Author Topic: Joule Thief 101 (Read 944191 times)

tinman · « **Reply #1335 on:** April 01, 2016, 12:21:06 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on April 01, 2016, 06:12:22 AM

The first sentences of the first post on page one of this thread:
More recently there has been discussions related to resonance.

Some resonant conditions can be a bad thing, some can be a good thing, but I was unaware of any "anomalous effects" related to resonance that "standard EM theory", for example, cannot account for.

PW

Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.

The biggest problem here,and by here i mean !world wide!,is that it seems most(if not all) have just settled for knowing what the magnetic field dose,and how we can use that magnetic field. It seems that no one is any longer interested in knowing -or trying to find out what the magnetic force is.
If we knew this,then we could then design devices based around that new found knowledge,and only then would we have machines that can be powered by PM's alone.

No one seems to even want to try and find out what the magnetic force is--but it is something,we know it is,as we can feel it.

Brad

Johan_1955 · « **Reply #1336 on:** April 01, 2016, 12:28:37 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on April 01, 2016, 12:11:52 AM

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."

- Winston Churchill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4IVEUapInk

Mirror mirror, recognise: That the guy is talking only about his self, like you mostly when its over others!

The proof, picking the most short convenient so called true movie, study before you talk, this especially because our a appriciated host, Stephan Hartmann is also German, you blind Soul.

Educate you're self before typing, see the full true:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA7_S8oD7HU

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheWorldWar2History/videos

You talk, and have no idea what you're saying!

So you're also believing that Napoleon was beaten by UK?

You are the perfect Tax-Payer, non social or democratic.

tinman · « **Reply #1337 on:** April 01, 2016, 02:08:55 PM »

author=Erfinder link=topic=8341.msg479193#msg479193 date=1459507665]

Quote

I mean no one any disrespect, I get something from all of you, and would like to give back to the community one day. I feel I cannot accomplish this task so long as we cannot get beyond defending concepts which which didn't originate at least in part with individuals participating in the discussion.

Quote

Speaking for myself, I do want to know what the force is and where it comes from, and am actively perusing this aim.

As am i,and i think i may be close--we shall see.

Quote

The discussions taking place here, specifically the debate between you and Milehigh, is what keeps folks like myself from participating.

Because the time has come for me !once again! to believe in what i see,and not what im told i should be seeing.

Quote

The books have their place, and that place is not at the center of a brainstorming and speculation discussion. Nothing in the literature as far as I have been able to discern, has led anyone to a definitive answer.

That comment is at the heart of the problem we face here. There are those that !stick to the book's!,and those that believe we have not been told the complete truth--through the eyes of the book's.
We are guided by !so called! laws that are older than anyone on this forum.
The fact is,they are not laws at all--they are nothing more than a !best guess! ,that is derived from that that is known so far--or has been given

Quote

This is not to say that the answer isn't in there somewhere, nor does it imply that if and when the answer is found, that the books cannot qualify it.

Anything can be twisted,so as it kind of represents something that is not there. It's much like being able to make pictures from cloud's-even though there just cloud's.

Quote

Our position should be neutral, this enables us to take the best from that which we are exposed to and combine it in any manner we see fit.

That is !how! it should be,but it is how it is not.
There are those here that !must! adhere to the book's,and the partial truths they preach.

Quote

The answer is probably not going to be as straight forward as books would have it to be, nor as simple as some researchers wish for it to be. We wont catch a glimpse of it if we are preoccupied with defending ideas which were prepared for us.

Time defending truth's are never a waste of time--they are a path built toward a correct understanding to the subject at hand.
If we let untruths slide,then those behind us will only be set on a false path--and this is how great things are missed.

Quote

The answers are in the book when we identify them, until that time, they aren't there.

I do not believe they are. In fact,i believe they have been left out on purpose-so as man can go no further than he has gone. Even when there are those that provide systems that greatly increase efficiencies--no one is interested.

