Oh ok-so my circuit dosnt work then-->regardless of the fact that many have replicated it,and some are still running today.

Serious question:

If many have replicated it, why would only some be still running.
Shouldn't they all be still running. Or were the 3 dollars parts needed for another project ?

It is a serious question because it gets missed all the time. Something so simple, should either work or not.
Is there a gray area that can yield unpredictable results ?
Were the rest of the replicators not excited enough to show their results?
With the number of facebook postings and tweets going on each minute, we should be seeing this constantly in our feeds.

Thanks

Pete

Oh ok-so my circuit dosnt work then-->regardless of the fact that many have replicated it,and some are still running today.
Did you take into account the diode layer between the collector and base Mark when deciding that the miller effect would suppress switching. Both L1 & L2 have capacitance as well as inductance,so what happens in L1 when L2 switches off Mark?.

I listed the four possible experiment observations with the two variables, and what each possible observation would imply.  If you have conducted such tests then kindly produce at least one clear photograph of the test set-up with L1 isolated.

I trust that you appreciate that an oscillator requires positive feedback. Absent positive feedback, the signal does not build-up.  Miller capacitance introduces negative feedback.  Miller capacitance can still contribute to oscillations when other circuit elements shift the phase sufficiently.  That happens typically with MOSFETs where there is lots of Miller capacitance and high gain bandwidth product.  The Miller capacitance then reacts with excessive inductance in the gate drive circuit generating the necessary phase shift.

As Pomodoro has said several times now, positive feedback can be generated with inductance in the emitter (bipolar) or source (MOSFET) lead.  That in fact was a source of oscillations in the Rosemary Ainslie fixtures that had atrocious wiring.  However, those oscillations did not start until there was sufficient gate to source drive in the first place.  For a 2N2222A or similar transistor which has a so-so gain bandwidth product of around 300MHz, and tiny parasitic capacitances that transistor is politely behaved in most hand wired circuits with several inches of wiring to each lead.  It takes a lot of emitter wiring inductance to get anywhere near the kind of time constant in the parasitics that is long enough for the transistor to amplify.

In that video Lidmotor states that he moved the inductor using clip leads.  Clip leads make great antennae.  The test that you want to run is much as ZFF suggested:  Put L1 in a Faraday cage, or better yet, take a twisted pair from Q1 base and emitter over to L1 just far away and/or in a Faraday cage.

Are you saying that the clip leads can provide the .7 odd volts that is required to switch on the transistor?
How about a faraday cage with two very large magnets in it?
Watch from 4 minutes on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7DlD8MIEes

Sm0ky2:

with no intent other than to obviously detract from the learning experience of experimentation, reverting back upon a foundation of their educational background based on theories which themselves, admit to a lack of complete understanding, giving citation to exceptions, anomalies, special conditions, unknown factors, and all the things that keep such classified as THEORIES, rather than scientific "laws".

You need to get real.  It's you spouting off electronics nonsense that isn't true that detracts from the learning experience of experimentation.  Many times you are talking nonsensical untrue junk.  Do you get that?  I asked you to back up your silly untrue claims with a circuit and a fully explained timing diagram and you ignored those questions because you can't.

Go ahead, put up a timing diagram of a "Joule Thief in resonance" and let's watch you choke because you can't do it.  If you can't do it then what the hell are you doing except spouting electronics nonsense?

Even the people that are very open minded don't want to be misled by a peddler of junk.  Think about that.

This course of action, prevents further study of anything, truncates the learning process, and prevents further development of the process being examined. This is, in and of itself, UNSCIENTIFIC in nature. Which leads one to question their motives.

It's your course of action that screws up people's heads so they don't know what they are doing and screws up the learning process.  You are acting like some false messiah saying, "Listen to my BS."  I already told you in a full posting that you barely understand electronics.  What you really should do is man-up to that, roll up your shirtsleeves, open up a book, and _really_ try to learn about electronics if you are serious about this subject.

When you talk about electronics, most of the time you are spouting UNSCIENTIFIC babble.  That's the truth and people reading deserve hearing that.

That makes us question your motives.  Why do you talk BS when it's readily apparent that you don't know what you are talking about?  Why?

While the argument stands that "power cannot be recycled", the experiments indicate something else entirely.
Very simple, is the set-up shown in this thread.

1) Motor + Battery = run time x.

