be using the circuit I built and described in the other thread: MPSA18 transistor, 20+20 turns on the pot-core inductor, low-side current sensing using 0.1 ohm non-inductive CSR, and one of the LumiLed ultra-efficient LEDs for the load. I connect the LED, which is fixed to the inside end of my lightbox, to the circuit with a jumper cable about 18 inches long. All I have to do to switch between circuits is to change the pins where the jumper connects to the circuit board, so the LED isn't touched and remains in the exact same position during testing. These circuits runs at between 9 to 14 kHz or so, depending on voltage.
Lately though I have decided to use an ultracapacitor for the power source. I'll be using a Nesscap 10F 2.7V rated capacitor with 30mOhm (0.030 ohm) equivalent series resistance. See the data sheet attached below (which by the way describes an easy method to determine the actual capacitance of a test capacitor.)
Using the capacitor as power supply has several advantages. It eliminates noise caused by the power supply, it has a much lower impedance than the battery, and it allows one to track changes in light output over time as the voltage drops while running the circuit. Plotting the Lux value against seconds of runtime will allow one to generate a "lux vs. seconds" curve, the area of which will correspond to the total light output in Lux-seconds. Selecting a certain end-point voltage, say 0.450 V, and timing the time taken to reach that voltage from a given starting voltage, say 1.500 V, will give a consistent set of boundaries for measurement. Input power vs. Lux output readings can also be made along the way.
I've already done a couple of sample test runs using the ultracapacitor, charged to 1.5-1.6 V, and it works quite well. It's hard to get valid power readings from the scope at the lowest voltages due to the small current, but the input voltage and Lux values can be read quite precisely. It takes about 11-12 minutes for the voltage to go from 1.500 V to 0.450 V using Circuit 2 (LED across coil). The LED still produces measurable light output down to below 0.420 V after over 17 minutes.
Yes,we could run the test this way-using super caps. But as i stated in my last post,the cap will not include the impedance/internal resistance rise that you would get with a battery.
To carry out the test correctly using a cap in place of the battery,you would have to include a series variable resister,and increase the resistance value to mimic that of the internal resistance value of the battery as the voltage drops. You would have to get some sort of graph plot from tests carried out on an actual battery,to give you some idea as to how much the internal value increases as the voltage drops. Once you have some estimates-say at 100mV intervals,you could then adjust you VR to mimic that internal resistance when using the cap,at those 100mV intervals.
This will also allow you to calculate the energy dissipated over that internal resistance,which is now our VR,for both circuits.
We can then go onto raising the light output of circuit 2,to match that of circuit 1,and see if there is any difference between P/in for both circuits,and run time duration.
Perhaps a VR on the base would allow us to raise the light output for circuit 2,to match that of circuit 1.
I will have my test setup completed tonight.
Brad
-
Quote TK:
I couldn't get my power supply to set precisely at 1.5 volts; the voltage monitor showed 1.62 volts for the tests I have run. I checked input voltage and current both with DMMs and with oscilloscope and got essentially the same results. The output ran one LumiLed super-efficent LED in my lightbox, with the ExTech LT300 lightmeter, with sensor 18 inches away from the LED. As you can see from the image of the test circuit below, all I had to do to change between the circuits was to flip the LED connector over and attach it to the other output pins. The actual position of the LED in the lightbox is exactly the same in both cases, there is absolutely no difference in the two setups except how the LED is connected to the board.
TK
Is there a reason that you have your light meter 18 inches away from the LED?--is this some sort of specified measurement distance for the light meters?.
The reason i ask is as follows.
I am using the Digitech QM1587 light meter. I have it in a sealed box,where the distance between the meter and LED is 8 inches--maybe to close?. For the LED,i am using the array from one of those cheap LED torches from the $2.oo store,that has 9 small LEDs in the array,and runs on 3 AAA batteries.
Anyway,i was testing various inductors- wound as per the JT way,and was averaging 1995 LUX per watt--as per the calculations you used on your testing.
So, Circuit 1 ran at an average input power of 90 mW and produced 63.9 lux at the sensor, for an efficiency of 710 lux per Watt.
Circuit 2 ran at an average input power of 40 mW and produced 30.0 lux at the sensor, for an efficiency of 750 lux per Watt.
As you can see,my value per watt is much higher than yours,so im guessing that is because of the close proximity of the LEDs to the light meter sensor,and also because i am using an LED array of 9 LEDs,and not just one as you are,although mine would be just cheapies,and not super efficient one's like you are using.
Anyway,regardless of that,here is what happened.
I decided to dig out my hybrid toroid coil,and give that a whirl in the JT configuration.
Here are the measurements from that test.
P/in was 1.48 volts @ 20mA-measured with both scope and DMMs,and within 2% of each other.
So P/in= 29.6mW
Light out as per light meter was 177LUX.
177/29.6= 5.97 LUX per mW--X 1000=5970 LUX per watt.
But it gets even more interesting.
To achieve the same 177 LUX value,using straight DC from my PSU,it takes 2.98v @ 10.3mA
That is 30.69mW :o
There is more good news yet.
The circuit ATM has long wires and clip lead all over the show,and have not as yet started fine tuning by way of different value base resistances. So time to clean up the circuit by shortening all the lead's,use heavy gauge wire,and replace the 1k ohm base resistor with a VR.
I have the distance of your light meter from the LED,but could you give me the measurements for your light box,and the inside finish --E.G,is it a gloss finish that can reflect the light of the inner walls of the box,or is it a flat finish,where little reflection would take place of the inner walls of the light box.
Cheers
Brad
-
Brad:
Well, this is turning out to be a big showcase for your powers of reasoning. Let's have a look.
Well you screwed that up MH.
Nice try,but far from an even playing field.
Both inductors are supplied with the same(thats right MH--the same) amount of energy,and they are the same inductor. How you ever decided to make the input energies different--well who knows where your head is at some times.
The inductors now have the same !SAME! amount of stored energy.
So now tell us,which of the two circuits will deliver the most of there stored energy to the LED.
That is how simple it is MH.
God knows how you keep screwing these things up
Lord knows indeed, he certainly works in mysterious ways with you. I post a simple example to look at how two different load types with different duty cycles will affect the losses in a seven ohm internal resistance for the power source, and you talk about something totally different and unrelated in your response. It's like you are on the Bizzaro World debating team, and you are in higher esteem the more illogical and/or non-responsive your debating points are.
The first one being that suggested by MH. It was his thought that by including the battery in series with the inductor and LED during the off time of the transistor,that the battery would be drained to a lower voltage,and so more of the energy left in the battery would be used. As we can see,that is not the case,as the cap was left with very close to the same voltage in it with both circuit's--circuit 2 slightly lower,which would indicate a slightly deeper drain of the battery.
But I was talking about a battery as the source and this test is being done with a capacitor so you can't draw any conclusions. In addition, it makes no sense whatsoever to mention "circuit 2 slightly lower,which would indicate a slightly deeper drain of the battery" because the difference between the two final recorded capacitor voltages is insignificant. Anybody that understands science would ignore the voltage difference in this case. The debate attendees from Bizarro World are giving you a round of applause.
As there is less current flowing through the capacitor during the run,that also means less waste heat dissipated by the capacitor,as the capacitor dose have internal resistance--which brings us to the problem with using a capacitor,in stead of a battery.
But TK said this. "I'll be using a Nesscap 10F 2.7V rated capacitor with 30mOhm (0.030 ohm) equivalent series resistance." Therefore the equivalent series resistance of the capacitor can be considered negligible and can be ignored. The debate attendees from Bizarro World are giving you a another round of applause.
In regards to a capacitor,how dose the value of internal resistance change as the voltage drops?
Here is where you get a thunderous round of applause from your Bizarro fans for all of your "bench smarts."
To carry out the test correctly using a cap in place of the battery,you would have to include a series variable resister,and increase the resistance value to mimic that of the internal resistance value of the battery as the voltage drops. You would have to get some sort of graph plot from tests carried out on an actual battery,to give you some idea as to how much the internal value increases as the voltage drops. Once you have some estimates-say at 100mV intervals,you could then adjust you VR to mimic that internal resistance when using the cap,at those 100mV intervals.
You get a smattering of applause from the Bizarro Word fans. It's not really correct to say that the internal resistance of the battery increases as the "voltage drops." You don't necessarily see a voltage drop on a high-internal-resistance battery with a voltmeter, do you? The internal resistance of the battery increases as the state of charge of the battery decreases. Six years on the bench and your t-shirt looks great.
Perhaps a VR on the base would allow us to raise the light output for circuit 2,to match that of circuit 1.
Now you've got your Bizarro World fans really excited and they are waving their frying pans.
MileHigh
-
MH
Quote
Lets showcase your reasoning /Snip/ from bizzaro world"
end quote
I could not agree more ...you have an opportunity to get "infront" of the investigation and lead by example
and yet you chose to "lead from behind"
I have to say ,yes it is always much safer to lead from the back ....
But Quite Bizarre indeed.. if one truly expects to be taken seriously!
Our world is filled with "Monday morning quarterbacks"!
Not just one mans opinion ....
Chet K
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg488258#msg488258 date=1468246723]
Well, this is turning out to be a big showcase for your powers of reasoning. Let's have a look.
Lord knows indeed, he certainly works in mysterious ways with you. I post a simple example to look at how two different load types with different duty cycles will affect the losses in a seven ohm internal resistance for the power source, and you talk about something totally different and unrelated in your response. It's like you are on the Bizzaro World debating team, and you are in higher esteem the more illogical and/or non-responsive your debating points are.
I just put an end to you trying to be deceitful again.
My question was clearly stated,and we will not have you change it all around to suit your need to be correct. If you had of answered my question as asked,you would have worked out why circuit 2 is more efficient,which would mean that you were wrong--and we cant have that now,can we :D
But I was talking about a battery as the source and this test is being done with a capacitor so you can't draw any conclusions. In addition, it makes no sense whatsoever to mention "circuit 2 slightly lower,which would indicate a slightly deeper drain of the battery" because the difference between the two final recorded capacitor voltages is insignificant. Anybody that understands science would ignore the voltage difference in this case. The debate attendees from Bizarro World are giving you a round of applause.
It would seem that you also need a few lessons in deep battery discharging as well.
I have clearly explained the difference in using caps to batteries to TK,and im sure he already knew that anyway. But the outcome will be the same in the end,and circuit 2 will discharge the battery,and use more of it's remaining energy to that of circuit 1.
But TK said this. "I'll be using a Nesscap 10F 2.7V rated capacitor with 30mOhm (0.030 ohm) equivalent series resistance." Therefore the equivalent series resistance of the capacitor can be considered negligible and can be ignored. The debate attendees from Bizarro World are giving you a another round of applause.
