Wattsup:

Also, I think your free attacks on @tinman are highly unwarranted and will soon approach some level of indecency.

Did you see Brad repeatedly attacking me with a bunch of unwarranted nonsense?  You did but like a jackass you won't say anything about that.  Why not?  What is wrong with you?

When this thread dies I am likely never going to debate him again, and this is the third or fourth time I have stated that.  The arguments are sometimes beyond ridiculous, like arguing if you have to factor in whether or not you are on a hill when you measure a car's top speed.  I have had enough of that nonsense.

Don't you give me your crap without looking at the other side.  That makes you morally bankrupt.

MileHigh

Brad:

In post #1296 I say this:

Why didn't you put the CVR for the collector trace on top of L1 so that you would not disturb the equipotential between the LED anode and the collector because preserving that equipotential might be important?

This is your reply in #1297:

For the very simple reason that we are looking for your current flow through the collector junction,into the base junction,due to junction breakdown.
You ask the dumbest of questions some time's.

<<< It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.  Learn something new.  >>>

Oooh, I could take that as an insult.  Wattsup would have an issue with your tone, better watch out.

Take a look at the attached schematic and weep.  Is this not clear enough for you, "Why didn't you put the CVR for the collector trace on top of L1?"

MileHigh

 author=wattsup link=topic=8341.msg478897#msg478897 date=1459256292]
@tinman






wattsup

The scopes of base/collector junction show 20 something volts so one side of the scope probe (ground or probe) had to receive 0 volts (or near 0) while the other side had to receive the higher volts to produce that scope shot. So where did that 0 come from while the transistor is on (closed).

I have no idea as to what you are referring too?. Could you post the scope shot,and point out what you mean.
0 volt's is just a reference point for the scope,as that 0 volt's may be a negative voltage to that of ground.If we place the scope across an AC voltage--where is 0 volts as far as the scope is concerned?. Well as most scope's negative and earth ground are common,but then we measure an AC voltage that is isolated from earth ground--where is the 0 volt point?.

As per my last post, can you please as per your test "explain 2.JPG" where you have the cvr placed between the collector and L1, now try it with the cvr between the emitter and ground. That's the one I want to see and maybe even you too. Then put the cvr between the LED ground and ground and do it again. If you can do that, it will help explain this circuit.

My scopes common is also earth ground,so you would see nothing between the emitter and ground-as they are one in the same.

Here is a curiosity? Try repositioning the LED between L1 and the collector. Since the LED would require a ground from the collector, what will happen? Will it light or not?

I would think not-->will have to think about that one a little.

I can get into more detail showing the actual circuit flow with dots, if these tests can be done. The "effect pattern" because it is not really a "flow pattern", because there is not really any flow, should marry perfectly to the scopes wave pattern.

You post the circuit,and i will test it

Then, for more confirmation try with the LED between the emitter and ground and this will show if positive will now pass the transistor when it is on. The LED is good because it can delimit up to where the negative can reach before it is consumed with the positive from the other side.

Which way around?--turn ratio of L1 to L2 ?
Draw up the schematics ,and i will test the circuit.

Also, I think your free attacks on @tinman are highly unwarranted and will soon approach some level of indecency. Best you stop it.

Some times you have to stand back,and think about thing's for a while.
I think we have both given as good as we got,and it is not doing much good either way.
The blame must go both ways Wattsup,and putting an end to it must also come from both.

Gosh Miles!

That sort of a response is troubling indeed!

Let us hope that you're not going into a "breakdown"
mode and that perhaps a little rest might restore your
vitality and sense of reason?

The Tin Man makes perfect sense to me.

I actually don't believe your last statement.  You just want to step in for your typical little cameo and with a barely concealed smile on your face say something out of kilter that is in tune with the whole "Dr. Strangelove" atmosphere in the thread.