2) Motor + Battery + recycling circuit and batteries = run time x, + run time y, + run time z, ...... etc.

Yeah, but the problem is that a guy like Stephen Dickens is not doing his experiments in a scientific manner.  If he did do them in a proper scientific manner then he would realize that nothing special is going on.  It appears that your thought processes cannot extend out that far and your are just taking the information at face value without questioning it.

Listen, if you spout off nonsense about electronics that is not true then you are the bad guy.  It's as simple as that.  The smartest thing you could do, in my opinion, is to curb your desire to talk about stuff that you don't actually know about, and open up a book and start learning.  You do that and apply yourself and chances are in a few months you will start saying things that make sense and that will be a positive contribution to the forum.

This is not some kind of anything-goes I'm okay-you're okay fantasy land when it comes to electronics.

MileHigh

why not just hit it with a hammer and ground out the positive, short the caps, and see ?? it doesn't work........

The claim is on the table that L1 is not coupled to L2.  Isolating L1 and testing will either confirm or refute that claim.

all the energy balances out and we can go back to what we were doing....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's about a dozen people on this forum, who do nothing other than argue against, deny operation of, negate, refute, dismiss misrepresent knowledge, etc. of every attempt to examine a situation with an open mind.
Despite evidence that we should be doing so.

So on the one hand you like evidence, but on the other you object to inquiry.  That's ... interesting.

with no intent other than to obviously detract from the learning experience of experimentation, reverting back upon a foundation of their educational background based on theories which themselves, admit to a lack of complete understanding, giving citation to exceptions, anomalies, special conditions, unknown factors, and all the things that keep such classified as THEORIES, rather than scientific "laws".

My understanding of circuit theory does OK.  How is yours?

This course of action, prevents further study of anything, truncates the learning process, and prevents further development of the process being examined. This is, in and of itself, UNSCIENTIFIC in nature. Which leads one to question their motives.
This is not the high school debate team.

No, it isn't.  So why are you engaging in ad hominem attack rather than trying to get to the root of what is actually occurring?

The person with the better ability to argue a point to futility, has no effect on the operation of a device in question.

All this does is prevent the debater from learning anything from the experience.
The experimenter, however, will continue along his path as he did before such debate occurred.
So what does this do other than waste the time of the readers, and those who wish to conduct such experimentation?

Are you trying to argue that ignorance is bliss?  If one doesn't understand what is and is not controlled in an experiment, they are very unlikely to be able to learn anything from it.  In this case the transistor will not conduct without base - emitter current.

We should take notice, that the author of this thread has ceased to post his information here, because of this behavior.

No, he has been spamming new threads at the rate of several per day.  He has not taken to answering questions.

Meanwhile, he continues his work, and diligently records his results in a scientific manner.

Really?  What is scientific about the presentations?  What controls were designed into the experiment and conducted?  Despite obviously owning a meter, and likely able to spring $2. for a good current sense resistor there are no current measurements on the input or the output.  So just exactly do you think his experiments can tell us?  What do they measure or compare that anyone including the experimenter can tell is meaningful?

While the argument stands that "power cannot be recycled", the experiments indicate something else entirely.

The circuits and devices that you have referred to do not recycle power.  There are devices that do.

Very simple, is the set-up shown in this thread.

1) Motor + Battery = run time x.

2) Motor + Battery + recycling circuit and batteries = run time x, + run time y, + run time z, ...... etc.

And what do you think that means?

As much as I czn make out the wiring with the dim lighting and shaky camera work, it does require oscillations to light the LED.  the latter part of the more recently linked video has entertainment value, because the "trigger coil" L1 does get set in a fairly thick walled aluminum tube that at 16kHz or so is a pretty good shield.  Tinman shows oscillation waveforms on the oscilloscope.

Yes it is oscillating,and the LED simply wont light with 1.2 volt's.
Mark-the motor casing is steel,not aluminum. It's just painted with an aluminum colored paint.
Sorry about the shaky camera work,but as you could hear,it was raining that day,and quite cold lol.

I should throw this one back together,and have a look around the circuit with my digital scope -now that i have one.

Hi TinselKoala,

Just for fun, would you connect a capacitor between the collector and base of the transistor?     I do not know the oscillating frequency,  perhaps a 22 pF or maybe higher sounds good for a test I think in the some 10 kHz range.  Then check whether oscillation starts for battery voltage switch-on, without tickling.

Gyula