Author Topic: Joule Thief 101 (Read 944131 times)

Magluvin · « **Reply #2235 on:** May 05, 2016, 04:27:39 AM »

Quote from: Magluvin on May 05, 2016, 04:06:16 AM

Ive thought of that many times. Even argued it a few times.

If we had 2 air tanks, 1 full at say 100psi and 1 empty.
Then we dump the full into the empty till they are equal. What did we lose? We lost pressure.

Say each tank is 1cu ft. The one thats full is able to accomplish a certain amount of work over time, depending how you release it. But if we dump that full tank into the other till both are equal, we now have the total amount of air in 2 cu ft. 50psi each? Now if we calculated the total amount of work that can be done with the total of what is in the 2 tanks, we will find that we could do more work with the full one cu ft tank than we can with 2 1cu ft tanks described above after the dump and equalization.

Now we could introduce an air motor, motor driven with air that can also pump, and we put a flywheel on the motor shaft, that would enable us to release the full tank into the empty tank through the air motor/flywheel and be able to transfer most of that air in the first tank into the empty tank. Like having a full cap and dumping it into another empty cap through an inductor and a diode and get most of the full caps energy into the empty cap, minus minimal losses.

They say that if we dump a cap into an empty cap that the reason for the 50% loss is due to resistance in the transfer. I still fail to believe that. I believe we have just wasted the full caps energy by dividing its voltage/pressure into a cap/container that is twice as large. Where we lost it is in reduced voltage/pressure, not in resistance losses. We lost it in a stupid way. We didnt do anything with the energy transfer.

Example.....

We have one full tank and one empty. We dump the full tank into the empty tank and the pressures equalize.

Now, we have our full tank and dump it into the empty tank, but we use the air motor to make the transfer. Now we can do work with the air motor until the 2 tanks are equalized. And we still have the same amount of pressure in each tank as when we did it the stupid way.

Im still trying to figure out the 'reasoning for blaming' the loss on resistance/heat when dumping a full cap into and empty one of the same value. There is something wrong there.

That would be an interesting debate thread.

Mags

Back when I argued this, I had done simulations where if I have 2 10uf caps, 1 with 10v and one with 0, then made the transfer with an inductor, and diode, and timed the switch on, then switch off, I could get just above 7v in each cap. Now the 2 caps in parallel at 7v is just about equal in energy as the 1 cap with 10v. But if we make the comparison of the caps vs the air tanks, 10v in one cap direct dump into the empty cap, we get 5v each, and the air tanks, 100psi of 1 tank dumped into the empty tank we get 50psi in each.

So how do we get the 2 tanks to be just above or at 70psi each from the single 100psi tank?

Using the air pump with a flywheel, we dump the full tank till we have 70psi in the source tank then shut of the source tank and let the flywheel pump in air from the outside into the second tank. And the second tank should be near 70psi, considering losses. The same with the caps. We disconnect the source cap at 7v and let the inductor with a diode finish charging the other cap to right around 7v

So doing the direct dump is just releasing pressure/voltage in a way that we didnt do anything with the transfer action during the dump. The energy wasnt lost in heat. It was lost by releasing pressure into a container that was twice as large. I call it stupid losses.

Mags

Magluvin · « **Reply #2236 on:** May 05, 2016, 04:30:24 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on May 05, 2016, 04:08:54 AM

Trump might indeed have the "football" so let's hope being the most powerful man on Earth chills him out a bit.

I saw a show the other night saying that Trump will be like Biff Tanem from back to the future 2. Pics of the 2 were a bit uncanny.

Mags

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #2237 on:** May 05, 2016, 06:41:10 AM »

Quote from: Magluvin on May 05, 2016, 04:30:24 AM

I saw a show the other night saying that Trump will be like Biff Tanem from back to the future 2. Pics of the 2 were a bit uncanny.

Mags

Good. Maybe Putin will stop buzzing our carriers and China will quit stopping our ships because they might be afraid of what he might do. We will get some respect back...hopefully. We will see.

Bill

tinman · « **Reply #2238 on:** May 05, 2016, 11:49:55 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on May 05, 2016, 02:37:38 AM

I am just posting this to make it clear that I am no liar as has been alleged many times.

.

MileHigh

Quote

Me: It's just like you saying something about your coil being sealed in epoxy therefore you couldn't see the direction of the windings therefore you couldn't add the dot convention to your schematic. Thus we are led to conclude that you are incapable of inventing a way to do your own test? Another jaw-dropping moment.