One can imagine a reedited Dr. Strangelove where a few times in the film they cut to some freezing sailor standing on watch on a navy ship way above the arctic circle.  The freezing sailor doles out some quixotic "pearls of wisdom" that add to the whole unreality of the scene.  Blame that behaviour on the effects of the chemtrails.

Thank you for your cameo.

The scopes of base/collector junction show 20 something volts so one side of the scope probe (ground or probe) had to receive 0 volts (or near 0) while the other side had to receive the higher volts to produce that scope shot. So where did that 0 come from while the transistor is on (closed).

Measurement of a voltage potential is always made relative to some point of reference.

In this circuit, when the transistor is turned on, electrons flow from the negative terminal of the battery (BATT-) to the transistor's emitter, from the emitter thru the base/ L2 and collector/L1 paths and then back to the positive terminal of the battery (BATT+).

Where the scope reference (probe "ground" clip) is connected to the circuit determines the polarities (and values) of measured voltages.

In this circuit, when the transistor is turned on, the base terminal is approximately 0.7 volts less negative than the voltage at the emitter (which is the same as saying the base is 0.7V positive with respect to the emitter). 

If the scope reference is the BATT+, when the transistor is turned on, the voltage at the base will measure approximately -0.8V and the emitter will measure -1.5V (assuming battery voltage is 1.5V).  The voltage measured at the battery side of L1 and L2 will measure zero volts (excluding any Vdrop in wires).

If the scope reference is the BATT-, when the transistor is turned on, the voltage at the base will measure approximately +0.7V and the voltage at the emitter will measure 0.0V (again, excluding Vdrop in wires). 

Both measurements are correct, it is all relative.  This is why the measurement reference point must be specified for us to make sense of the measurements, particularly with regard to scope captures.  Note how TK provided his reference as being the emitter in the scope capture (image) he recently posted.  As well, Tinman typically provides a schematic with measurement and reference points indicated.

Use of the word "ground" is rather ambiguous, as there are actually some instances where that literally means connected to ground, such as a ground rod driven into the dirt.  However, it is often just used to mean the measurement reference point, a circuit common, etc, and not necessarily meaning actually connected to an Earth ground.

PW 

One can imagine a reedited Dr. Strangelove where a few times in the film they cut to some freezing sailor standing on watch on a navy ship way above the arctic circle.  The freezing sailor doles out some quixotic "pearls of wisdom" that add to the whole unreality of the scene.  Blame that behaviour on the effects of the chemtrails.

Thank you for your cameo.

Lately there has been a steady increase in 'mercury' being found in west US. Not just in rivers and lakes but on the land. Mercury is pretty heavy. There is not that much westerly wind to say its from power plants, even if it were, the concentrations found it could not possibly be. I study this stuff. You dont.

Besides, even though you dont believe and have always 'denied' chem trails to exist, the gov has already admitted it but claim other reasons for it, like trying to reflect the heat of the sun to try and cool the earth down.  And that clumsy admission is fact that they do spray, not assumption. Even Hawaii has had court battles to keep the chem trails from being dropped over their land.  I can pull the documentation of that if you like. But you will just say its bogus spaghetti what ever. But at least the readers can investigate themselves and see what garbage you post.

Tired of it all, for some time now.

Mags

I don't post garbage but speaking of garbage, how is the "resonant Joule Thief" cumming along?  Anything exciting to post?

I have a new one going together this evening. Just spoke to Brad about it. Im using a 6mm OD ferrite toroid(input choke off a small cfl circuit board) and starting with 2t by 2t and will step up the turns if necessary incase of operational issues. The reason for beginning with 2 turns is to try and get the operating freq up to where we would need to be to get the core freq to resonate. The 3904 will operate up to 300mhz. Smoky said in a recent post about getting the core into saturation. So smaller core, easier saturation. Especially with the small amounts of power we are dealing with.

Windings will be 30awg. Very short wires so low resistance. Putting on a square of RS circuit board.

Mags

When it becomes a resonant jt it will get its own thread.

Mags