Author Topic: Joule Thief 101 (Read 944338 times)

tinman · « **Reply #2040 on:** April 17, 2016, 12:04:16 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on April 17, 2016, 11:33:12 AM

You just don't get it Brad, not in the least bit.

Hey look MH
The secondary current leads that of the primary.
Magnet is doing work on the secondary,before the primary is doing work on the magnet
And just by adjusting the frequency by .01 of a Hz at a time,i can place the secondaries current anywhere i like in relation to that of the primaries current.

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #2041 on:** April 17, 2016, 12:07:19 PM »

In all seriousness MH,how are those answers to the questions below coming along?.
We wouldnt want you in the same boat that you place EMJ in--that sort of thing never seems to go away

Brad

ramset · « **Reply #2042 on:** April 17, 2016, 02:08:55 PM »

Well
I asked Stefan if we still have that white Flag [ceasefire flag]

" "it usually just gives everyone a chance to look for More "throwing" Stones ""

so he used it as a rag on his last Motor home oil change ["caravan" for the front siders and across the pond].
So its laying in some Ditch next to a "Scenic Fiord" in Norway or something..??

However ..
This observation about the magnetic interaction needs Clarity .

Just one mans opinion.

tinman · « **Reply #2043 on:** April 17, 2016, 04:17:04 PM »

A quick update to end the day;

@ poynt
Didnt get time to build the 1:1 coil today. Wife wanted to do a yard clean,and so most of my day was spent with her in the gardens. Will get it done ASAP.

Got about an hour in the workshop tonight,and shot a short video showing how i can shift the secondaries current phase from 90* lagging the primaries current,to !around! 30* leading the primaries current--with a frequency shift of only .6 of a Hz.

Video is uploading now,but seems very slow tonight. So will post tomorrow morning before work,as it's time for me to hit the hay soon.

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #2044 on:** April 17, 2016, 04:35:43 PM »

Quote from: ramset on April 17, 2016, 02:08:55 PM

Well
I asked Stefan if we still have that white Flag [ceasefire flag]

" "it usually just gives everyone a chance to look for More "throwing" Stones ""

so he used it as a rag on his last Motor home oil change ["caravan" for the front siders and across the pond].
So its laying in some Ditch next to a "Scenic Fiord" in Norway or something..??

However ..
This observation about the magnetic interaction needs Clarity .

Just one mans opinion.

I think if you are going to make !claims! against or on some one elses work,then you need to back up them claims,in the way of being able to answer questions based around those claims.

MH has made the claim that it is impedance only that is reducing the primaries current in my DUT,and so i ask him to supply information to back up that claim ,in the form of questions.
If he actually tries to answer the question's,then he may see why it is not impedance that is causing the current drop in L1-the primary coil.

He asked EMJ about a voltage being supplied to a coil,and he expected answers,and so i expect nothing more from him than he did from EMJ. He has made a claim,and now he will back it up with evidence--no more !arm chair! claims that are left at that--time to back them up.

Brad

poynt99 · « **Reply #2045 on:** April 17, 2016, 05:07:36 PM »

Quote from: tinman on April 17, 2016, 04:17:04 PM

A quick update to end the day;

@ poynt
Didnt get time to build the 1:1 coil today. Wife wanted to do a yard clean,and so most of my day was spent with her in the gardens. Will get it done ASAP.

Got about an hour in the workshop tonight,and shot a short video showing how i can shift the secondaries current phase from 90* lagging the primaries current,to !around! 30* leading the primaries current--with a frequency shift of only .6 of a Hz.

Video is uploading now,but seems very slow tonight. So will post tomorrow morning before work,as it's time for me to hit the hay soon.

Brad

No problem, thanks for the update.

wattsup · « **Reply #2046 on:** April 17, 2016, 05:25:19 PM »

Hahahahaaa. Wow so many more pages. Must be chock full of good information for the OUers on this forum but the weirdest thing is I can't find anything helpful at all. I did find some good information on how to continue arguing. For that, there is a real goldmine. But substance, totally lacking. Just an eternal quagmire staring @MH who has managed to transform(er)(hichic) himself into a full fledged jerkoff and his cast of merry jerk junkies. So you guys just enjoy the froth and maybe one day you will learn.