I will give you an example of such,and this example is for an ICE--the 4 stroke,186ci holden 6 cylinder ICE valve train. It has 87 moving part's,and draws about 4HP from the engine. It has a limit of speed at which it can operate.

At the age of just 23,i designed a valve system for the same motor,that had only 3 moving part's,required only 1/40th of the power to drive it,and had no limit to the RPM at which it would operate--you could never get to a stage where you would encounter valve float--or valve bounce as some call it.
A local machine shop produced a prototype of my system,and the engine ran extremely well.
Over the next 6 month's,i(and my employer at the time) tried to find an interested motor manufacture to take on the design--but not one was interested.

The ICEs of today have many more moving part's--not less. Now we have 2 or 4 cam shafts. We have 4 valves per cylinder,which means more valve spring's,retainer collets,stem seals,clearance shim's-the list go's on. All these extra parts need more power to drive them.

It just seems to me,that we are going backwards in this area--the ICE.
I feel the same about many thing's,where as it seems that we are just not going any further forward--we are stuck with the same old stuff we had 30 years ago when it comes to power generation--of all types.

It is becoming more and more apparent each day that there are technologies out there that are being hidden from us,and if anyone comes up with something that the powers that be cannot control -or give us some sort of freedom,then they are quickly silenced one way or the other.

Brad

Johan_1955 · « **Reply #1338 on:** April 01, 2016, 03:16:56 PM »

Quote from: tinman on April 01, 2016, 02:08:55 PM

It just seems to me,that we are going backwards in this area--the ICE.
I feel the same about many thing's,where as it seems that we are just not going any further forward--we are stuck with the same old stuff we had 30 years ago when it comes to power generation--of all types.

It is becoming more and more apparent each day that there are technologies out there that are being hidden from us,and if anyone comes up with something that the powers that be cannot control -or give us some sort of freedom,then they are quickly silenced one way or the other.

Brad

The Uni's need money, so students are not anymore selected on there natural talents, most youngsters are graphing a study direction for status, MH on R&D is not working, but a Luc would be Perfect.

The book-keeper technicians are taking over, licking to above and kicking to below, or in there thinking what below is, like proven if you miss in grammar a pointy or comma.

The 2-stroke engine is killed, why?

Not because of CO2, below a pic of a 2-stroke patent, CO2 neutral like a 4-stroke, old and now open-source!?!?

Because of: Small factories with TALENT could beat Honda, Suzuki, Yamaha or ..................... , look: Kreidler, Jamathi, Piovattici, Derbi.

wattsup · « **Reply #1339 on:** April 01, 2016, 03:33:31 PM »

Quote from: tinman on April 01, 2016, 12:21:06 PM

Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.

The biggest problem here,and by here i mean !world wide!,is that it seems most(if not all) have just settled for knowing what the magnetic field dose,and how we can use that magnetic field. It seems that no one is any longer interested in knowing -or trying to find out what the magnetic force is.
If we knew this,then we could then design devices based around that new found knowledge,and only then would we have machines that can be powered by PM's alone.

No one seems to even want to try and find out what the magnetic force is--but it is something,we know it is,as we can feel it.
Brad

@tinman

That's what I am working on. Exactly to find a new way. You will see soon man.

Example: In the JT circuit, the 1k resistor for me is the worst component to use. It is better to find a small transformer that has a primary with 1k resistance where the secondary can still put energy back into the battery.

I am about to post two effect diagrams of the circuit using my new STEP model of Spin Conveyance. This is new. I am just holding back because I do not really think guys are really ready for this. Anyways I will finish it and post it and we shall see how our present EE structure mentality will be able to cope with the premise. Premise maybe but it fits all our effect right down to a "T".

@picowatt

Thanks again for your response. I had prepared a post but it is too long. I would simply like to provide a practical description of using the scope.

You measure across a CVR, probe on one side and ground clip on the other side. You see the waveform on the scope. The waveform tells you something which is based on the difference in energy states of both the positive and negative side of the CVR (or high positive and lower positive, or, high negative and lower negative).

