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.

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

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.

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

"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.

I have no desire to clog this thread with off topic Truth,

Appologies Resonanceman!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

I understand what you are saying but it doesn't apply in this case.

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