I am just amazed how you guys just love to turn in circles every day thinking you are actually putting one foot forward to advance when there is no advancement at all. You suck on @MH's crap all day long and wonder why. I mean how many damn posts do you guys post in one day. Don't you have your own bench works to do? How do you find the time to partake in such insignificant dribble and expect to learn anything is beyond me.

So I will not partake anymore in these threads because I realize you are just a bunch of low levels seeking to join some type of EE jamboree for the blind. So follow everything @MH tells you because deep down he knows how our effects work and how to arrive at OU. Just always listen to what he says and be grateful that he is endowing all of you with his anointed knowledge of nature and it's biggest secrets of effect. He knows everything. He knows when to interject his fat ass into a thread, he knows exactly how to pull your stings, he knows precisely how to disrespect OU benchers. He will always make sure you keep asking the wrong questions while he makes sure you ignore the pertinent ones. Typical.

@tinman

I tried and tried but you missed the boat. Soon you will be able to catch me on my locked thread. No more open discussion with you guys. It's pointless. I just cannot stomach all this crap everyday. Good luck. I'm out of here.

wattsup

MileHigh · « **Reply #2047 on:** April 17, 2016, 05:51:36 PM »

Wattsup:

Not every thread has to be about OU and this thread was about resonance.

Brad:

I see the same questions but I'll wing it.

1. Up.
2. No change.
3. Down.
4. Resistive load.
5. Transformer driving a resistive load.
6. Your test.

SeaMonkey · « **Reply #2048 on:** April 17, 2016, 08:20:08 PM »

Quote from: Miles Higher

That says it all right there. I tried to impress upon Brad that the basic Joule Thief is supposed to have a fixed value for the base resistor and varying the value of the base resistor makes no sense on a fundamental level. Nor does it change the brightness of the LED for reasons that were explained multiple times, all in the context of the normal operation of the device.

But Brad would have none of it. From what I can remember he made no attempt to understand any of this. This manic scanning through all of the postings shows how it is pretty much hopeless.

A "fixed base resistor" in any transistorized circuit, particularly a "switching
circuit" is an industrial trade-off for ease of maintenance. It is an operational
compromise which is reasonably close to but not at the point of maximum
efficiency.

Experimenters always use a variable base resistor to enable "tuning" of
the circuit under evaluation in order to attain the best possible operational
mode. The variation in transistor characteristics from one to the next
makes it very difficult to come up with fixed values of resistance.

The Original Joule Thief circuit was made as simple as possible in order to
appeal to the vast audience of technically limited amateur "builders."

Then the Experimenters took up the challenge to make it better.

NickZ · « **Reply #2049 on:** April 17, 2016, 08:56:35 PM »

Maybe better but not OU or self running. Isn't that the point of experimenting with a simple JT on this thread?
Just what is the point? Or perhaps there is no point, anymore?

MileHigh · « **Reply #2050 on:** April 17, 2016, 09:45:08 PM »

Quote from: SeaMonkey on April 17, 2016, 08:20:08 PM

A "fixed base resistor" in any transistorized circuit, particularly a "switching
circuit" is an industrial trade-off for ease of maintenance. It is an operational
compromise which is reasonably close to but not at the point of maximum
efficiency.

Experimenters always use a variable base resistor to enable "tuning" of
the circuit under evaluation in order to attain the best possible operational
mode. The variation in transistor characteristics from one to the next
makes it very difficult to come up with fixed values of resistance.

The Original Joule Thief circuit was made as simple as possible in order to
appeal to the vast audience of technically limited amateur "builders."

Then the Experimenters took up the challenge to make it better.

Indeed.

But of course since the base resistor is just for switching, and assuming that the real challenge is to choose the right fixed value for the base resistor, then indeed there are compromises to consider. A lower value of the base resistor will allow for normal Joule Thief operation to a lower battery voltage, but considering the high proportion of time that the transistor remains switched ON, then a lower value for the base resistor will increase the drain on the battery. Normally you might say, "Choose the right value of the base resistor to ensure proper Joule Thief operation with a battery voltage range from 1.5 volts down to say 0.75 volts." Now, if you choose that base resistor value and throw in the usual 10% margin of safety, then perhaps doing some analysis on paper would make sense. How much energy is drained from the battery for that value of base resistor per hour? Perhaps it would make more sense to choose a base resistor value to ensure proper Joule Thief operation from 1.5 volts down to 1.0 volts instead, and the power savings associated with that higher value of base resistor will more than offset the reduced battery voltage range.