Well MH,it would once again seem you took a hop,skip,and face plant :D
Im guessing you !once again! did not read what i wrote to TK,regarding simulating the increasing internal resistance of a battery as the voltage drop's,when using a cap as the power supply.
Here is where you get a thunderous round of applause from your Bizarro fans for all of your "bench smarts."
You get a smattering of applause from the Bizarro Word fans. It's not really correct to say that the internal resistance of the battery increases as the "voltage drops." You don't necessarily see a voltage drop on a high-internal-resistance battery with a voltmeter, do you? The internal resistance of the battery increases as the state of charge of the battery decreases. Six years on the bench and your t-shirt looks great.
OMG MH--are you serious :o
The internal resistance of the battery increases as the state of charge of the battery decreases.
So MH--Mr bench guru,when the battery is driving a load,and the state of charge decreases,causing the internal resistance of the battery to increase,what will happen to the voltage across the battery ::)
You don't necessarily see a voltage drop on a high-internal-resistance battery with a voltmeter, do you?
Well im not sure what planet you came from,but here on earth-yes you do see a voltage drop as the internal resistance increases.
Feel free to show us how you can measure the internal resistance of a battery,without seeing a voltage drop across that battery,as you carry out your test :D--this should be good ;D
MH,you seem to be struggling lately,and your skill set seems to have plummeted to an all time low.
Perhaps you could tell everyone reading this thread,as to how the voltage across a battery driving a load will not decrease as that battery discharges,and the internal resistance of that battery go's up as the state of charge go's down ???.
Now you've got your Bizarro World fans really excited and they are waving their frying pans
.
What we have got,and have just seen once again MH,is you grasping for air,and coming up with some of the wackiest post we have ever seen here on this forum.
It has become very clear MH,that you are only here to derail the thread once again,and your whakadoo comments above proved just that.
MH
What ever happy pills the doctor has given you,i would stop taking.
Go back to the doctor,and tell him that they are not good for you. In fact,i would change doctors if i were you ;)
Brad
-
MH
Quote
Lets showcase your reasoning /Snip/ from bizzaro world"
end quote
I could not agree more ...you have an opportunity to get "infront" of the investigation and lead by example
and yet you chose to "lead from behind"
I have to say ,yes it is always much safer to lead from the back ....
But Quite Bizarre indeed.. if one truly expects to be taken seriously!
Our world is filled with "Monday morning quarterbacks"!
Not just one mans opinion ....
Chet K
Chet
Lets stop fooling our selves here. MH is never going to take on my challenge--not even with the help of one of the brightest minds on this forum(itsu).
Looking at his last post,i think he has lost a couple of cows in the top paddock :
It has become very clear that his mighty pen would have been no match for the bench experimenter .
The good news is that the hybrid toroid transformer has double+ the efficiency than any other JT transformer i have tried so far--and that includes some very well wound ferrite toroid cores of many shapes and sizes.
What i would like to do,is put it up against the best TK has,and see how it go's.
First i need to get my light box to the same specks as TK's,so as we are working with an even playing field.
So lets just forget about the MH challenge,as i think(still think) that the hybrid toroid coil has a lot to offer.
Brad
-
Brad:
In regards to a capacitor,how dose the value of internal resistance change as the voltage drops?
It's almost hopeless with you, isn't it? You have been on the bench playing with capacitors for six years. You have read all about capacitors and have seen them being discussed on the forums countless times. You have seen diagrams of how they are constructed and how they work.
Yet apparently you don't have any innate sense whatsoever of what is going on inside a capacitor, and you make the most idiotic and ridiculous comment. It almost makes it look like in your mind the true workings of a capacitor remain a mysterious, enigmatic, and amorphous grey blob. For you a capacitor may as well be a grey blob. In all sincerity, how else could you pose such a ridiculous question?
Perhaps a VR on the base would allow us to raise the light output for circuit 2,to match that of circuit 1.
And we talked about the Joule Thief and the base resistor in a Joule Thief over and over. And your comment reveals, to no surprise, that you still apparently don't have the slightest idea about how a Joule Thief actually functions. Sometimes speculations or questions posed by individuals inadvertently reveal how limited their understanding of something really is.
Your Bizarro World fans are ecstatically clanking their frying pans together in a cacophony of frying pan high fives, they are so excited.
MileHigh
-
Brad, my lightbox was built when I was doing some efficiency tests for another project, to compare with results from some other researchers. This is why I used the 18 inch distance from LED to sensor. The box is 5 inches square by 18 inches long (inside dimensions) and is painted inside with gloss white paint. The Extech LT300 lightmeter sensor dome is in the center of the back end wall. The front end wall is removable for access, and has a small breadboard attached to its inner surface for mounting LEDs etc. This puts the LED about 1/2 inch from the actual surface of the front wall. The actual distance from the LED under test and the sensor inside the dome is 18 inches, as the sensor itself is recessed a bit in its housing.
I'm using one LumiLED Luxeon 3535L surface-mount LED (part number MXA7-PW57-H001) in the center of the front wall breadboard, soldered to some pins to fit the breadboard. These LEDs have a nice wide dispersion angle and no focussing lens. They are superefficent, but are generally meant to be supplied with 100 or 200 mA DC max (depending on exact part number). At that drive current they are blindingly brilliant (but need a heatsink), but even at 20 mA drive they are amazingly bright. I've attached the full data sheet for these LEDs below. They are great, you should order some!
Has nobody drawn graphs from my raw data yet? :-*
-
Brad:
Yes,we could run the test this way-using super caps. But as i stated in my last post,the cap will not include the impedance/internal resistance rise that you would get with a battery.
To carry out the test correctly using a cap in place of the battery,you would have to include a series variable resister,and increase the resistance value to mimic that of the internal resistance value of the battery as the voltage drops. You would have to get some sort of graph plot from tests carried out on an actual battery,to give you some idea as to how much the internal value increases as the voltage drops. Once you have some estimates-say at 100mV intervals,you could then adjust you VR to mimic that internal resistance when using the cap,at those 100mV intervals.
It seems that you have stepped into the Portable Logic Discombobulator (DLP) shipped directly from The Bizarro Duller Image Inc. Remember when I mentioned about acting on thoughts without thinking a bit deeper before the premature pearls of wisdom start popping out?
The DLP is used by the Bizarro World debaters to dull their wits in preparation for a big debate. You step into it and there are buttons for the various discombobulation settings; "Sauté," "Sizzle," and "Pan-Fry."
Would you like to super-size your fries what that? Your supporters are rooting for you.
MileHigh
-
@MH: Without my entering the debate too deeply.... Just what is wrong with the idea of equalizing the impedances of the capacitor and battery by using a variable resistance in series with the capacitor? I'm not asking whether or not this is actually necessary to make the test valid (I don't think it is necessary), I'm asking you to explain what is wrong with the idea. After all, the necessary added resistance would only be a few ohms at most. Approximating the change in battery impedance by using a fixed resistor at the average value would probably be "close enough" as they say.
Meanwhile, back at the Real Data Dude Ranch.... here is the graphed raw data from my testing of last night. Which circuit is more efficient? Let the happy reader decide.
The total light output over the time of the test can be seen in the Lux-Seconds curves as the integration (total area) of the curves. The voltage vs. light output efficiency can be derived from the Lux-Voltage curves.
-
@MH: Without my entering the debate too deeply.... Just what is wrong with the idea of equalizing the impedances of the capacitor and battery by using a variable resistance in series with the capacitor? I'm not asking whether or not this is actually necessary to make the test valid (I don't think it is necessary), I'm asking you to explain what is wrong with the idea. After all, the necessary added resistance would only be a few ohms at most. Approximating the change in battery impedance by using a fixed resistor at the average value would probably be "close enough" as they say.
Let's see if Brad can figure that out first, it's his pearl of wisdom.
"'Eye sea,' said the blind man."
-
MH: You may recall Mark Dansie's earlier comment about testing a circuit that was optimized for the particular power cell they are using. It turned out that this optimization included taking into account the output impedance of the power cell. One test that was performed involved substituting a capacitor charged to the nominal voltage of the power cell. This resulted in the immediate failure (smoke release) of the MarkE-designed circuit's DC-DC converter chip, due to the ability of the capacitor to deliver a lot more current at the design voltage than the original power cell could. It turns out that a proper test with a capacitor would use a series resistance (albeit very low, like 0.1 to 1.0 ohms) to avoid blowing the converter chip.
The moral of the story is that one may not neglect the output impedance of the power source arbitrarily. Now, whether or not the battery's output impedance actually matters very much in the present testing of the JT circuit efficiency.... that is another question. After all, the power dissipation of a couple of ohms at say 40 mA is... shall we say.... not very great.
I2R= .040 x .040 x 2 = a bit over 3 milliWatts.
Personally I should think that a real test of the circuit efficiencies should use as low a supply impedance as possible. Maybe PW and .99 and others might like to weigh in on this topic.
After all, many times in testing various circuits we have seen on this forum, the suggestion has been made that capacitors should be used instead of batteries. But also, we have seen cases where the battery type and condition made a big difference in performance. So perhaps the battery indeed should be considered a critical component of the JT.
Opinions? Discussions?
Meanwhile one last graph from the raw data: Voltage vs. Duration
(Note the little bump in the Blue data: this is probably due to my delay or error in recording that one data point.)
-
Brad, my lightbox was built when I was doing some efficiency tests for another project, to compare with results from some other researchers. This is why I used the 18 inch distance from LED to sensor. The box is 5 inches square by 18 inches long (inside dimensions) and is painted inside with gloss white paint. The Extech LT300 lightmeter sensor dome is in the center of the back end wall. The front end wall is removable for access, and has a small breadboard attached to its inner surface for mounting LEDs etc. This puts the LED about 1/2 inch from the actual surface of the front wall. The actual distance from the LED under test and the sensor inside the dome is 18 inches, as the sensor itself is recessed a bit in its housing.
I'm using one LumiLED Luxeon 3535L surface-mount LED (part number MXA7-PW57-H001) in the center of the front wall breadboard, soldered to some pins to fit the breadboard. These LEDs have a nice wide dispersion angle and no focussing lens. They are superefficent, but are generally meant to be supplied with 100 or 200 mA DC max (depending on exact part number). At that drive current they are blindingly brilliant (but need a heatsink), but even at 20 mA drive they are amazingly bright. I've attached the full data sheet for these LEDs below. They are great, you should order some!
:-*
Thanks for the info TK,i will begin construction of a light box so as it matches your light box dimensions.
I will call into jaycar on the way home tonight,and grab a small bread board,as that sounds a great way to change out different light globe's/LEDs
Has nobody drawn graphs from my raw data yet?
Sorry TK,i havnt had time,as i have been working on my setup.