And that right there is a lie.

Me-- Another lie,as i clearly stated as to how i could define the dot convention with that post.
Please stop your lies MH.

Quote

Brad, you said this on April 18th:

I cannot determine the winding direction of the primary winding of the transformer,as it is taped and lacquered,and the wire very fine. Guess i could use a compass and DC current to work it out.

Proving beyond doubt that you lied when you stated--->Thus we are led to conclude that you are incapable of inventing a way to do your own test,when i clearly stated how it could be done.

Quote

I did not see any clear statement for how you could "define" the dot convention.

Either you need new glasses,or you are lying once again
The quote you posted of my reply !once again!-->Guess i could use a compass and DC current to work it out

Quote

I am no liar, but based on what you are stating above I am forced to conclude that you are unable to come up with a ridiculously simple test to determine the dot convention for a transformer. Assuming that I am correct, that's a real shame.

Yes you are,and you have now been upgraded to a pathological liar.
If you think supplying the coil with a DC voltage and current,and using a compass to see the field produced at each end of the coil is hard,then you need help--and fast.

Quote

Yes, you do indeed mention a compass, and I suppose that if push comes to shove you could use a compass to determine the dot convention for a transformer that puts magnetic flux in the open air, although it will not work for a closed-flux-loop transformer.

What do you mean if !push comes to shove! ?. It's a very simple way of working out winding direction of a coil.
And before you go off into your own little world,and try to twist things around again to save your sorry ass--we were not using a closed-flux-loop transformer,we were using air core coils,and so my way of determining the winding direction of the coil was very correct.

Quote

Considering that there is a pretty obvious and self-evident way to determine the dot convention that is so easy and so quick that will work for any type of transformer with standard bench equipment, your compass remark did not stick with me.

I dont give a rat's ass about what sticks with you. What i stated was correct in every way.
Please show us an easier way to determine the winding direction of the wire on an air core coil.
I have to place two clip lead's onto the coil from my power supply,and place a compass at one end of the coil--thats really hard-isnt it MH

Quote

What I really remembered was the shock in reading you say, "I do not know the dot convention,as the primary is sealed in apoxy (sic) resin."

That's !epoxy! by the way.

Why so shocked MH,as i never bothered to check it out.

Quote

I only made this posting to make it clear that I am no liar.

Well you failed at that -didnt you. You posted exactly what i said,and that proves that your statements are lies.

Quote

I suppose that technically Brad is correct, and you really can use a compass to determine the dot convention for an air-core-type transformer if you really want to go that strange route.

Technically right

lol. It was spot on MH,and there is nothing technical about using a DC current and compass to determine turn direction of a coil.
And yes--you know just as well as everyone else,that i was using an !!AIR CORE!! coil.

Quote

Or Brad will have a miraculous alternative explanation that clears up the misunderstanding

There is no misunderstanding MH--you just lied through your teeth again,and then made this post which pushed you into the very hole you dug your self.

Once again you tried to make me look like a fool,and once again you failed to do so. The biggest hoot is,you just proved to everyone here that you are indeed a liar--a pathological liar.

Pathological Liar--The individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth. Sometimes however, the individual may be lying to make their life seem more exciting when in reality they believe their life is unpleasant or boring

Get help MH.

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #2239 on:** May 05, 2016, 12:06:09 PM »

Quote from: Magluvin on May 05, 2016, 04:06:16 AM

Ive thought of that many times. Even argued it a few times.

If we had 2 air tanks, 1 full at say 100psi and 1 empty.
Then we dump the full into the empty till they are equal. What did we lose? We lost pressure.

Say each tank is 1cu ft. The one thats full is able to accomplish a certain amount of work over time, depending how you release it. But if we dump that full tank into the other till both are equal, we now have the total amount of air in 2 cu ft. 50psi each? Now if we calculated the total amount of work that can be done with the total of what is in the 2 tanks, we will find that we could do more work with the full one cu ft tank than we can with 2 1cu ft tanks described above after the dump and equalization.

Now we could introduce an air motor, motor driven with air that can also pump, and we put a flywheel on the motor shaft, that would enable us to release the full tank into the empty tank through the air motor/flywheel and be able to transfer most of that air in the first tank into the empty tank. Like having a full cap and dumping it into another empty cap through an inductor and a diode and get most of the full caps energy into the empty cap, minus minimal losses.