So while you see the waveform, you remove the ground clip and see on of the following;

1) The waveform shows the exact same waveform result.
2) The waveform shows a higher energy state.
3) The waveform shows a lower energy state.

What do each of these states tell you? I do not want to give you my input on this as I do not want to influence how your response may be.

Then,,,,,,,,,,,

The fact that a CVR is being injected into the circuit for measurement purposes automatically cancels the real effect of the circuit. We never know up to which level of effect the CVR will have on the circuit and as we measure and correlate those results, are we now actually following a slightly or widely warped functionality of the circuit and not the true intended circuit operation?

This is the problem. We can use CVRs for years and nothing will be truly known because the CVR could be creating bottlenecks in the circuit that we are totally unaware of during the measurements.

So then why has science not established a method of measurement requiring only the one scope probe where the ground potential is set to a universally accepted level in order for everyone to measure at a same method. Or why are we not using small current measurement inductors like a miniature clamp on ammeter. Imagine if this was created and used in all our benches, we could then measure the true functionality without modifying the real circuit.

I can give you examples like this to fill up pages and pages more. It seems to me that in these forums we have the EE side and the OU side. The EE side spends all its time setting the OU side straight. But I could tear down the EE side in a few pages and then what would we be left with?

It seems to me that if the EE side is to become a useful and pertinent part of the OU effort, then those EEers should unite their efforts to establish new accepted ways of non-intrusive measurements. If the EE side established this on their own, the outcome would be uncontested with new tools for the OUer to use and understand and explain circuit operations. Right now, if we take the JT thread as an example, all these measurements @tinman made amount to what? What have we really learned about the circuit? Such a simple circuit yet what have we learned any more then what we always learn as being the surface effect and not going any deeper. There has to be a way. There absolutely has to be a way to just put your scope probe anywhere on a circuit without the ground clip connected and see the actual energy states in that specific point of the circuit without modifying or influencing any deleterious effects to the circuit. How come EEers have not worked this out between themselves after how many countless decades on the bench? Don't know.

We will see this weekend when I post up my effect diagram, using @tinmans JT circuit, just how polyvalent our minds are. But most importantly just how objective we can be to understand something new.

wattsup

Johan_1955 · « **Reply #1340 on:** April 01, 2016, 03:41:55 PM »

Quote from: tinman on April 01, 2016, 02:08:55 PM

It is becoming more and more apparent each day that there are technologies out there that are being hidden from us,and if anyone comes up with something that the powers that be cannot control -or give us some sort of freedom,then they are quickly silenced one way or the other.

Brad

About the first 2-stroke resonance, read this:

http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/classic-japanese-motorcycles/suzuki-ernst-degner-ze0z1202zsch.aspx

MZ, Jawa, en CZ, are in located in the Europe area of where Tesla is born, mostly named as Gipsy / Occult area, a name calling because of other knowledge, to difficult for the book-keepers.

Japan did steal it (2-stroke) from above with money, US was the not invited gast for the Werner VonBraun Fire-Cracker now Nasa technology, and using Churchill for there goal, so UK is used without that they know it by US!?

picowatt · « **Reply #1341 on:** April 01, 2016, 04:50:40 PM »

Quote from: wattsup on April 01, 2016, 03:33:31 PM

@picowatt

Thanks again for your response. I had prepared a post but it is too long. I would simply like to provide a practical description of using the scope.

You measure across a CVR, probe on one side and ground clip on the other side. You see the waveform on the scope. The waveform tells you something which is based on the difference in energy states of both the positive and negative side of the CVR (or high positive and lower positive, or, high negative and lower negative).

So while you see the waveform, you remove the ground clip and see on of the following;

1) The waveform shows the exact same waveform result.
2) The waveform shows a higher energy state.
3) The waveform shows a lower energy state.

What do each of these states tell you? I do not want to give you my input on this as I do not want to influence how your response may be.