MH seems to have much spare time :D
Brad
-
Personally I should think that a real test of the circuit efficiencies should use as low a supply impedance as possible. Maybe PW and .99 and others might like to weigh in on this topic.
I think I've essentially weighed in on this already with the challenge I posted. The power source was to be a bench supply set to 1.5V. It's the only way to establish a known fixed input condition. The Ro of most bench supplies should be low enough such that 100mW of power draw isn't going to drop the voltage much nor cause ripple on the output.
-
I think I've essentially weighed in on this already with the challenge I posted. The power source was to be a bench supply set to 1.5V. It's the only way to establish a known fixed input condition. The Ro of most bench supplies should be low enough such that 100mW of power draw isn't going to drop the voltage much nor cause ripple on the output.
Poynt
We are not talking about the challenge,we are talking about the two JT circuit's.
While the battery is running a JT circuit(or any load),and the voltage drops across that battery,dose not the internal resistance/impedance of the battery increase?.
If so,then is energy dissipated across this resistance?
If that is also correct,would it not be more efficient to avoid sending current through this resistance as much as possible ?.
Brad
-
Let's see if Brad can figure that out first, it's his pearl of wisdom.
"'Eye sea,' said the blind man."
I think you have forgotten much of what you have said in this thread MH.
Perhaps you should go back and review the discussion in relation to having a VR on the base,and what you said about it making no difference to light output by decreasing the base resistance,due to the internal resistance/impedance of the battery as the voltage drop's.
This may stop you from dropping your self in it again ;)
Just a suggestion ;)
Brad
-
I think you have forgotten much of what you have said in this thread MH.
Perhaps you should go back and review the discussion in relation to having a VR on the base,and what you said about it making no difference to light output by decreasing the base resistance,due to the internal resistance/impedance of the battery as the voltage drop's.
This may stop you from dropping your self in it again ;)
Just a suggestion ;)
Brad
I can hear the sounds of the frying pans clanking off in the distance.
I tried to repeatedly to explain to you what the base resistor was for you but you would have none of that. I tried repeatedly to explain to you that your test that showed a limited amount of brightness change in the LED was just a distant secondary effect of changing the value of the base resistor but you wouldn't have any of that. Just like the YouTube clip explaining how a Joule Thief works got you all confused, frustrated, and mad, you clearly have no understanding about how a Joule Thief works even though it must have been explained to you at least a dozen times.
Here is your big bamboozle moment:
The chances of TK changing the value of the base resistor in the second circuit to bring the Lux output to the same level as the first circuit while maintaining proper Joule Thief circuit operation are essentially nil.
Here is your big bamboozle moment II:
To carry out the test correctly using a cap in place of the battery,you would have to include a series variable resister,and increase the resistance value to mimic that of the internal resistance value of the battery as the voltage drops.
Okay! So the supercapcap drops from 1.5 volts to say one volt. You measure the output impedance of the battery when it also has dropped to one volt driving when the Joule Thief and say for illustrative purposes the output impedance of the battery is measured as being 10 ohms.
Here is where Brad's brain is on fire!
He takes his supercap which is outputting one volt, then adds the series resistor of 10 ohms, and then connects the Joule Thief load. "We have the technology."
Then he sets the setup off to run, and WHOOPS!, he is not measuring one volt at the Joule Thief now. He is only measuring 0.85 volts!
What's going on? Brad says, "I know when my supercap is at one volt I must put a 10-ohm resistor in series. But then the voltage at the Joule Thief is 0.85 volts." "I am confused, because I know when my battery voltage is 0.85 volts, the output impedance is 12 ohms and I am supposed to put a 12-ohm resistor in series."
"But I just put a 10-ohm resistor in place but now I have to put a 12-ohm resistor in place??"
The steaming she is a starting, the sizzling sound she is a crackling. Get your marshmallows out!
The fans from Bizarro World start up a chant, "More discombobulator! More discombulator!" with the clanking sound of frying pans in the background.
The moral of the story: Avoid the Logic Discombobulator and think first before you leap into the forum.
-
I can hear the sounds of the frying pans clanking off in the distance.
I tried to repeatedly to explain to you what the base resistor was for you but you would have none of that. I tried repeatedly to explain to you that your test that showed a limited amount of brightness change in the LED was just a distant secondary effect of changing the value of the base resistor but you wouldn't have any of that. Just like the YouTube clip explaining how a Joule Thief works got you all confused, frustrated, and mad, you clearly have no understanding about how a Joule Thief works even though it must have been explained to you at least a dozen times.
Here is your big bamboozle moment:
The chances of TK changing the value of the base resistor in the second circuit to bring the Lux output to the same level as the first circuit while maintaining proper Joule Thief circuit operation are essentially nil.
Here is your big bamboozle moment II:
Okay! So the supercapcap drops from 1.5 volts to say one volt. You measure the output impedance of the battery when it also has dropped to one volt driving when the Joule Thief and say for illustrative purposes the output impedance of the battery is measured as being 10 ohms.
Here is where Brad's brain is on fire!
He takes his supercap which is outputting one volt, then adds the series resistor of 10 ohms, and then connects the Joule Thief load. "We have the technology."
Then he sets the setup off to run, and WHOOPS!, he is not measuring one volt at the Joule Thief now. He is only measuring 0.85 volts!
What's going on? Brad says, "I know when my supercap is at one volt I must put a 10-ohm resistor in series. But then the voltage at the Joule Thief is 0.85 volts." "I am confused, because I know when my battery voltage is 0.85 volts, the output impedance is 12 ohms and I am supposed to put a 12-ohm resistor in series."
"But I just put a 10-ohm resistor in place but now I have to put a 12-ohm resistor in place??"
The steaming she is a starting, the sizzling sound she is a crackling. Get your marshmallows out!
The fans from Bizarro World start up a chant, "More discombobulator! More discombulator!" with the clanking sound of frying pans in the background.
The moral of the story: Avoid the Logic Discombobulator and think first before you leap into the forum.
Lol
You are a strange man MH.
Brad
-
Would seem a med imbalance...
the auditory hallucinations should calm down in a day or two..."I can hear the sounds of the frying pans clanking off in the distance.".
Might take longer for the others to stop...["steaming Brain Fires" and such]
I suggest a few days off and lay off the Old Star trek marathons ...
and definitely no old Pink panther marathons!!
could make the twitching much worse !!
:o
Oh and back to crayons for the time being no "pens" or other sharp objects.
-
Would seem a med imbalance...
the auditory hallucinations should calm down in a day or two..."I can hear the sounds of the frying pans clanking off in the distance.".
Might take longer for the others to stop...["steaming Brain Fires" and such]
I suggest a few days off and lay off the Old Star trek marathons ...
and definitely no old Pink panther marathons!!
could make the twitching much worse !!
:o
Oh and back to crayons for the time being no "pens" or other sharp objects.
MH seems to have missed the fact that the circuit resistance changes during the on time,regardless of that of the batteries internal resistance,due to the inductor. I mean,he just spent months on the ideal coil thread explaining this ,but now there seems no need to take that into account-hmmm.
TK asked MH a valid question in regards to having a series resistor when using a cap,so as to mimic that which would be had with a battery,but MH played dodgem.
Anyway,should get the light box built tonight,to match that of TKs.
Brad
-
I can hear the sounds of the frying pans clanking off in the distance.
I tried to repeatedly to explain to you what the base resistor was for you but you would have none of that. I tried repeatedly to explain to you that your test that showed a limited amount of brightness change in the LED was just a distant secondary effect of changing the value of the base resistor but you wouldn't have any of that. Just like the YouTube clip explaining how a Joule Thief works got you all confused, frustrated, and mad, you clearly have no understanding about how a Joule Thief works even though it must have been explained to you at least a dozen times.
Here is your big bamboozle moment:
The chances of TK changing the value of the base resistor in the second circuit to bring the Lux output to the same level as the first circuit while maintaining proper Joule Thief circuit operation are essentially nil.
Here is your big bamboozle moment II:
Okay! So the supercapcap drops from 1.5 volts to say one volt. You measure the output impedance of the battery when it also has dropped to one volt driving when the Joule Thief and say for illustrative purposes the output impedance of the battery is measured as being 10 ohms.
Here is where Brad's brain is on fire!
He takes his supercap which is outputting one volt, then adds the series resistor of 10 ohms, and then connects the Joule Thief load. "We have the technology."
Then he sets the setup off to run, and WHOOPS!, he is not measuring one volt at the Joule Thief now. He is only measuring 0.85 volts!
What's going on? Brad says, "I know when my supercap is at one volt I must put a 10-ohm resistor in series. But then the voltage at the Joule Thief is 0.85 volts." "I am confused, because I know when my battery voltage is 0.85 volts, the output impedance is 12 ohms and I am supposed to put a 12-ohm resistor in series."
"But I just put a 10-ohm resistor in place but now I have to put a 12-ohm resistor in place??"
The steaming she is a starting, the sizzling sound she is a crackling. Get your marshmallows out!
The fans from Bizarro World start up a chant, "More discombobulator! More discombulator!" with the clanking sound of frying pans in the background.
The moral of the story: Avoid the Logic Discombobulator and think first before you leap into the forum.
MH
Perhaps you should have a rethink about that wonderful post again,only this time ,take into account the impedance of the inductor-as we do have one in a JT you know.
Now,the instant the transistor switches on,what would be the voltage across the series capacito/resistor ,and as the impedance of the inductor decreases over time (per pulse),what would happen to the voltage across our series capacitor/resistor?
Now we do the same test,but with a battery that has that same resistance value and same voltage of our series capacitor/resistor--what do you suppose would be the outcome?.
Yes,it pays to think before splattering stuff all over a forum.
Brad
-
Yes, Brad, what you probably aren't realizing is that your model is wrong.
The proper model would be a fixed voltage source in series with a variable resistor, and of course the value of the resistor increases over time to model the battery getting discharged.
That simple model takes care of everything. The voltage will drop over time under load with this simple model. That's the model for a battery.
Your incorrect model is a dropping voltage source (the capacitor) in series with a variable resistor. That model is no good because the lower voltage in the capacitor already represents the voltage drop associated with the impedance, but the actual output impedance is not correct. Then when you tack on the variable resistor to match the impedance you cause another voltage drop that you don't want. That new voltage drop represents another impedance and you end up chasing your tail around and around. <<< From below: Or you can write a software control system if you wanted to torture yourself, perhaps some spaghetti code. Or, you could do a table look-up and dumb it down. >>>
All that you really need to do is write a simple litte microcontroller program, like in an Arduino.
The Arduino monitors the voltage and the current from the power supply which is set at 1.5 volts. The program will monitor how much energy has been put into the load. The microcontroller is connected to a little stepper motor that connects to a 10-turn pot. The 10-turn pot is used as the series output resistance for the 1.5 volt power supply.
