Author Topic: Joule Thief 101 (Read 944164 times)

picowatt · « **Reply #1740 on:** April 11, 2016, 12:18:57 PM »

Quote from: EMJunkie on April 11, 2016, 12:03:28 PM

PW - Youre still Wrong, and still wont admit to it.

You see, Brads circuit was never in question. Its TKs explanation of it.

You stated that TK was wrong and that the correct answer was 180 degrees, so at least in your mind, Tinman's circuit was indeed "in question". It's good to see that you have changed your position and now agree that TK correctly chose the 90 degree capture.

As well, both TK and Tinman used Faraday's law to predict that the induced voltage would be at a minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux was also at a minimum.

Using the 90 degree scope capture, both of them indicated where the induced voltage was at a minimum, and as well, where the rate of change of the magnetic flux was also at a minimum, and how those points in time were in alignment.

Surely you agree that Faraday's law predicts that the induced voltage will be at its minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic field is also at its minimum...

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1741 on:** April 11, 2016, 12:29:49 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2016, 01:07:29 AM

Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law:

You see, Faradays Law is entirely dependant on the very values that TK says that Faradays Law Predicts.

See, math shows you and TK to be wrong:

Quote from: Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction

E.M.F = -N dϕ_B/dt

Where:

Quote from: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1120/phys1120_sp08/notes/notes/Knight33_induction_lect.pdf

ϕ = BA Cos(θ)

is a change in ϕ in respect to time. So this quantity is a necessity, to accurately know, well before we can even calculate Faradays law.

This quantity (ϕ) is Design/System dependant, in other words, different Geometrys and Magnetic Fields will show a completely different result for ϕ!!!

This is completely independant of Faraday's law!!! Nothing to do, at all with Faraday's Law!!! Infact Faraday's Law is Governed by these factors!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Only things that Faradays Law Predicts:

1: The E.M.F
2: The Sign of the E.M.F

As stated many hundreds of times now, the Sign is Anti Phase. 180 Degrees out of phase from the Source.

Specifically!

So my Flowery Science fiend, you are wrong, dead wrong, and to stubborn to admit!

Brads Circuit is completely outside of these facts and not the topic of this debate. It is entirely related to the description TK presented of how the Circuit was working as referenced above.

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

picowatt · « **Reply #1742 on:** April 11, 2016, 12:38:13 PM »

Quote from: EMJunkie on April 11, 2016, 12:29:49 PM

You see, Faradays Law is entirely dependant on the very values that TK says that Faradays Law Predicts.

So you don't believe that Faraday's law predicts that the induced voltage will be at a minimum
when the rate of change of the magnetic field is also at a minimum?

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1743 on:** April 11, 2016, 12:42:18 PM »

Lets look at another simple example - Shall we?

Lets take a Permanent Magnet, 200 Gauss, and spin it up on a rotor in Germany.

Lets take a Stator in Sweden, with 500 turns on it!

Now the Time Rate of Change of the Flux calculated is dϕ_B/dt where ϕ_B is calculated from ϕ = BA COS(θ) where θ = 200 Gauss at 3 degrees.

Now, according to YOU and TK, the gurus you are:

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2016, 01:07:29 AM

your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law

But we know for definate sure that the 500 turns will have NO E.M.F

Does this sound like a logical plan that you and TK are taking?

Are you still Right? Of course not, no you are not right at all.

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1744 on:** April 11, 2016, 12:43:19 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on April 11, 2016, 12:38:13 PM

So you don't believe that Faraday's law predicts that the induced voltage will be at a minimum
when the rate of change of the magnetic field is also at a minimum?

I believe in you PW, your fairy tale science is aweinspiring!!!

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1745 on:** April 11, 2016, 12:48:57 PM »

Ok, another PW Inspired example,

Permanent Magnet, 200 Gauss again, 90 degrees to the core. This time, both in the same Country!

The time rate of change of the Coil is 200RPM but the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the Core and Magnetic Field.

So now what are all TK's Faradays Law Predictions.

Is it E.M.F or something entirely different like a....... "Dog"

We still fit the last "Prediction" of 90 degrees, and thats what Faradays Law "predicts" according to you blokes...

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

picowatt · « **Reply #1746 on:** April 11, 2016, 12:49:26 PM »

Quote from: EMJunkie on April 11, 2016, 12:42:18 PM

Lets look at another simple example - Shall we?

No, we did look at a simple example. It was the one Tinman presented. It was the
one where all that was asked was which scope capture was correct. The one which
TK answered choosing the 90 degree capture and that you answered choosing the
180 degree capture.