They say that if we dump a cap into an empty cap that the reason for the 50% loss is due to resistance in the transfer. I still fail to believe that. I believe we have just wasted the full caps energy by dividing its voltage/pressure into a cap/container that is twice as large. Where we lost it is in reduced voltage/pressure, not in resistance losses. We lost it in a stupid way. We didnt do anything with the energy transfer.

Example.....

We have one full tank and one empty. We dump the full tank into the empty tank and the pressures equalize.

Now, we have our full tank and dump it into the empty tank, but we use the air motor to make the transfer. Now we can do work with the air motor until the 2 tanks are equalized. And we still have the same amount of pressure in each tank as when we did it the stupid way.

Im still trying to figure out the 'reasoning for blaming' the loss on resistance/heat when dumping a full cap into and empty one of the same value. There is something wrong there.

That would be an interesting debate thread.

Mags

Referring to the two air tanks Mag's-you are very correct,in that you can end up with more stored energy than what you started with.
I did such testing with MarkE working out the numbers as we went through each stage of testing.
At the last test,i ended up with 16% more stored energy in the two tank's,than what i started out with in the one tank.
This was(and can be again)proven beyond doubt,and it can be done with a simple venturi setup.

Doing it your way,you can indeed power a load without loosing or using any of the stored energy in the tanks.

Brad

MileHigh · « **Reply #2240 on:** May 05, 2016, 01:04:01 PM »

Brad:

Your posting #2340 is both comical and shows how "debating" with you can be a nightmare from hell.

You actually don't even need to know the winding directions to determine the dot convention for a transformer. You can sit like "The Thinker" and try to figure that one out for yourself.

<<< That's !epoxy! by the way. >>>

Yes Brad it really is! Good show!

<<< At the last test,i ended up with 16% more stored energy in the two tank's,than what i started out with in the one tank.
This was(and can be again)proven beyond doubt,and it can be done with a simple venturi setup. >>>

Wow, you have discovered the "Travis Effect" for compressed air tanks? World saved! Open up a small local electrical distribution utility in your neighbourhood. Transfer air back and forth between two large tanks and then use the excess energy to drive a generator and sell the mains power to your neighbours. Then you can set up a business licensing the technology and another business managing a world-wide network of distributors and resellers. You are a freaking genius Brad, better than solar freaking roadways.

MileHigh

tinman · « **Reply #2241 on:** May 05, 2016, 02:02:17 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on May 05, 2016, 01:04:01 PM

Brad:

Your posting #2340 is both comical and shows how "debating" with you can be a nightmare from hell.

You actually don't even need to know the winding directions to determine the dot convention for a transformer. You can sit like "The Thinker" and try to figure that one out for yourself.

<<< That's !epoxy! by the way. >>>

Yes Brad it really is! Good show!

<<< At the last test,i ended up with 16% more stored energy in the two tank's,than what i started out with in the one tank.
This was(and can be again)proven beyond doubt,and it can be done with a simple venturi setup. >>>

Wow, you have discovered the "Travis Effect" for compressed air tanks? World saved! Open up a small local electrical distribution utility in your neighbourhood. Transfer air back and forth between two large tanks and then use the excess energy to drive a generator and sell the mains power to your neighbours. Then you can set up a business licensing the technology and another business managing a world-wide network of distributors and resellers. You are a freaking genius Brad, better than solar freaking roadways.

MileHigh

Just a pure lack of understanding of your own posting,and the outcome that could become of it.

How is your answer to your question coming along MH?
You know-the one you ragged EMJ and Wattsup with not being able to answer--the simple electronics 001 lesson. The question regarding your coil and ideal voltage.

As i said before--you cannot answer it correctly your self.
Now is your chance to call me out--to show my statement above is a lie

Lets see what you got MH.

Brad

MileHigh · « **Reply #2242 on:** May 05, 2016, 02:15:32 PM »

<<< As i said before--you cannot answer it correctly your self. >>>

No, you are just showing what a bloody nightmare you are.

You can sit in the same boat as the others or figure it out for yourself, it's up to you.

tinman · « **Reply #2243 on:** May 05, 2016, 02:26:59 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on May 05, 2016, 02:15:32 PM

<<< As i said before--you cannot answer it correctly your self. >>>

Quote

No, you are just showing what a bloody nightmare you are.

No,i am exposing you for what you are--a fraud.