So as the energy is delivered to the load the Arduino will adjust the 10-turn pot to emulate the increasing output impedance of the emulated battery. So with not too much effort you can make a decent little battery emulator that also monitors energy delivered to the load. You could even load in different battery profiles, regular, alkaline, etc.
Then there are some cat-calls from the Bizarro World supporters. "Put a stepper motor on the voltage control also!!" And indeed, if you had perhaps a bench power supply with a voltage control input, you could connect an Arduino D/A channel to the bench power supply. Then you would hear the clanking from the rabid frying pan crowd. You now have a Bizarro Whackadoo II self-monitoring power supply with variable voltage output and variable output resistance all under software control. It can even play an mp3 song at the same time (Or perhaps maybe a software waveform generator perhaps??).
You see Brad, I can invent a project off the top of my head in five minutes that is probably more interesting than anything you have come up with over the past six years. If I was so inclined I could build it too.
The pen is mightier than the bench.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zdcMXl3J0Q
-
Isn't anyone going to analyze the graphs? Oh well....
Both Circuit 1 and Circuit 2 data were taken until the voltage dropped below 0.450 V, which was the predefined endpoint of the trials. Looking at the Lux - Seconds graph we can see something very interesting. While a rough integration using numerical methods shows that Circuit 1 is the _overall_ winner in terms of Lux-seconds, this is only due to the first three minutes of the data. Considering only the data after 210 seconds (corresponding to a voltage of somewhere around 0.9-1 volt), we see that Circuit 2 produces more total light.
In terms of (lux-seconds) per Joule, for the total data, we have :
Circuit 1 produces 8698.8 Lux-seconds of light and uses 11.16 Joules, for an energy efficiency of 779.15 LS/J.
Circuit 2 produces 7483.2 Lux-seconds of light and uses 11.77 Joules, for an energy efficiency of 635.60 LS/J.
But considering only the data from 210 seconds on, we have :
Circuit 1 produces 2035.8 Lux-seconds of light and uses 2.54 Joules, for an energy efficiency of 801.1 LS/J.
Circuit 2 produces 2698.2 Lux-seconds of light .... but uses 3.82 Joules, for an energy efficiency of 706.9 LS/J.
Please check my math and my reasoning....
-
TK:
Very interesting numbers. It's apparent that circuit $1 is giving you more Lux-seconds per Joule, even after that 210-second cross-over point on the Lux-duration chart.
To me it suggests if you could lower the consumption of circuit #1 then you could possibly be in a position where circuit #1 runs at approximately the same power levels and the same Lux levels at circuit #2. Considering the data we have seen so far, then it looks like this hypothetical circuit #1A would blow circuit #2 out of the water.
So that raises an interesting question, doesn't it? If you are working within the basic architecture of the Joule Thief, and you have a fixed supply voltage, what is the best way to lower the average power consumption but keep roughly the same instantaneous current levels flowing through the LED?
What I am seeing is that the basic timing is determined by the inductance of the main power coil. So if you increased the number of turns of the main coil, that should slow down the energizing cycle. However, this will change the turns ratio for the feedback coil also, and you might have to add turns to the feedback coil to maintain the proper EMF to the base resistor to keep the feedback switching circuit operating properly. However, you might be able to get away with less feedback coil turns if you lower the value of the base resistor a bit.
So, let's assume that you now have a longer inductor energizing cycle and the Joule Thief slows down. Let's assume for the sake of argument the initial current through the main coil is approximately the same when the Joule Thief switches and starts the discharge through the LED. So, you have approximately the same instantaneous brightness but it's a bigger and longer burn from a bigger main coil. Slower pulse repetition rate but a bigger pulse, have you really lowered your average input power? I am not sure. Has the Lux brightness changed a little or a lot? What about the actual human eye? I am not sure.
And in the background is the problem of whenever you add more turns to a coil, the more wire resistance losses you have.
So, I am not sure how easy it is to slow down a Joule Thief and keep other parameters where you want them to be.
Then the other approach, assuming that you have a blank slate, is to try to manipulate the size and overall relative permeability of the core itself to try to throttle down the power consumption.
Anyway, I am just musing here.
MileHigh
-
Isn't anyone going to analyze the graphs? Oh well....
Both Circuit 1 and Circuit 2 data were taken until the voltage dropped below 0.450 V, which was the predefined endpoint of the trials. Looking at the Lux - Seconds graph we can see something very interesting. While a rough integration using numerical methods shows that Circuit 1 is the _overall_ winner in terms of Lux-seconds, this is only due to the first three minutes of the data. Considering only the data after 210 seconds (corresponding to a voltage of somewhere around 0.9-1 volt), we see that Circuit 2 produces more total light.
In terms of (lux-seconds) per Joule, for the total data, we have :
Circuit 1 produces 8698.8 Lux-seconds of light and uses 11.16 Joules, for an energy efficiency of 779.15 LS/J.
Circuit 2 produces 7483.2 Lux-seconds of light and uses 11.77 Joules, for an energy efficiency of 635.60 LS/J.
But considering only the data from 210 seconds on, we have :
Circuit 1 produces 2035.8 Lux-seconds of light and uses 2.54 Joules, for an energy efficiency of 801.1 LS/J.
Circuit 2 produces 2698.2 Lux-seconds of light .... but uses 3.82 Joules, for an energy efficiency of 706.9 LS/J.
Please check my math and my reasoning....
Great data there TK-thanks for your time spent on this so far.
Next we should look at the series resistance that would exist when using a nearly depleted battery,as this is what the JT was designed for.
As i said earlier,i should have my light box and circuit done tonight.
This way i can compare my data against yours with some degree of accuracy between our two test beds.
I will see if i can get some of the LEDs you are using as well,but will have to stick to what i have ATM.
Thanks
Brad
-
Would seem a med imbalance...
the auditory hallucinations should calm down in a day or two..."I can hear the sounds of the frying pans clanking off in the distance.".
I can see you have about as much imagination and creativity as lumpy gravy. I guess that you are just a drone in The Grand Parade of Lifeless Packaging.
For the grand parade of lifeless packaging
All ready to use
The grand parade of lifeless packaging
I just need a fuse
Got people stocked in every shade
Must be doing well with trade
Stamped, addressed in odd fatality
That evens out their personality
With profit potential marked by a sign
I can recognize some of the production line
No bite at all in labor bondage
Just wrinkled wrappers or human bandage
Grand parade of lifeless packaging
All ready to use
It's the grand parade of lifeless packaging
I just need a fuse
"We are now in our manufacturing phase. Your interest is important to us but due to overwhelming demand we have temporarily suspended accepting orders at this time."
-
Yes, Brad, what you probably aren't realizing is that your model is wrong.
The proper model would be a fixed voltage source in series with a variable resistor, and of course the value of the resistor increases over time to model the battery getting discharged.
That simple model takes care of everything. The voltage will drop over time under load with this simple model. That's the model for a battery.
Your incorrect model is a dropping voltage source (the capacitor) in series with a variable resistor. That model is no good because the lower voltage in the capacitor already represents the voltage drop associated with the impedance, but the actual output impedance is not correct. Then when you tack on the variable resistor to match the impedance you cause another voltage drop that you don't want. That new voltage drop represents another impedance and you end up chasing your tail around and around. <<< From below: Or you can write a software control system if you wanted to torture yourself, perhaps some spaghetti code. Or, you could do a table look-up and dumb it down. >>>
All that you really need to do is write a simple litte microcontroller program, like in an Arduino.
The Arduino monitors the voltage and the current from the power supply which is set at 1.5 volts. The program will monitor how much energy has been put into the load. The microcontroller is connected to a little stepper motor that connects to a 10-turn pot. The 10-turn pot is used as the series output resistance for the 1.5 volt power supply.
So as the energy is delivered to the load the Arduino will adjust the 10-turn pot to emulate the increasing output impedance of the emulated battery. So with not too much effort you can make a decent little battery emulator that also monitors energy delivered to the load. You could even load in different battery profiles, regular, alkaline, etc.
Then there are some cat-calls from the Bizarro World supporters. "Put a stepper motor on the voltage control also!!" And indeed, if you had perhaps a bench power supply with a voltage control input, you could connect an Arduino D/A channel to the bench power supply. Then you would hear the clanking from the rabid frying pan crowd. You now have a Bizarro Whackadoo II self-monitoring power supply with variable voltage output and variable output resistance all under software control. It can even play an mp3 song at the same time (Or perhaps maybe a software waveform generator perhaps??).
You see Brad, I can invent a project off the top of my head in five minutes that is probably more interesting than anything you have come up with over the past six years. If I was so inclined I could build it too.
The pen is mightier than the bench.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zdcMXl3J0Q
Dear MH
You do know that the actual open voltage of a battery will decrease as the stored energy decreases in value-dont you? That being known,then im afraid it is your modle that is incorrect,as the voltage simple will not remain the same as the internal resistance increases--should i show you this on the bench?,as your pen seems to be malfunctioning.
Brad
-
Dear MH
You do know that the actual open voltage of a battery will decrease as the stored energy decreases in value-dont you? That being known,then im afraid it is your modle that is incorrect,as the voltage simple will not remain the same as the internal resistance increases--should i show you this on the bench?,as your pen seems to be malfunctioning.
Brad
And you can be such a complete bimbo sometimes, can't you Brad? Forget about locking yourself up in a room for one month with four electronics books, how about much longer?
Even if the unloaded voltage of the battery decreases somewhat, this is pretty much junk data and it can be safely ignored. The simple battery model works just fine. Presumably you might indeed find differences between the absolute and the differential output impedance of a battery at a given operating point, I haven't really read in major depth about batteries. However, I am figuring that if there were major differences in the absolute and differential impedance, I would have heard of it. For sure there are much more complex battery models, but we aren't going there.
What do you think the "battery tester" function is there for on your multimeter? It's because just measuring the open-circuit battery voltage with the voltmeter is no good. You have to switch to battery tester mode to put a moderate load on the battery to get a better picture of the voltage drop/state of charge of the battery.
I know that you must know this, and yet you still stated what was quoted above. It's like Neuron A can't talk to Neuron B sometimes.
-
And you can be such a complete bimbo sometimes, can't you Brad? Forget about locking yourself up in a room for one month with four electronics books, how about much longer?
Even if the unloaded voltage of the battery decreases somewhat, this is pretty much junk data and it can be safely ignored. The simple battery model works just fine. Presumably you might indeed find differences between the absolute and the differential output impedance of a battery at a given operating point, I haven't really read in major depth about batteries. However, I am figuring that if there were major differences in the absolute and differential impedance, I would have heard of it. For sure there are much more complex battery models, but we aren't going there.
