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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83883
  • *Latest: FreeFlip

  • *Total Posts: 522934
  • *Total Topics: 15571
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 11

Author Topic: Joule Thief 101  (Read 620564 times)

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2550 on: May 13, 2016, 04:38:26 PM »
One other thing MH

Did you read this quote from me?

Quote
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

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2550 on: May 13, 2016, 04:38:26 PM »

Online Johan_1955

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 272
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2551 on: May 13, 2016, 04:43:11 PM »

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2552 on: May 13, 2016, 04:46:17 PM »
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.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2552 on: May 13, 2016, 04:46:17 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2553 on: May 13, 2016, 04:49:49 PM »

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

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2554 on: May 13, 2016, 04:56:49 PM »
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

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2554 on: May 13, 2016, 04:56:49 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2555 on: May 13, 2016, 05:25:26 PM »
One other thing MH

Did you read this quote from me?

Quote
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

Offline minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2556 on: May 13, 2016, 06:35:21 PM »



   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.
             

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2556 on: May 13, 2016, 06:35:21 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2557 on: May 14, 2016, 03:03:59 AM »
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






Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2558 on: May 14, 2016, 03:19:47 AM »
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

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2558 on: May 14, 2016, 03:19:47 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2559 on: May 14, 2016, 03:27:36 AM »
"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

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2560 on: May 14, 2016, 03:57:47 AM »
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.

Quote
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?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2560 on: May 14, 2016, 03:57:47 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2561 on: May 14, 2016, 04:08:31 AM »
"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. 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).

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2562 on: May 14, 2016, 04:13:46 AM »
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. )

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2563 on: May 14, 2016, 04:41:16 AM »
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

Offline SeaMonkey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1292
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2564 on: May 14, 2016, 05:09:27 AM »
How many Mile'''''s?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh2ZjHvlzE4

Here is one more.  Miles certainly does get around!

 

OneLink