You have apparently recanted and are now agreeing with TK in stating that the 90 degree
capture was indeed correct.

All that needs to be sorted out now is whether or not you agree that Faraday's law predicts
that the induced voltage will be at a minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic field is
also at a minimum.

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1747 on:** April 11, 2016, 12:57:19 PM »

One last example of PW Science...

Kid on a scoter carying the biggest NEO youve ever seen, infact 40 Tesla, a massive one...

North pole faces forward, to the front of the scoter.

Kids pushing as hard as he can, to go as fast as possible with his new NEO.

Car drives past the kid, travelling in the opposite direction, little old Lady, bad ticker, got the latest Buck Boost Converter keeping the little olld heart going.

The Buck Boost converter is facing out to the right hand side of the little old Ladys car.

What will TK and PW decide that Faradays Law will predict this time?

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1748 on:** April 11, 2016, 01:00:28 PM »

I got it, a terrible Accident!

Neo flies off the Kids Scooter, grabs the little old Ladys car and spinns it around three times on its roof..

Really, you blokes are so terribly wrong its just not as funny as it was...

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

MileHigh · « **Reply #1749 on:** April 11, 2016, 01:05:34 PM »

Chris:

You bring Monty Python to Dr. Strangelove.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG1P8MQS1cU

picowatt · « **Reply #1750 on:** April 11, 2016, 01:05:53 PM »

Quote from: EMJunkie on April 11, 2016, 12:57:19 PM

One last example of PW Science...

So, do you not agree that Faraday's law states that the induced voltage is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic field?

Doesn't Faraday's law therefore "predict" that the induced voltage will be at a minimum when the magnetic field's rate of change is also at a minimum?

MileHigh · « **Reply #1751 on:** April 11, 2016, 01:09:12 PM »

Brad:

Read what I said again: In your diagram the output waveform shown does not match the physical setup shown.

You are not going to invent your own reality here. You made a mistake so suck it up like a man.

MileHigh

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1752 on:** April 11, 2016, 01:10:54 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on April 11, 2016, 12:49:26 PM

No, we did look at a simple example. It was the one Tinman presented.

Yes it was a simple example, you and TK got the description of Faraday's Law wrong on that one too!!!

How is that? Is it because you feel like ramdomply predicting predictions?

Tommorrow Faradays Law will be predicting Egg for Breakfast I think!!!

Hope I have eggs, if not I might magically change the prediction of eggs to Beetroot Salad.

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1753 on:** April 11, 2016, 01:13:15 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on April 11, 2016, 01:05:53 PM

So, do you not agree that Faraday's law states that the induced voltage is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic field?

Doesn't Faraday's law therefore "predict" that the induced voltage will be at a minimum when the magnetic field's rate of change is also at a minimum?

Youre flat out making all the random predictions PW, how about you choose - youre good at randomly randomising Scientific Principles.

No matter what the evidence, its ok though, because you cant read, they have no baring on your existance do they?

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

EMJunkie · « **Reply #1754 on:** April 11, 2016, 01:15:29 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2016, 01:07:29 AM

Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law:

You see, Faradays Law is entirely dependant on the very values that TK says that Faradays Law Predicts.

See, math shows you and TK to be wrong:

Quote from: Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction

E.M.F = -N dϕ_B/dt

Where:

Quote from: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1120/phys1120_sp08/notes/notes/Knight33_induction_lect.pdf

ϕ = BA Cos(θ)

is a change in ϕ in respect to time. So this quantity is a necessity, to accurately know, well before we can even calculate Faradays law.

This quantity (ϕ) is Design/System dependant, in other words, different Geometrys and Magnetic Fields will show a completely different result for ϕ!!!

This is completely independant of Faraday's law!!! Nothing to do, at all with Faraday's Law!!! Infact Faraday's Law is Governed by these factors!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Only things that Faradays Law Predicts:

1: The E.M.F
2: The Sign of the E.M.F

As stated many hundreds of times now, the Sign is Anti Phase. 180 Degrees out of phase from the Source.

Specifically!

So my Flowery Science fiend, you are wrong, dead wrong, and to stubborn to admit!

Brads Circuit is completely outside of these facts and not the topic of this debate. It is entirely related to the description TK presented of how the Circuit was working as referenced above.

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Joule Thief 101 (Read 944164 times)

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

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

picowatt

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

MileHigh

Re: Joule Thief 101

picowatt

Re: Joule Thief 101

MileHigh

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101

EMJunkie

Re: Joule Thief 101