What do you think the "battery tester" function is there for on your multimeter? It's because just measuring the open-circuit battery voltage with the voltmeter is no good. You have to switch to battery tester mode to put a moderate load on the battery to get a better picture of the voltage drop/state of charge of the battery.
I know that you must know this, and yet you still stated what was quoted above. It's like Neuron A can't talk to Neuron B sometimes.
Oh- you havnt actually read into batteries,but you are an authority on them.
Sounds much like the resonance in and around an ICE all over again.
The capacitor with the series VR is the best and most accurate modle for a battery.
The voltage of the cap will fall like that of a battery,and the VR can be used to represent the rising impedance of the battery.
At t= 0,the inductor will see the actual voltage across that capacitor,regardless of the series resistance-that being our VR. Then as the impedance value of the inductor falls,then our modled batteries voltage will also drop.
Brad
-
I've found the way to test AA cell is to set on the 10 amp setting, voltage doesn't
tell you much.
John.
-
I've found the way to test AA cell is to set on the 10 amp setting, voltage doesn't
tell you much.
John.
Such a delight to have your insightful input minnie :D
Brad
-
I've found the way to test AA cell is to set on the 10 amp setting, voltage doesn't
tell you much.
John.
Actually,you will need a known value resistor in there as well as your amp meter ;)
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg488309#msg488309 date=1468308406]
And you can be such a complete bimbo sometimes, can't you Brad?
Bimbo-->an attractive but unintelligent or frivolous young woman. :D
Forget about locking yourself up in a room for one month with four electronics books, how about much longer?
And continue to learn the past?
Even if the unloaded voltage of the battery decreases somewhat, this is pretty much junk data and it can be safely ignored.
Lol-ok :o
The simple battery model works just fine.
Well mine will,yours will not,as the battery voltage will not remain the same as it dose with your model. Your model will show the same voltage across the inductor at T=0 for all time,where as mine will show the actual battery voltage drop at T=0.
If you did some bench work,you would see the error of your ways.
Presumably you might indeed find differences between the absolute and the differential output impedance of a battery at a given operating point, I haven't really read in major depth about batteries.
"Déjà Vu" hit.
However, I am figuring that if there were major differences in the absolute and differential impedance, I would have heard of it.
Like you would of heard about a J/FET ;D
For sure there are much more complex battery models, but we aren't going there.
Nope.
The battery model to suit our purpose is quite simple.
What do you think the "battery tester" function is there for on your multimeter? It's because just measuring the open-circuit battery voltage with the voltmeter is no good. You have to switch to battery tester mode to put a moderate load on the battery to get a better picture of the voltage drop/state of charge of the battery.
Indeed MH--now your learning ;)
Now,what voltage will we see at T=0 across the inductor ?
Will it be A-the open voltage of the battery?
Or B-the loaded voltage of the battery,as per what the multimeter will show?
I know that you must know this, and yet you still stated what was quoted above. It's like Neuron A can't talk to Neuron B sometimes.
Perhaps a little peak in the mirror would be a good choice at this point in time MH.
Now,are you sure you want TK to carry out the measurements again,using your idea of a simulated battery?,where you have a power supply supplying 1.5v,and a VR in series with that power supply to imitate battery impedance.
Perhaps you should look back at some of the earlier measurements,where TK used the PSU,where for some !!odd!! reason,circuit 2 was more efficient at producing more light per Mw.
Have you even stopped to think as to why,when TK used the PSU,that circuit 2 was more efficient than circuit 1,and then by some miracle,when TK swapped over to a capacitor as the power supply,circuit 1 all of a sudden became more efficient than circuit 2 :o
So, shall we do as you request,and use the power supply at a set voltage of 1.5v(or any voltage you wish),and have that series resistor to simulate the impedance of the battery as you stated ?.
What will we get if TK comes back with results like that of his first test using the PSU
So, Circuit 1 ran at an average input power of 90 mW and produced 63.9 lux at the sensor, for an efficiency of 710 lux per Watt.
Circuit 2 ran at an average input power of 40 mW and produced 30.0 lux at the sensor, for an efficiency of 750 lux per Watt.
A second set of results at a lower input voltage of 1.52V:
Circuit 1 gave 49.3 Lux at an average input power of 54.6 mW for an efficiency of 903 Lux/Watt.
Circuit 2 gave 26.1 Lux at an average input power of 28 mW for an efficiency of 932 Lux/Watt.
Operating frequency is between 10 and 11 kHz.
Will your responce then be much like it was when you fist seen those result's ?
Well, I can easily see Brad having a braingasm from TK's posting
Perhaps MH,you could tell us exactly what type of efficiency you would want to see--that way we can just keep testing until we get the results you want,and screw actually looking for the correct answer--like,why was there a swap around in efficiency between the two circuits ,when TK went from a power supply,to a battery?
Would you like to have a go at explaining that maybe?
One of the classic weaknesses on the forums is to use the term "efficiency" without even defining what it means. Brad is someone that does this all the time.
Take a look at a Joule Thief. Are we talking about electrical power in vs. electrical power out efficiency like Poynt just stated? Or are we talking about electrical power in vs. light power out like TK just stated?
What about the LED itself? Are you doing your "burn" at the optimum efficiency point for the LED where you get the most light out per milliwatt in?
How flat or sloped is the current discharge curve across the LED when you are doing a burn? Does this have an impact on the power in to light out efficiency?
What about the flashing frequency and duty cycle and human perception of brightness?
What about the human perception of the light level? How do you define an "adequate" level of light output from the Joule Thief? Is it just bright enough to be a panel indicator light? Or do you want a practical amount of light like a small night light? Is there a sweet spot for human perception of the light output from a Joule Thief?
How you define efficiency for a Joule Thief is a big enough question for such a little circuit. But it is what it is.
Just saying, "Wow, that looks like an efficient Joule Thief!" is essentially meaningless if you don't qualify it.
Brad
-
Actually,you will need a known value resistor in there as well as your amp meter ;)
Rubbish,I've done it for years.
-
Brad:
Where is your model for the battery coming from that has the decreasing source voltage? Is it your own invention from this recent discussion or is it something that you have seen and used before? I have never seen it before myself. Can you show any references for that model?
Right now I am assuming that model is yours, but I will see what you have to say.
You are playing quite a bit of the "ignore game" over the past few days, haven't you? I have pointed out several key points that you just try to "waive" but perhaps people are noticing them.
You can't ignore this:
There is a tragic flaw in your model. If when the battery is outputting 1.0 volts and you measure a 10-ohm output impedance, then having your variable voltage source set at 1.0 volts and the output impedance resistance set at 10 ohms will not work. The reason it won't work is that the variable voltage would have to be at 1.0 volts plus some unknown delta so that the final voltage after the resistor is 1.0 volts.
Do you get that? You might need the variable voltage to be 1.15 volts with a variable resistance of 10 ohms to give you 1.0 volts after the variable resistor. This will always be a function of the resistance of the load itself. For a different load you might need the variable voltage to be 1.20 volts with a variable resistance of 10 ohms to give you 1.0 volts after the variable resistor. From what I can see your model is unworkable.
And continue to learn the past?
No, more like getting up to speed with the present. Wouldn't you like to reduce the number of ridiculous gaffes you make? You need to read some electronics books.
Like you would of heard about a J/FET
I heard a story about a JFET being shoved up your ass. Is it true?
At T=5 seconds,MHs device explodes.
I am yet to see any reason posted why the CEMF is also not ideal.
This means that it will also take an infinite amount of time before current start to flow
If you did(theoretically),the current would rise instantly to an infinite value.
If R = 0,which id dose,as the inductor is ideal,then no current flows through the ideal inductor.
This results in an instant current rise to an infinite value.
If the voltage increases,then it is not an ideal voltage,as an ideal voltage dose not change in time.
This also shows that MHs question cannot be answered,as it cannot exist.
That was brought out for your Bizarro World debate fans. It gets them all excited, they even start taking warm up swings with their frying pans but they don't make contact. You fans love the fact that when talking about the ideal inductor and voltage source question you kept on going back and forth between no-current infinite-current no-current infinite-current like some poor hapless pinball being banged back and forth between the bumpers of a pinball machine. They absolutely love your early work and it gets them all excited and pumped up.
MileHigh
-
I can see you have about as much imagination and creativity as lumpy gravy. I guess that you are just a drone in The Grand Parade of Lifeless Packaging.
For the grand parade of lifeless packaging
All ready to use
The grand parade of lifeless packaging
I just need a fuse
Got people stocked in every shade
Must be doing well with trade
Stamped, addressed in odd fatality
That evens out their personality
With profit potential marked by a sign
I can recognize some of the production line
No bite at all in labor bondage
Just wrinkled wrappers or human bandage
Grand parade of lifeless packaging
All ready to use
It's the grand parade of lifeless packaging
I just need a fuse
"We are now in our manufacturing phase. Your interest is important to us but due to overwhelming demand we have temporarily suspended accepting orders at this time."
Bad MileHigh...... Bad.
You dare to bring a poor defenceless lamb into this debate, what about it's " Mama "?
The " Ripples " caused might just go on till " Suppers ready " !
For your " Nursery cryme " I sentence you to a week in the " Colony ".
Los Endos...... Grum. :)
-
tinman you don't seem to have much of a grasp of basic concepts.
I don't know if you can get it in your part of the world but the BBC
does a series of programs called "In our Time" with Melvyn Bragg.
There are a whole lot of interesting science programs to choose
from with things like the photon, negative numbers,quantum gravity
and loads more. Enjoy,
John.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg488321#msg488321 date=1468320145]
That was brought out for your Bizarro World debate fans. It gets them all excited, they even start taking warm up swings with their frying pans but they don't make contact. You fans love the fact that when talking about the ideal inductor and voltage source question you kept on going back and forth between no-current infinite-current no-current infinite-current like some poor hapless pinball being banged back and forth between the bumpers of a pinball machine. They absolutely love your early work and it gets them all excited and pumped up.
MileHigh
[/quote]
I heard a story about a JFET being shoved up your ass. Is it true?
LMAO
Sorry MH,but sometime's-even when you are being rude and perverted--you are funny.
I did have a laugh at that lol ;D
And because you made me laugh,i will let it slide. ;)
Where is your model for the battery coming from that has the decreasing source voltage? Is it your own invention from this recent discussion or is it something that you have seen and used before? I have never seen it before myself. Can you show any references for that model?
Right now I am assuming that model is yours, but I will see what you have to say.
You are playing quite a bit of the "ignore game" over the past few days, haven't you? I have pointed out several key points that you just try to "waive" but perhaps people are noticing them.
You can't ignore this:
There is a tragic flaw in your model. If when the battery is outputting 1.0 volts and you measure a 10-ohm output impedance, then having your variable voltage source set at 1.0 volts and the output impedance resistance set at 10 ohms will not work. The reason it won't work is that the variable voltage would have to be at 1.0 volts plus some unknown delta so that the final voltage after the resistor is 1.0 volts.