You could do some intelligent analysis along these lines and then perhaps try three base resistor values, low, medium, and high. Then build three identical Joule Thieves except for the different base resistors, and then get three identical fresh batteries, and then run a test with all three at the same time. At the end of that experiment you would end up picking the best value of base resistor with a high degree of confidence and the experiment would arrive at a successful conclusion. More importantly, you analyzed the trade-offs and compromises and made some intelligent decisions and did the testing and analysis like a successful experimenter.

But of course with Brad that discussion never even had an opportunity to take place.

MileHigh · « **Reply #2051 on:** April 17, 2016, 10:00:32 PM »

P.S. - Wattsup: Ten years from now you will not have moved one inch, not even a millimeter, and the iPhone will be obsolete and everybody will be using something ten times better than an iPhone. Then you can make the same posting but just worded differently and scowl at all the people that make the world work and keep 120 VAC humming in your wall outlets.

tinman · « **Reply #2052 on:** April 18, 2016, 12:02:56 AM »

The phase shift video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpP7Bmcwhs

Brad

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #2053 on:** April 18, 2016, 12:42:01 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on April 17, 2016, 09:45:08 PM

Indeed.

But of course since the base resistor is just for switching, and assuming that the real challenge is to choose the right fixed value for the base resistor, then indeed there are compromises to consider. A lower value of the base resistor will allow for normal Joule Thief operation to a lower battery voltage, but considering the high proportion of time that the transistor remains switched ON, then a lower value for the base resistor will increase the drain on the battery. Normally you might say, "Choose the right value of the base resistor to ensure proper Joule Thief operation with a battery voltage range from 1.5 volts down to say 0.75 volts." Now, if you choose that base resistor value and throw in the usual 10% margin of safety, then perhaps doing some analysis on paper would make sense. How much energy is drained from the battery for that value of base resistor per hour? Perhaps it would make more sense to choose a base resistor value to ensure proper Joule Thief operation from 1.5 volts down to 1.0 volts instead, and the power savings associated with that higher value of base resistor will more than offset the reduced battery voltage range.

You could do some intelligent analysis along these lines and then perhaps try three base resistor values, low, medium, and high. Then build three identical Joule Thieves except for the different base resistors, and then get three identical fresh batteries, and then run a test with all three at the same time. At the end of that experiment you would end up picking the best value of base resistor with a high degree of confidence and the experiment would arrive at a successful conclusion. More importantly, you analyzed the trade-offs and compromises and made some intelligent decisions and did the testing and analysis like a successful experimenter.

But of course with Brad that discussion never even had an opportunity to take place.

This is exactly why most of my JT circuits, including the high voltage units, all have a VR on the base. I tried to explain this earlier in the topic but, it really does work well for what you want to get out of the circuit.

Lidmotor even used this method on his replication of the Jeanna Light if I am not mistaken. I actually used 2 VRs in that project...I think he used a rheostat if I remember correctly.

Bill

Magluvin · « **Reply #2054 on:** April 18, 2016, 01:54:23 AM »

Its smart to use the VR. When using a regular resistor, once the battery wears down the light becomes less useful, and there is still usable current in the battery. So adjusting along the way is more bang for the buck. Err penny.

The VR compliments the Joule Theif and enhances its purpose. I wonder if there could be a simple transistor circuit that could replace the resistor and adjust the base automatically with the input voltage. TK used germaniums in one of his latest. Maybe those would be good to try on that idea.

Mags

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Joule Thief 101 (Read 944338 times)

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

ramset

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

poynt99

Re: Joule Thief 101

wattsup

Re: Joule Thief 101

MileHigh

Re: Joule Thief 101

SeaMonkey

Re: Joule Thief 101

NickZ

Re: Joule Thief 101

MileHigh

Re: Joule Thief 101

MileHigh

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

Pirate88179

Re: Joule Thief 101

Magluvin

Re: Joule Thief 101