Author Topic: Joule Thief 101 (Read 944117 times)

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1695 on:** April 11, 2016, 02:37:11 AM »

Quote from: picowatt on April 11, 2016, 02:20:01 AM

And just where and when did either TK or Tinman mention "reactance" in responding to Tinman's original question?

PW

PW - Youre being difficult delerately - Why?

You know as well as I do, Reactance is responsible for changing the Phase Angles of Current and Voltage. Three different Phase Angles have been shown by TK and Brad: 90, 91.08 and 180 Degrees

How is it possible we see any change at all of Phase Angles if what you say is true? Do the Laws of Science change ramdomly, at will, do they? That is, Electromagnetic Induction Changes depending on what Time of Day it is!!!

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

picowatt · « **Reply #1696 on:** April 11, 2016, 02:43:04 AM »

TK's response to Tinman's question:

Quote

Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.

The first coil's magnetic field follows, to first order, the current shown on the scope trace. At the peaks of this current, the time rate of change is zero (instantaneous slope is horizontal) -- and so the induced EMF as shown in the second coil's trace is zero (the induced current trace crosses the zero volt baseline at the same time the inducing current peaks.) When the inducing current (magnetic field) is changing at its maximum rate (the place where the instantaneous slope is steepest or most vertical: the zero crossing) the induced current is at its maximum (the peaks).

As you raise the frequency of your test, stray inductances (wire connections) become increasingly important and the observed phase difference on the scope will change.

EMJ's response to TK's answer above:

Quote

WRONG!!!

180 Degrees is the angle you will see!!! Faradays Law does not predict this, its actually Heinrich Lenz and Lenz's Law!!! Written as a (-) sign in the Equations of Faradays Law of Induction.

Which is Equal and Opposite.

See TK, if you had a handle on this, you could see and do so much more!!!

Chris Sykes

Clearly EMJ was wrong. Even the references EMJ himself has posted refute his answer...

PW

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1697 on:** April 11, 2016, 03:14:53 AM »

Quote from: picowatt on April 11, 2016, 02:43:04 AM

TK's response to Tinman's question:
EMJ's response to TK's answer above:

Clearly EMJ was wrong. Even the references EMJ himself has posted refute his answer...

PW

Thats it - "Clearly EMJ was wrong" - This is your proof?

Youre saying Every Single Textbook in the world is wrong and Reactance is not responsible for the Phase Angle differences we see every day of the week, that we measure on a continual basis to correctly measure Power?

This is your proof?

PW - Shame on you!!!

Please feel Free to show us the Mathmatical Proof where the Equation (E.M.F = -N dϕ_B/dt) Predicts the Phase angle differences between Voltage and Current we have seen already!

Go ahead, please provide the proof!

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

picowatt · « **Reply #1698 on:** April 11, 2016, 03:28:27 AM »

Quote from: EMJunkie on April 11, 2016, 03:14:53 AM

Thats it - "Clearly EMJ was wrong" - This is your proof?

Youre saying Every Single Textbook in the world is wrong and Reactance is not responsible for the Phase Angle differences we see every day of the week, that we measure on a continual basis to correctly measure Power?

This is your proof?

PW - Shame on you!!!

Please feel Free to show us the Mathmatical Proof where the Equation (E.M.F = -N dϕ_B/dt) Predicts the Phase angle differences between Voltage and Current we have seen already!

Go ahead, please provide the proof!

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

I present as "exhibit one" the page you copy/pasted several times such as in your post #1658 and the caption to "Figure 10.14" therein.

Do you now claim the material contained in that copy/pasted page is also in error?

PW

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1699 on:** April 11, 2016, 03:32:35 AM »

Fact: Tinman's experiment is classed as a Transformer.
Fact: Transformers can exibit many different Phase Angle differences (within the range of 0-360 Degrees) - Thus the reason we Measure it in the first place.
Fact: We have seen several different Phase Angle Differences already from te replications.
Fact: The smallest change to the Circuit can Change the Phase Angle
Fact: The smallest change to the System can Change the Phase Angle

Fact: Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction works and is still valid through all these changes. No matter where the Phase Angles of Voltage to Current are.