Well first up MH,your model was a power supply set at 1.5 volt's,and a VR in series with the power supply and load. This just dose not simulate a real battery simply by increasing the VRs resistance over time.
My model that simulates a real battery running a JT is as follow's,when wanting to use a super cap as the power source. As we all know(except you it would seem) the batteries voltage will drop as the energy value stored in that battery reduces. We also know at the same time,the impedance (internal resistance) will go up in that battery. All three things happen at once MH,and these are facts you cannot ignore.
So ,as the voltage drops in the super cap-(as it will with a battery),we increase the resistance of the series VR to mimic the increase of impedance that would take place in the battery.
So with your model,the inductor will always have 1.5 volts across it at T=0,where as using my model,the inductor will have the actual voltage of the battery,and will show the drop in voltage over time,as we get with a battery--where yours will not.
Below in the first diagram,i show your model as you describe it should be.
In the following scope shot's,i show the value of the VR that is to mimic impedance of a battery.
You can clearly see,that no matter what the impedance value,at T=0,the inductor always has your set 1.5 volts across it.
So ,unfortunately for you MH,your model dose not replicate an actual battery running a JT,as the voltage across the coil at T=0 will always be a set value,and dose not show a batteries voltage dropping as we would see with an actual battery.
Next i will show you the JT running on a super cap,and then after that,i will show you the JT running on a battery. We will then use my model-the super cap and VR,and look at both that model and an actual battery at various voltages,and see who's model is correct.
So even after half an hour running MH,your model will still show a peak voltage across the inductor of 1.5 volt's,and we all know that that would not be the case with a real battery. ;)
No, more like getting up to speed with the present. Wouldn't you like to reduce the number of ridiculous gaffes you make? You need to read some electronics books.
Says the man that dares not take up the challenge ;)--even with the help of others lol.
Brad
-
tinman you don't seem to have much of a grasp of basic concepts.
I don't know if you can get it in your part of the world but the BBC
does a series of programs called "In our Time" with Melvyn Bragg.
There are a whole lot of interesting science programs to choose
from with things like the photon, negative numbers,quantum gravity
and loads more. Enjoy,
John.
If you agree with MH because these programs say he is correct,then i think i will give them a miss thanks.
Perhaps you would be better sticking with the animal picture's--they seem to make more sense ;)
Brad
-
Bad MileHigh...... Bad.
You dare to bring a poor defenceless lamb into this debate, what about it's " Mama "?
The " Ripples " caused might just go on till " Suppers ready " !
For your " Nursery cryme " I sentence you to a week in the " Colony ".
Los Endos...... Grum. :)
Let's even get more classic with a great musical interlude.
Cheers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD5engyVXe0
-
Brad:
This time I have to compliment you for doing a nice set of tests with the progressively increasing output resistance with the properly labelled scope captures and the properly labeled schematic with properly labeled test points. That is a real breath of fresh air compared to some of your earlier presentations. It's actually not stressful to look at that data, which is a really nice change.
If the voltage source is fixed at 1.5 volts and you have a variable resistor only, then you are going to see 1.5 volts at the inductor when the transistor initially switches on just like you say. The real question is is that significant or not. It's not easy to know when to ignore things, and I am not necessarily saying that it can be ignored in this case. But it is very important as a general principle to know when to ignore things and when not to ignore things and that has to be learned. It's a combination of science, skill, experience, and art.
With respect to a battery model that is adapted specifically to a Joule Thief arrangement, perhaps just the standard model that I am stating with some kind of simple low-pass filter on the output would be satisfactory. When your VR is 33 ohms, you see a sawtooth for the battery voltage waveform. I am pretty sure in reality if you had a depleted AA cell with a 33-ohm output impedance driving a 10 kHz Joule Thief, you would not see as dramatic a sawtooth waveform for the battery voltage. You would simply see a low DC voltage with a tiny amount of ripple superimposed on it. In other words, it would look like the sawtooth had passed through a low-pass filter.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what you and TK generate in terms of results.
MileHigh
-
I've learned a lot about inductors and CEMF from MH questions.
What have I learned from tinman? Answer, a Fisher & Paykel is
a damn good motor.
What use is a joule theif or a pulsed motor anyway??
John.
-
Brad:
This time I have to compliment you for doing a nice set of tests with the progressively increasing output resistance with the properly labelled scope captures and the properly labeled schematic with properly labeled test points. That is a real breath of fresh air compared to some of your earlier presentations. It's actually not stressful to look at that data, which is a really nice change.
If the voltage source is fixed at 1.5 volts and you have a variable resistor only, then you are going to see 1.5 volts at the inductor when the transistor initially switches on just like you say. The real question is is that significant or not. It's not easy to know when to ignore things, and I am not necessarily saying that it can be ignored in this case. But it is very important as a general principle to know when to ignore things and when not to ignore things and that has to be learned. It's a combination of science, skill, experience, and art.
With respect to a battery model that is adapted specifically to a Joule Thief arrangement, perhaps just the standard model that I am stating with some kind of simple low-pass filter on the output would be satisfactory. When your VR is 33 ohms, you see a sawtooth for the battery voltage waveform. I am pretty sure in reality if you had a depleted AA cell with a 33-ohm output impedance driving a 10 kHz Joule Thief, you would not see as dramatic a sawtooth waveform for the battery voltage. You would simply see a low DC voltage with a tiny amount of ripple superimposed on it. In other words, it would look like the sawtooth had passed through a low-pass filter.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what you and TK generate in terms of results.
MileHigh
Thank you MH.
Perhaps we could put the guns away,and work together as we use to ?
Anyway,below is some scope shots,where we are using a 50F super cap as the power supply,and the VR is set to 0 ohms for all three scope shot's,that show 3 various voltages across the capacitor,that drop over run time. As we can see here,the super cap having very low internal resistance-regardless of voltage,dose not represent a batteries behaviour as the voltage drops in that battery.
You might also notice the big difference in the frequency jumps between using the PSU and VR to that of using a super cap with very little impedance. I think you would agree that there is a big difference there,and that may give you some answers as to why TKs circuit 2 was more efficient than circuit 1 when using the power supply,and then it swapped around when he switched to the super cap.
Next i will post an actual battery,and we will see what the voltage trace looks like across our battery/inductor.
Brad
-
Below is two scope shot's,where the circuit now has a battery.
The two batteries were of a different brand,but both alkaline batteries.
The voltages can be seen on the scope shots.
This is at very low current draw levels,and as the JT is made to work harder,the battery voltage drop during the on time is made more apparent.
But this is with my JT in standard trim,with the base VR set at the full 1k.
Reducing the base resistance results in a higher current draw,a larger sawtooth wave form across the battery,and higher light output,along with a decrease in frequency.
Brad
-
Brad:
I am probably jumping off the bus pretty soon. This whole ordeal started when Smoky2 said he was going to coach you and Magluvin to make a "resonant Joule Thief." He claimed that something really special was going to happen with the "tuning" and his brother had some "resonant Joule Thieves" that ran "permanently." I said the whole thing was complete and utter crap, remember? Then that started the discussion about resonance and the whole nine yards.
You need a foil like me, because without that you and the boys (no gurus participating) create this "enabling" environment were "everything is awesome" and you deceive each other by never having the guts to correct each other. That's why you learned very little over the past six years and with me being your foil you kept on being stung in the ass and it was good for you, no matter how upset and angry you got. Without a foil like me to upset the awesome party, ultimately that's why you and many of the other boys couldn't solve for a simple circuit consisting of a power supply and one single solitary component. Or you had all been discussing resonance for years but couldn't properly define it or answer two simple questions about it even through you were given a month and a half to answer the questions. That's comfortably awesome numbness.
Ultimately, I don't really care. You guys do whatever the hell it is that you want to do. It's just such a pain to see all of this sleepwalking going on sometimes.
For example, when I look at most of your recently posted Joule Thief scope captures, the current waveform is a saw-tooth or triangle waveform. To me it appears that that's not normal Joule Thief operation. It's still lighting the LED of course but it looks to me like the Joule Thief operation has broken down and resembles a generic oscillator more than a Joule Thief. I have a feeling that there is a very good chance that that didn't even occur to you.
I am perfectly content to just sit and watch what you and TK produce.
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg488361#msg488361 date=1468349727]
I am perfectly content to just sit and watch what you and TK produce.
MileHigh
I am probably jumping off the bus pretty soon. This whole ordeal started when Smoky2 said he was going to coach you and Magluvin to make a "resonant Joule Thief." He claimed that something really special was going to happen with the "tuning" and his brother had some "resonant Joule Thieves" that ran "permanently." I said the whole thing was complete and utter crap, remember? Then that started the discussion about resonance and the whole nine yards.
I would have to agree that the whole resonant thing went south,but i think Smoky2 was hoping that we could find or design that resonant JT,and see what the outcome was.
For example, when I look at most of your recently posted Joule Thief scope captures, the current waveform is a saw-tooth or triangle waveform. To me it appears that that's not normal Joule Thief operation. It's still lighting the LED of course but it looks to me like the Joule Thief operation has broken down and resembles a generic oscillator more than a Joule Thief. I have a feeling that there is a very good chance that that didn't even occur to you.
There is a reason for the saw-tooth wave form MH,and perhaps you may have noticed when the transition took place from that of a current wave form that would be seen on a normal JT.
The circuit being used is your JT circuit (circuit number 1). But in saying that,the current trace is not really that different to what my other JTs show--see pic below.
The only change i notice,is that the waveform in the latest scope shot's is more !crisp!,where the trace rises and falls in a much more linear way.
I will do some comparison tests tonight--as soon as the light box is completed,and post the relevant scope shot's,and efficiency data.
Brad
-
Well you can see in your latest scope capture that the current is rising and falling in an exponential-type waveform which is what you expect to see for a Joule Thief. You can also see a little tell-tale signature of a switching event in that current waveform, suggesting that the Joule Thief is switching normally. You don't normally expect to see a saw-tooth or triangle waveform for a normally operating Joule Thief.
<<< I am going to qualify the above paragraph for when it comes to watching what happens when a fresh battery transitions to a depleted battery when powering a Joule Thief. I don't really have a handle on how the current waveform will change as the output impedance of the battery starts to slowly creep up. >>>
When looking at the latest capture, the unexplained vertical spike noise on the older current waveform captures stands out even more and requires investigation.
You are back to your bad habits again and you are not showing where the test points are for that latest scope capture. Weren't you embarrassed when you posted a scope capture a few weeks back and Picowatt told you that he couldn't make head or tail of it and asked you for the corresponding schematic?