There is nothing mystical about the operation of an oscilloscope. Regardless of what you do with the ground clip (scope reference), the 'scope will continue to measure between the probe tip and its ground reference (which may, depending upon what it is you are measuring, just be just capacitive or inductively coupled noise).

Your questions are no different than asking about the use of a voltmeter. If you connect the two probes of a voltmeter across a battery's terminals to measure its voltage, should I be perplexed when disconnecting one of the leads changes that measurement?

Do you have a particular measurement you wish to discuss?

Regarding the use of a CVR, there is no mystery there as well. The measurements across a CVR allow the current flow to be measured with a meter or visualized with a scope. Adding the typically small resistance of a CVR to a circuit and the effect that has on that circuit is also well understood. More often the use of a CVR is less desirable because of the need for a measurement isolated from another measurement than it is with regard to how that CVR affects the circuit.

When use of a CVR is deemed to invasive or impractical, a current probe can be used, which is isolated from the citrcuit.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that all measurements are made with regard to a point of reference. Forgive me if not, but was it you that stated AC proves electron's don't exist because the neutral in US AC distribution systems is "zero volts"?

Again, all measurements are relative...

PW

tinman · « **Reply #1342 on:** April 01, 2016, 05:22:58 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on April 01, 2016, 04:50:40 PM

There is nothing mystical about the operation of an oscilloscope. Regardless of what you do with the ground clip (scope reference), the 'scope will continue to measure between the probe tip and its ground reference (which may, depending upon what it is you are measuring, just be just capacitive or inductively coupled noise).

Your questions are no different than asking about the use of a voltmeter. If you connect the two probes of a voltmeter across a battery's terminals to measure its voltage, should I be perplexed when disconnecting one of the leads changes that measurement?

Do you have a particular measurement you wish to discuss?

Regarding the use of a CVR, there is no mystery there as well. The measurements across a CVR allow the current flow to be measured with a meter or visualized with a scope. Adding the typically small resistance of a CVR to a circuit and the effect that has on that circuit is also well understood. More often the use of a CVR is less desirable because of the need for a measurement isolated from another measurement than it is with regard to how that CVR affects the circuit.

When use of a CVR is deemed to invasive or impractical, a current probe can be used, which is isolated from the citrcuit.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that all measurements are made with regard to a point of reference. Forgive me if not, but was it you that stated AC proves electron's don't exist because the neutral in US AC distribution systems is "zero volts"?

Again, all measurements are relative...

PW

Well i have found a problem here,and it involves the resistors.
The discovery came after the video below that i made in the search for junction capacitance.
Please pay careful attention to the diode test. This is a 1n4007 diode in the video.

After a couple of days thinking about this,i knew something was not right. There was just no way that diode could have enough junction capacitance to light that LED the way it was.

Tonight i ran some more test,and made a discovery that define's a major flaw in the JT circuits measurements by way of scope,and DMM's. What you see on your scope and DMMs ,is not what is there at all.

I will let you watch the video,and see if you can see where these errors lye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyvcMbSxAo0

Brad

MileHigh · « **Reply #1343 on:** April 01, 2016, 05:37:13 PM »

Quote

Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.

It took me about five seconds to come up with a thought experiment that does exactly that. Don't bother asking me, you "out of the box" brainiacs can ponder that one yourselves and answer it yourselves. If nobody can answer it, then you are back to the same old conundrum where "you guys only know what is in books" and yet you guys can't apply the knowledge that you are supposed to know to answer simple questions. Both EMJunkie and Wattsup could not answer the very same simple question that I posed to them about a coil. EMJunkie had a hard time with that and threw every "tech sounding" phrase that he associated with coils at the problem and nothing was correct. So after about 15 to 25 tries in vain by EMJunkie, MarkE answered the question. Then EMJunkie had the gall to come here and post that it never happened, which was an outright lie. And that's part of the reason I posted the two wine glass questions.

picowatt · « **Reply #1344 on:** April 01, 2016, 07:02:16 PM »

Quote from: tinman on April 01, 2016, 12:21:06 PM

Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.

