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

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.

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

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

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

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.


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.

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.