If you don't at least sample what the waveform looks like at the base resistor input (bottom of L2) every time you fiddle with a new Joule Thief configuration then you are making a mistake. Same thing applies for the transistor collector waveform to see if you are getting clean switching or not.
-
Well you can see in your latest scope capture that the current is rising and falling in an exponential-type waveform which is what you expect to see for a Joule Thief. You can also see a little tell-tale signature of a switching event in that current waveform, suggesting that the Joule Thief is switching normally. You don't normally expect to see a saw-tooth or triangle waveform for a normally operating Joule Thief.
<<< I am going to qualify the above paragraph for when it comes to watching what happens when a fresh battery transitions to a depleted battery when powering a Joule Thief. I don't really have a handle on how the current waveform will change as the output impedance of the battery starts to slowly creep up. >>>
When looking at the latest capture, the unexplained vertical spike noise on the older current waveform captures stands out even more and requires investigation.
You are back to your bad habits again and you are not showing where the test points are for that latest scope capture. Weren't you embarrassed when you posted a scope capture a few weeks back and Picowatt told you that he couldn't make head or tail of it and asked you for the corresponding schematic?
If you don't at least sample what the waveform looks like at the base resistor input (bottom of L2) every time you fiddle with a new Joule Thief configuration then you are making a mistake. Same thing applies for the transistor collector waveform to see if you are getting clean switching or not.
MH
The test points for the latest scope capture are clearly shown in the attached schematic,so i dont know what you are talking about.
CH 1 is obviously inverted,when you take note of scope probe polarity on the attached schematic.
We will sort out the two differing wave forms for the current trace soon enough,and the same go's with the base trace. You seem to be back to that bad habbit of wanting everything all at once,but i can only do so much each working night-friday and Saturday nights i get a bit more time.
Brad
-
No Brad, the test points are ambiguous. I don't see a definitive ground connection. I don't see any probe colours matching the scope channel colours like I am used to seeing before.
Here is the bloody point: Every time I look at a scope capture with a provided schematic from you I don't want to have to play a guessing game and spend 90 seconds figuring out what is what. I don't give a damn if you say it is "obvious." It is pretty straightforward in this case but I still don't give a damn. It's a pain in the ass.
I literally just saw the text "CVR 1 trace" in the upper right quadrant of the image after staring at the image about 20 times.
You took the trouble to stitch together your scope capture with the schematic using an image editing program. You couldn't be bothered to spend just one minute while you were in the image editing program to label where the scope channel was connected in a clear and unambiguous manner.
Look at the attached image. I updated your graphic. I can look at that graphic and in 1/2 second I see exactly what is going on, no muss, no fuss, no bullshit looking at "options."
-
No Brad, the test points are ambiguous. I don't see a definitive ground connection. I don't see any probe colours matching the scope channel colours like I am used to seeing before.
Here is the bloody point: Every time I look at a scope capture with a provided schematic from you I don't want to have to play a guessing game and spend 90 seconds figuring out what is what. I don't give a damn if you say it is "obvious." It is pretty straightforward in this case but I still don't give a damn. It's a pain in the ass.
I literally just saw the text "CVR 1 trace" in the upper right quadrant of the image after staring at the image about 20 times.
You took the trouble to stitch together your scope capture with the schematic using an image editing program. You couldn't be bothered to spend just one minute while you were in the image editing program to label where the scope channel was connected in a clear and unambiguous manner.
Look at the attached image. I updated your graphic. I can look at that graphic and in 1/2 second I see exactly what is going on, no muss, no fuss, no bullshit looking at "options."
Well im so sorry MH,i did not know just how dyslexic you are,and you need spoon feeding with every single diagram,because you are just too stupid to know that the black marker indicatse scope ground,the yellow marker indicates the yellow channel on the scope,and the blue marker indicates the blue channel on the scope.
Even when i write in large capital letters on the diagram,exactly what the scope shot is showing-you still get lost.
It is not my fault you have trouble reading very clear explanations as to what the scope shot is showing.
It is clear that when you have nothing to complain about,you just make crap up.
Grow up you whining little child.
Brad
-
Below is a graph showing some test results of various toroid inductors tested on the same JT circuit,along with the straight DC power mark to gain 200 LUX from the LED array.
Circuit used also pictured below.
Brad
-
Below is a graph showing some test results of various toroid inductors tested on the same JT circuit,along with the straight DC power mark to gain 200 LUX from the LED array.
Circuit used also pictured below.
Brad
Ooo, the magnetic material mixed in the core!
So the cats are out of the bag, good luck with maximising output power from mixed cores. :)
-
Well im so sorry MH,i did not know just how dyslexic you are,and you need spoon feeding with every single diagram,because you are just too stupid to know that the black marker indicatse scope ground,the yellow marker indicates the yellow channel on the scope,and the blue marker indicates the blue channel on the scope.
Even when i write in large capital letters on the diagram,exactly what the scope shot is showing-you still get lost.
It is not my fault you have trouble reading very clear explanations as to what the scope shot is showing.
It is clear that when you have nothing to complain about,you just make crap up.
Grow up you whining little child.
Brad
But you were embarrassed when you put up a scope capture and were too lazy to put up the schematic and Picowatt told you he couldn't make head or tail of your scope capture, weren't you? You avoided my question.
Stop acting like a stupid semi-literate oaf when it comes to your communication skills for presenting scope capture data and schematics. There is no bloody yellow marker on the schematic, there is an orange marker. Or do you have male colour vision deficiency perhaps and could not tell?
Just get your act together and expend the minimal effort required to present your data properly.
For example, the chart that you just did for the milliwatts in and Lux out for different cores is very good. But then why would you only plot a single point for the straight DC mark for 200 Lux? Don't you think your audience would be interested in seeing you plot another five or six points so they could see what the straight DC curve is like? Because I can assure you they would. Are you plotting the power to the whole Joule Thief circuit, or are you only plotting the power that is delivered to the LED array itself? We don't know because you are too lazy to tell us or you lack the communication skills to realize that you should be telling us. We certainly can't tell from the schematic because there are no test points on it.
-
Brad, your graph is kind of hard to interpret, because your grid lines don't line up with the axis number values. But going just by the positions of the numbers, it looks like your DC-equivalent value is indicating about 200 Lux at an input power of 20 mW, which translates to a whopping 10000 Lux/Watt. But in my setup, using the superefficient LED that I've been using all the time, to get 200 Lux at the sensor in my 5x5x18 inch lightbox I have to drive the LED at around 81 mA, 2.96V, which is about 240 mW, and is near the top end of its rating. This corresponds to about 830 Lux/Watt. For any length of time running this would need a heatsink on the LED. These are just about the most efficient LEDs on the market.
So it seems that there must be something funny about the numbers, either yours or mine, because they are clearly not comparable. Are you using an 18 inch lightbox? How are your 9 LEDs connected, and what kind are they? How are you measuring voltage and current in the DC case?
I have some confidence in my measurements because, as I indicated before, I developed this apparatus and methodology for comparison with values that another lab was getting in some tests we both were running.
I can get around a 200 Lux reading by holding my LED at 4-5 inches distance to the lightmeter sensor and providing about 7.5 mW (3 mA at 2.54 V).
-
Brad, your graph is kind of hard to interpret, because your grid lines don't line up with the axis number values. But going just by the positions of the numbers...
Well, there you go. I actually took it for granted that there would be no issue with the grid lines and the values assigned to the grid lines because I have looked at 1000 graphs before and that was never an issue. So I didn't even bother scrutinizing that part of the data. It's an almost unbelievable offense to good practices when presenting data. Both axes are messed up.
And we can assume that poor Brad is going to put on his thinking and strategy cap and come up with a very creative excuse that puts him in the clear because he is going to cling to some real or imaginary technicality.
-
tinman,the little r for a 1.5 v AA alkaline cell is about .2.
It should be capable of 7.5 amps.
John.
-
Brad, your graph is kind of hard to interpret, because your grid lines don't line up with the axis number values. But going just by the positions of the numbers, it looks like your DC-equivalent value is indicating about 200 Lux at an input power of 20 mW, which translates to a whopping 10000 Lux/Watt. But in my setup, using the superefficient LED that I've been using all the time, to get 200 Lux at the sensor in my 5x5x18 inch lightbox I have to drive the LED at around 81 mA, 2.96V, which is about 240 mW, and is near the top end of its rating. This corresponds to about 830 Lux/Watt. For any length of time running this would need a heatsink on the LED. These are just about the most efficient LEDs on the market.
So it seems that there must be something funny about the numbers, either yours or mine, because they are clearly not comparable. Are you using an 18 inch lightbox? How are your 9 LEDs connected, and what kind are they? How are you measuring voltage and current in the DC case?
I have some confidence in my measurements because, as I indicated before, I developed this apparatus and methodology for comparison with values that another lab was getting in some tests we both were running.
I can get around a 200 Lux reading by holding my LED at 4-5 inches distance to the lightmeter sensor and providing about 7.5 mW (3 mA at 2.54 V).
TK
I am still using my small 8 inch light box,as i still have not finished the larger one base around your dimensions,as the paint takes a long time to dry,when the temperatures are around 10*C here ATM. As far as the nine LEDs go,i am not sure how they are connected,as the small PCB they are mounted on is all glued into the ali housing of the torch body,and i cant remove it.
The light beam is focused toward the light meter sensor,and so that would be the reason why the readings are so high-i would think.Once i get the light box all done,and switch to an LED such as yours,i would think it will all drop down to close to your values.
As far as the graph go's,it was just a quick throw together job on windows paint,as i do not get a lot of time after work to get all fancy,but it dose give you a general ideal,and by following a horizontal axis from the lux number,and a virtical axis from the Mw value,each dot represents the results obtained from the tests. I used a 1 0hm CVR to measure current,and the voltage was set at 1.5 volts from my PSU,and also measured with a DMM across a 10 000uF smoothing cap.
Brad
-
tinman,the little r for a 1.5 v AA alkaline cell is about .2.
It should be capable of 7.5 amps.
John.
And when the battery voltage is at 1v,little r is how much ?
Brad
-
TK
I am still using my small 8 inch light box,as i still have not finished the larger one base around your dimensions,as the paint takes a long time to dry,when the temperatures are around 10*C here ATM. As far as the nine LEDs go,i am not sure how they are connected,as the small PCB they are mounted on is all glued into the ali housing of the torch body,and i cant remove it.
Ah.. OK, they are probably all in parallel then. You could test that by looking at the voltage required to turn the lights on, should be the same as for a single separate LED, rather than twice or three times that much. Sometimes these setups even include a small current-limiting resistor tucked away on the PCB.
I have a 24 LED array that came from a cheap LED flashlight that used 3 AAs, that was originally all LEDs in parallel, with a tiny resistor, but I rewired it to be 2 series arrays of 12 parallel each and ditched the resistor. I use this for some JT demonstrations (but not of course for our testing here.)