FACT: Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction does not Predict Phase angles between Voltage and Current. It Predicts E.M.F

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1700 on:** April 11, 2016, 03:34:12 AM »

Quote from: picowatt on April 11, 2016, 03:28:27 AM

I present as "exhibit one" the page you copy/pasted several times such as in your post #1658 and the caption to "Figure 10.14" therein.

Do you now claim the material contained in that copy/pasted page is also in error?

PW

Clearly referencing Valid Scientific Material is not something your familiar with!!!

It is also clear that you have not read the referenced material!

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

picowatt · « **Reply #1701 on:** April 11, 2016, 03:38:37 AM »

Quote from: EMJunkie on April 11, 2016, 03:32:35 AM

Fact: Tinman's experiment is classed as a Transformer.
Fact: Transformers can exibit many different Phase Angle differences (within the range of 0-360 Degrees) - Thus the reason we Measure it in the first place.
Fact: We have seen several different Phase Angle Differences already from te replications.
Fact: The smallest change to the Circuit Changes the Phase Angle
Fact: The smallest change to the System changes the Phase Angle

Fact: Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction works and is still valid through all these changes. No matter where the Phase Angles of Voltage to Current are.

FACT: Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction does not Predict Phase angles between Voltage and Current. It Predicts E.M.F

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

And yet your very own posted references clearly state that the no load primary current lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees (as per the caption of Figure 10.14).

Are you now stating that your own references are also incorrect?

Man up...

PW

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1702 on:** April 11, 2016, 03:41:40 AM »

Quote from: picowatt on April 11, 2016, 03:38:37 AM

And yet your very own posted references clearly state that the no load primary current lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees (as per the caption of Figure 10.14).

Are you now stating that your own references are also incorrect?

Man up...

PW

PW - Proof Please, then we can idle chat...

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1703 on:** April 11, 2016, 03:43:00 AM »

Some idle Chat...

WOW have you blokes dug a massive hole for yourselves!!!!

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1704 on:** April 11, 2016, 04:22:10 AM »

PW - Youre still Clearly missing the entire point of the Debate:

Quote from: EMJunkie on April 11, 2016, 03:32:35 AM

FACT: Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction does not Predict Phase angles between Voltage and Current. It Predicts E.M.F

I like this one, it spells out the equation nicely for those that cant grasp simple concepts.

Where:
e = The Prediction made by Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction - How simple is this?

Can you see anything about Phase Angle from Voltage to Current in there? - No me either!!

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1705 on:** April 11, 2016, 04:32:46 AM »

Quote from: Magluvin on April 11, 2016, 02:23:15 AM

One thing. Not sure. Does it matter if the secondary is wound first under the primary or as you have it. Just wondering if the effects would be any different.

Mags

Hey Mags - No Induction is Induction.

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1706 on:** April 11, 2016, 04:47:53 AM »

Quote from: EMJunkie on April 11, 2016, 04:22:10 AM

PW - Youre still Clearly missing the entire point of the Debate:

I like this one, it spells out the equation nicely for those that cant grasp simple concepts.

Where:
e = The Prediction made by Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction - How simple is this?

Can you see anything about Phase Angle from Voltage to Current in there? - No me either!!

This Equation calculates Phase angle, but it is no where near the other one we saw!!!

COMPLETELY different from The Electromagnetic Induction Equation, now isnt it!!!

Can you read the word coloured in brown text??? Yep, I felt that too, your stomoch just sank PW didnt it!!!

Ref: AC Circuit Complex Impedance, Part 3: Putting It All Together

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

Magluvin · « **Reply #1707 on:** April 11, 2016, 04:50:33 AM »

Quote from: EMJunkie on April 11, 2016, 04:32:46 AM

Hey Mags - No Induction is Induction.