So I guess no one can think of an "anomalous effect" caused by resonance....

As to this different question that you raise, rather simplistically speaking, here is my take on it:

We are to believe that the magnetic field produced by a PM is due to the motion of electrons in atoms with unpaired outer shell electrons, parallel alignment of groups of those atoms into domains, alignment of those domains towards a given direction, and retention of those domain alignments due to the pinning forces created by the inclusion of different atoms positioned between the domains.

When current flows thru a conductor, we are to believe that electrons are flowing from one point to another within that conductor and that the motion of those electrons thru the conductor produces a magnetic field similar to that produced by the motion of the electrons in the atoms of the PM.

Placing a PM next to a conductor may cause the electrons of atoms within that conductor to align with the magnetic field of the PM and produce a temporary flow of electrons within that conductor, but once the motion of the PM ceases and any electron alignment with the PM is completed, there is no further flow of electrons due to the proximity of the now stationary PM, with only alignment remaining.

Moving the PM (or an EM) with respect to the conductor causes the area of electrons aligned with the PM (or EM) within the conductor to move or flow along the conductor (somewhat analogous to the flow of fluid in a peristaltic pump, or a roller moved across a wet sponge). This flow can be out of one end of the conductor, thru an external circuit, and back into the other end of the conductor (i.e., generator and load), or the flow can loop back into itself within the conductor (i.e., eddy current).

That explanation is rather macroscopic in nature. If we were to consider an individual ferromagnetic atom (i.e., iron) and a single free electron, we may find that the magnetic field inherent to that iron atom due to the motion (orbit) of an unpaired electron does indeed cause that free electron to move. This might be considered to be somewhat similar to a stationary PM producing current flow.

Only if we were to believe that the magnetic field of the PM has some sort of coherent or statistically significant flow relative to its field alignment would we expect that magnetic field to produce a current flow when the PM is stationary with respect to the conductor.

Quote

The biggest problem here,and by here i mean !world wide!,is that it seems most(if not all) have just settled for knowing what the magnetic field dose,and how we can use that magnetic field. It seems that no one is any longer interested in knowing -or trying to find out what the magnetic force is.

That's complete nonsense. Yes, engineers use what we know to develop technology, but there is a great deal of ongoing science related to just figuring out what everything "is". It is often the technological advances that allow the continued pursuit of those unanswered questions.

I think many, and by many I mean you, have become cynical towards scientists and science in general. Do scientists have all the answers? Of course not. But we only know what it is they do not know because of the investigations and discoveries made by those scientists!

For example, you point to the unexplained motion of the galaxies as proof that science does not have all the answers and therefore seemingly want to be cynical towards all scientists and the answers they have discovered. You fail to give them credit for advancing to the point to where they are able to point out the anomalous motion of those galaxies and the new questions those discoveries present. Sometimes it seems that laymen are just lying in wait for scientists to announce a new discovery that raise a bunch of unanswered questions just so those laymen can say "see, I told you they don't know it all", as if that were a bad thing. If science had all the answers, there would be no need for science.

Recently LIGO in the US reported detection of gravity waves as predicted by Einstein. In order to pull that off, they had to measure the length difference of the two arms of the interferometer to one part in 10²¹. As I mentioned previously, I read that was equivalent to measuring the width of the Milky Way galaxy changing by the width of a pencil erasure. This was no small feat. Most can only just begin to fathom the technical difficulties associated with that level of measurement precision. Even now, it is planned to further enhance the measurement accuracy of LIGO, and once additional detectors come on line throughout the world (bummer about Australia's), an entire new realm of scientific discovery will be at hand (similar to the advent of radiotelescopy). It is very likely that detection and study of gravity waves will answer some questions, but it is also very likely that many new questions will also arise.