The light beam is focused toward the light meter sensor,and so that would be the reason why the readings are so high-i would think.Once i get the light box all done,and switch to an LED such as yours,i would think it will all drop down to close to your values.
Yes, I'm sure that explains it, the focussed beam and the close distance. That's the problem with using Lux, it is a measure of the illumination falling on a surface rather than the output of the light itself, but that's all we have to work with.
As far as the graph go's,it was just a quick throw together job on windows paint,as i do not get a lot of time after work to get all fancy,but it dose give you a general ideal,and by following a horizontal axis from the lux number,and a virtical axis from the Mw value,each dot represents the results obtained from the tests. I used a 1 0hm CVR to measure current,and the voltage was set at 1.5 volts from my PSU,and also measured with a DMM across a 10 000uF smoothing cap.
Brad
The 1.5 volts must be for the JT measurements, not the single DC equivalent point, right? As the LEDs in your 9-led array will not shine with only 1.5 volts DC, right?
Anyhow, I figured that the numbers on your graph were in the right place and the grid lines were misplaced, so it didn't really cause me much grief. But really, for great ease in recording and organizing data and turning it into graphs, you could try using a spreadsheet program like Excel or (free and fully functional) LibreOffice Calc:
https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-fresh/
(scroll down for the Windows or OSX version installers)
Once you've gotten the hang of graphing using Calc (or Excel), you'll never go back.
The really nice thing about using the spreadsheet program is that if you change your data once you have the graph set up, like to correct an error or just to see how it affects the graph, the graphs change instantly and automatically to show the change. And once you have a graph set up like you like it, to graph a different data set you just need to copy-paste the original graph and then point the copy to your new data set (and edit the titles and other names of course). That's how I did the three graphs I posted up above. It's a snap.
-
Ah.. OK, they are probably all in parallel then. You could test that by looking at the voltage required to turn the lights on, should be the same as for a single separate LED, rather than twice or three times that much. Sometimes these setups even include a small current-limiting resistor tucked away on the PCB.
I have a 24 LED array that came from a cheap LED flashlight that used 3 AAs, that was originally all LEDs in parallel, with a tiny resistor, but I rewired it to be 2 series arrays of 12 parallel each and ditched the resistor. I use this for some JT demonstrations (but not of course for our testing here.)
Yes, I'm sure that explains it, the focussed beam and the close distance. That's the problem with using Lux, it is a measure of the illumination falling on a surface rather than the output of the light itself, but that's all we have to work with. The 1.5 volts must be for the JT measurements, not the single DC equivalent point, right? As the LEDs in your 9-led array will not shine with only 1.5 volts DC, right?
Anyhow, I figured that the numbers on your graph were in the right place and the grid lines were misplaced, so it didn't really cause me much grief. But really, for great ease in recording and organizing data and turning it into graphs, you could try using a spreadsheet program like Excel or (free and fully functional) LibreOffice Calc:
https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-fresh/
(scroll down for the Windows or OSX version installers)
Once you've gotten the hang of graphing using Calc (or Excel), you'll never go back.
The really nice thing about using the spreadsheet program is that if you change your data once you have the graph set up, like to correct an error or just to see how it affects the graph, the graphs change instantly and automatically to show the change. And once you have a graph set up like you like it, to graph a different data set you just need to copy-paste the original graph and then point the copy to your new data set (and edit the titles and other names of course). That's how I did the three graphs I posted up above. It's a snap.
Thanks for the info on the graphing,i wll download it tonight.
And yes
,the 1.5 volts was only for the JT, not the DC,that is why everything is in watts.
Also not sure if the light meter gives an accurate account of light,being as i seem to get more light output from my custom made torroid than i do with straight DC-have to look into that a bit more..
Brad
-
And when the battery voltage is at 1v,little r is how much ?
Brad
Oh,you're just too clever for me!
John.
-
Some actual EE types discussing JT:
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/bench-psu-joule-thief-experiment-constant-current-vs-voltage/
-
Tinsel
Very nice link ..
I like the mention of "Gapped core" [sliced toroid] energy storing characteristics too.
@Brad
"your" custom made Toroid showing some odd results Huh ......?
maybe a Gap could really Dice it up and some external magnets...
* Just Musings on Gunderson's latest share...member Reiyuki's musings got me thinking .
custom Core material [and Gapped architecture] a very specific Switching methodology and a magnetic wrap ...array ... causing a Magnetic implosion ??
we are after all at an OU forum.
and A JT circuit is probably a very good Place to Muse ...
where Did Smoky 2 go ? all that very helpful and informative Core material / Resonance spec info he was sharing...
Like a cool Breeze of fresh air 8)
thx
Chet K
-
Good Koala,don't you just have to love that Dave?
He shows how to calculate the capacity of an AA
energiser cell, that should keep the old tinman
occupied for a week or two!!!
Perhaps that should have read "measure".
John.
-
There ya go tinman, EEVBlog 140 and 141. Just sit back and enjoy a fellow Aussie.
-
This might interest you, have a look at this video it appears to run for ages on the vid but i'm sure you can pick it apart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjJ1iVNHd4s
-
This might interest you, have a look at this video it appears to run for ages on the vid but i'm sure you can pick it apart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjJ1iVNHd4s
-
The long wire-wrapped cylinder running through the center of the toroidal transformer is almost certainly is a piece of electronics quackery. Some simple tests could be done to easily confirm that. However, it would seem that none of the "bench doers" have anything to say about that.
Note that the main toroidal transformer configuration does not resemble a Joule Thief transformer. It's possible that when the transistor switches off it gets fried by the magnetic energy stored in the toroidal transformer but all of that would have to be confirmed on the bench.
I suppose the most important "armchair takeaway" is that the assumption is that the cylinder running though the center of the toroidal transformer is quackery. I am sure that Dave Jones from the EEVblog would have something colourful to say about it.
-
https://youtu.be/oejW6bEnCZc
https://youtu.be/KPTW68qVJTU
-
The long wire-wrapped cylinder running through the center of the toroidal transformer is almost certainly is a piece of electronics quackery. Some simple tests could be done to easily confirm that.
IMO not once the wrapped coil would be bifilar. The bifilar coil should collect just the A-field component of magnetic field, which isn't detectable with normal coil around torus (Aharamov-Bohm effect). Even at the case, when normal coil is used, then some magnetic field leaks from toroid, because it's coil represents one loop of winding by itself. After all, the bifilar coil also shouldn't have any inductance according to textbooks - but simple experiment demonstrates, that the inductance of such coil gets even a bit higher (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNtH9bp7QVo), than the inductance of the normal coil (this applies only to bifilars with ferrite core, though). This is because the ferromagnetic domains have some elasticity and they can not only reorient itself (normal B-field), but also change their size (A-field). The source of back electromotive force is the change of B-field only, because the changes of A-field cannot propagate at distance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition). Once the bifiliar coil doesn't induce the back-EMF voltage and magnetic flux into the circuit, then all energy collected on such a coil must be redundant and as such overunity. The conclusion therefore is, that the every bifilar coil wound around standard Joule-Thief oscillator winding should collect portion of its energy for free - at least in principle.
But IMO the device above linked doesn't utilize bifilar coil, but another effect: traveling waves of magnetization, which were researched by J.N. Naudin (http://jnaudin.free.fr/rvproject/index.htm), for example. In essence, the A-field of torus generates and sends A-waves of magnetic intensity along the ferrite rod. These waves are scalar, i.e. they're formed with density waves of magnetization of ferrromagnetic domains. The magnetic domains don't change their orientation during it - but size. We can imagine them like the traveling bands of expanding and collapsing magnetic bubbles, which propagate along ferrite rod. The important point is, these waves propagate with speed, which is generally much lower than the speed of EM wave, because they're not powered with B-field magnetic component of coil, but stationary A-field component. At the moment, when the magnetic field changes propagate faster than the speed of EM wave propagation along coil, then the condition for draining energy from thermal fluctuations (magnetic fluctuations of ferrite) gets fulfilled, because the resulting field obtains anapole component.
Anapole field is the consequence of breaking SO(2) gauge symmetry of vacuum considered with Maxwell equations, according to which the magnetic field intensity spreads with speed of magnetic field. Once this equilibrium gets broken, then the vacuum tries to balance the difference by introduction of energy into the magnetic field from its own fluctuations. Anapole field therefore generates magnetic field along ferrite rod into account of its thermal fluctuations, i.e. the heat content. The example of anapoles are for example the eternally rotating magnetic vortices within boson condensates, because in these systems the speed of EM waves gets greatly suppressed to a range of few meters per second. Under such a situation it's not difficult to prepare magnetic vortex, which rotates faster than the density waves of condensate and which can therefore drain an energy into account of heat of its environment.
The even easier to imagine analogy would drain the energy from Brownian motion at the water surface with floater moving along it. The floater indeed silences the Brownian motion of this surface, being unmovable. Therefore the Brownian noise is missing immediately after the floater once the floater propagates faster, than the intensity of Brownian motion can re-establish itself (which is just the speed of surface waves, i.e. analogy of light speed in vacuum BTW). Under such a situation the intensity of Brownian motion after moving floater must replenish itself into account of thermal energy of water. That means, the floater cools itself at the outflow side bellow temperature of water surface which violates II. law of thermodynamics in this way. BTW the whirligig beetles utilize this effect (https://phys.org/news/2008-03-weird-behavior-whirligig-circles.html), because during sufficiently fast motion in circles the water surface poses no resistance and it generates no surface waves like the superfluid. In this case, the thermal energy of Brownian motion helps to keep the beetles in motion and it compensates the lost of energy from friction/turbulence. Another example of negentropic phenomena are the rogue waves (dispersion-less solitons) at the stormy sea, which can also drain their energy into account of their environment.
Apparently this effect can apply at all distance scales and many physical systems, once the system is formed with inhomogeneous environment filled with fluctuations. Then in narrow range of conditions the thermodynamic equilibrium can get broken and its entropic time arrow reversed. The overunity research isn't about plain textbook knowledge - but just about subtleties, which usually evade the attention of textbooks.
-
hi all i have some project i need someone who know very good on joule thief and boostpack systems to work with him
-
How about a transistor-less JT
Two different voltages across the one component at the same time :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmaEzqw73ww
Brad
-
How about Lasersabre's carbon rod no transistor joule thief?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO55v3fqiO4
-
How about a transistor-less JT
Two different voltages across the one component at the same time :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmaEzqw73ww (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmaEzqw73ww)
Brad
have no idea
Mags
-
How i wound my BPC ,using copper ribbon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQR6i0qNt4U
-
Hello
Is this thread still active. Have some queries to clear regarding JTs.
Have not seen any activity since 2017 may.