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

Well consider this..

As Brads coil is basically air core, what if we had a rod core and wound 2 layers of the same turns, 1 layer is the primary and the other is the sec. The outer winding will have more wire length and resistance than the inner layer, due to greater winding diameter, but lets not think of that right now.

So if we use the inner layer as the sec and apply input to the outer layer, "it is said that the sec will have less interaction with the primary due to most of the sec field would be attracted to the core.' Now I imagine that just the fact that the sec field is affecting the core would be interacting with the primary in a fairly big way, as compared to not loading the sec.

But now if we use the first layer as the primary, and the outer as the sec, I can imagine less of the primary field cutting the outer sec as the primary field of the underlying layer would be attracted to the core and less induction of the outer sec.

Ponder it a bit. Cleaning off bench. Made a little work station for my equip to stack and keep the bench less cluttered. Always seem to need more room.

Mags

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1708 on:** April 11, 2016, 05:04:40 AM »

Hey Mags - Yeah me too.

I believe youre talking about the Coupling Coefficient (k):

Quote

When the coefficient of coupling, k is equal to 1, (unity) such that all the lines of flux of one coil cuts all of the turns of the second coil, that is the two coils are tightly coupled together, the resulting mutual inductance will be equal to the geometric mean of the two individual inductances of the coils.

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

Magluvin · « **Reply #1709 on:** April 11, 2016, 05:17:38 AM »

Quote from: Magluvin on April 11, 2016, 04:50:33 AM

Well consider this..

As Brads coil is basically air core, what if we had a rod core and wound 2 layers of the same turns, 1 layer is the primary and the other is the sec. The outer winding will have more wire length and resistance than the inner layer, due to greater winding diameter, but lets not think of that right now.

So if we use the inner layer as the sec and apply input to the outer layer, "it is said that the sec will have less interaction with the primary due to most of the sec field would be attracted to the core.' Now I imagine that just the fact that the sec field is affecting the core would be interacting with the primary in a fairly big way, as compared to not loading the sec.

But now if we use the first layer as the primary, and the outer as the sec, I can imagine less of the primary field cutting the outer sec as the primary field of the underlying layer would be attracted to the core and less induction of the outer sec.

Ponder it a bit. Cleaning off bench. Made a little work station for my equip to stack and keep the bench less cluttered. Always seem to need more room.

Mags

Now an air core....

Say we have a tesla coil of the kind we see with sparks and all that. Would it be better to have the primary on the outer dia of the sec, as we see them out there, or might it be better to have the primary inside the sec tube? If not, why?

So just throwing it out there that there may be a better config for brads experiment that may be of benefit to the whole, or possibly not. We need as many positive ways of going about things as they all add up to more positive outcomes. This little thing and that little thing add up to something bigger. Then we keep those things in our minds as we go along to improve what we are doing.

Like the idea that if we use 1 coil at say 1w to make the magnet on the spring strip move a particular distance, and then if we add another coil to the other side of the magnet and put it in series with the first coil, and adjust the input so that each coil consumes .5w, total 1w, the magnet moves further.

Why is that? Same power input, more output. Like audio speakers. 1 speaker produces 100db at 100w. But 2 similar speakers, 50w each and the output is now 103db.

4 speakers, 25w ea, total of 100w, 106db. Doesnt seem right does it? How far can we go with this? 32 speakers, total 100w, 115db. So if we had some say pancake motors. 1 motor at 750w is 1hp. If we add another pancake motor, shaft to shaft, and wire them in series and adjust the input so each motor consumes 375w, total of 750w, then would the output be more than 1hp?

Mags

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Joule Thief 101 (Read 944117 times)

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

picowatt

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

picowatt

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

picowatt

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

Magluvin

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

Magluvin

Re: Joule Thief 101