Figuring out what is going on at the subatomic and cosmological scales are closely related. However, there is indeed some very leading edge, state of the art science working in those fields and related purely to what "everything is".

PW

picowatt · « **Reply #1345 on:** April 01, 2016, 07:17:06 PM »

Quote from: tinman on April 01, 2016, 05:22:58 PM

Well i have found a problem here,and it involves the resistors.

I took a quick look at the video (very annoying ambient noise). I'll look at it further when I have the time.

Keep in mind that Fourier says that a fast edge contains some very high frequencies, so consider both junction capacitance and switching time with regard to your pulsed diode lighting an LED (I only briefly scanned thru the video, and that is the gist of what I believe you were discussing). Have you ever looked at a waveform using your scope's FFT function?

PW

tinman · « **Reply #1346 on:** April 01, 2016, 07:41:33 PM »

Questions for all.

1-What wave form should be seen across the CVR.
2- Will the LED light?

Post an answer for q2,and a quick pic/sketch of the wave form across the CVR

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #1347 on:** April 01, 2016, 07:44:59 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on April 01, 2016, 07:17:06 PM

I took a quick look at the video. I'll look at it further when I have the time.

Keep in mind that Fourier says that a fast edge contains some very high frequencies, so consider both junction capacitance and switching time with regard to your pulsed diode lighting an LED (I only briefly scanned thru the video, and that is the gist of what I believe you were discussing). Have you ever looked at a waveform using your scope's FFT function?

PW

Quote

(very annoying ambient noise)

Not much i can do about the fan in the power supply.
But it's not on during the whole video.

Brad

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #1348 on:** April 01, 2016, 08:32:32 PM »

Quote from: tinman on April 01, 2016, 07:41:33 PM

Questions for all.

1-What wave form should be seen across the CVR.
2- Will the LED light?

Post an answer for q2,and a quick pic/sketch of the wave form across the CVR

Brad

1. A sine wave

2. Yes, it will light.

I am just taking a stab at the questions and I am not 100% certain that I am correct.

Bill

picowatt · « **Reply #1349 on:** April 02, 2016, 12:49:35 AM »

Quote from: tinman on April 01, 2016, 07:41:33 PM

Questions for all.

1-What wave form should be seen across the CVR.
2- Will the LED light?

Post an answer for q2,and a quick pic/sketch of the wave form across the CVR

Brad

The turn off time of the 1N4007 diodes are probably more significant than their 15pF junction capacitance (and with three in series, that's even lower). Depending on the LED (some are rather fast, others not so much) it too can have significant turn off time and junction capacitance.

If we are probing the CVR from left to right (scope ground on left side of CVR), my guess would be that during the negative portion of the waveform, there would be a somewhat corresponding negative waveform observed at the right side of the CVR. The diodes, turned on during the negative portion of the applied waveform, would remain on briefly during the rising positive going portion of the applied waveform and there would be a positive going spike observed at the CVR during and following that transition prior to diode turn off.

The LED would be turned off during the 97% negative portion of the applied waveform and may light briefly during the brief turn off time of the diodes during the positive portion/rising edge of the applied waveform (depending on the LED turn on time and junction capacitance).

So, in summary, a significant negative going something or other with a more narrow positive going spike.

That would be my guess...

PW

ADDED:

Also, regarding your previous video, you should keep in mind that the turn off time of a !N4007 is around 2 us (with some a bit more). Your positive going waveform appears to be around 5us or so (hard to tell at your scope's sweep rate).

You might try a 1N4148, 1N914 or similar diode, as their turn off time is much shorter than the 4000 series.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Joule Thief 101 (Read 944191 times)

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

Johan_1955

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

Johan_1955

Re: Joule Thief 101

wattsup

Re: Joule Thief 101

Johan_1955

Re: Joule Thief 101

picowatt

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

MileHigh

Re: Joule Thief 101

picowatt

Re: Joule Thief 101

picowatt

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

Pirate88179

Re: Joule Thief 101

picowatt

Re: Joule Thief 101