Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Joule Thief 101  (Read 767291 times)

Offline Johan_1955

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2445 on: May 12, 2016, 03:14:10 PM »
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!!

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2446 on: May 12, 2016, 03:20:13 PM »
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

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2447 on: May 12, 2016, 03:21:39 PM »
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?




Quote
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

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2448 on: May 12, 2016, 03:24:41 PM »
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?

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2449 on: May 12, 2016, 03:34:37 PM »

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

"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.

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2450 on: May 12, 2016, 03:38:31 PM »
 author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg483911#msg483911 date=1463059213]

MileHigh


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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


Offline minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2451 on: May 12, 2016, 03:46:30 PM »



   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.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2452 on: May 12, 2016, 03:48:09 PM »
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.

Quote
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

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2453 on: May 12, 2016, 03:51:05 PM »


   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

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2454 on: May 12, 2016, 03:55:08 PM »
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

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2455 on: May 12, 2016, 03:57:14 PM »


   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

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2456 on: May 12, 2016, 04:01:07 PM »
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

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2457 on: May 12, 2016, 04:02:57 PM »
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

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2458 on: May 12, 2016, 04:12:32 PM »
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

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2459 on: May 12, 2016, 04:15:17 PM »
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.