Also.
It would pay you to go and research a little more on your !claimed! travis effect,and then come back here,and tell us how you have married the two together-the transfer of air pressure from one tank to another-and the travis effect.

Quote

You can sit in the same boat as the others or figure it out for yourself, it's up to you.

As i said--anything to avoid answering your own question--hey MH

I have figured it out MH.
Your a fake.

Brad

MileHigh · « **Reply #2244 on:** May 05, 2016, 02:36:54 PM »

The only thing you are exposing is your true self.

ramset · « **Reply #2245 on:** May 05, 2016, 02:38:26 PM »

Miles
You really should stay in your Pond , and Not taunt everyone in the Boat ...

What Brad is Speaking of actually does have Merit .
---------

But for Clarity .

what's the Question again ?

and where's the Boat ?

@Miles Quote to Brad

"You can sit in the same boat as the others"
end Quote
-----
?

tinman · « **Reply #2246 on:** May 05, 2016, 02:43:29 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on May 05, 2016, 02:36:54 PM

The only thing you are exposing is your true self.

Yep--some one who dose not take people lying about me lightly--thats you MH.
I agreed to leave it all behind,but you continued to use my name along with your lies.
Now you have my full attention

Now,how are you going with your travis effect research,and how it relates to what myself and Mag's are referring to?-is this going to be another ICE situation ?,or are you actually going to correct your mistake straight up?.

2nd--how is your answer coming along in regards to your coil question.

It is important for you to answer the question you asked EMJ and Wattsup,as then we can see if you had the right to pass judgement on them,and see if you !can! actually answer your own questions

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #2247 on:** May 05, 2016, 02:57:21 PM »

Quote from: ramset on May 05, 2016, 02:38:26 PM

Miles
You really should stay in your Pond , and Not taunt everyone in the Boat ...

What Brad is Speaking of actually does have Merit .
---------

But for Clarity .

what's the Question again ?

and where's the Boat ?

@Miles Quote to Brad

"You can sit in the same boat as the others"
end Quote
-----
?

Quote

what's the Question again ?

MHs coil/voltage question

You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.

The question is what happens starting at t = 0

MH has claimed that EMJ and Wattsup failed to answer this simple 001 electronics question.
You have seen yourself Chet,that over many threads MH keeps bringing this up--as some sort of distorted victory over EMJ and Wattsup.
It is now time MH shows that !he! can actually answer his own question.

He has !so far! been unable to do that.

MHs boat was the Titanic--it sunk some time ago.

Brad

MileHigh · « **Reply #2248 on:** May 05, 2016, 03:27:03 PM »

No Brad, I have explained how to answer that question probably between 20 and 40 times over the years on this forum and I have nothing to prove to you. Surprisingly, you missed it. Although, considering you corrected your own spelling mistake and scolded _me_ about it, I suppose that nothing is surprising.

Here is a laughable quote from you on April 19th where you are addressing me and you shamelessly lie:

<<< Your english is no better than mine. >>>

Really, why should anybody believe anything you say after reading that? You are clearly in "nightmare from hell" mode and you will say almost anything. It's a sad grotesque thing to see.

Here is big news for you: When one cap discharges into another cap you lose half the energy and the same thing happens with two air tanks. Magluvin said that he "fails to believe" that you lose half the energy in the case of the capacitors so perhaps both of you would want to investigate capacitors and air tanks in more detail to understand what is going on. If you are going to proclaim over unity then the burden of proof is on you.

MileHigh · « **Reply #2249 on:** May 05, 2016, 03:51:40 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on May 05, 2016, 03:41:36 PM

Not true completely MH,

You CAN waste 1\2 the stored energy,, but you do NOT HAVE TO.

If you bother to read and understand my little post covering this and except the fact that I can do this mechanically,, very easily actually,, basic stuff,, then you will see your error.

Just because something is done one way does not mean that that is the only way of doing it

Webby, don't you give me this stupid-ass "your error" nonsense. You can THINK I am sure, and you are fully aware that I was not referencing anything you said. Pull yourself together and have some self-respect. That nonsense posting is a clear case of you trolling me.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Joule Thief 101 (Read 944131 times)

Magluvin

Re: Joule Thief 101

Magluvin

Re: Joule Thief 101

Pirate88179

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

MileHigh

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

MileHigh

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

MileHigh

Re: Joule Thief 101

ramset

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

tinman

Re: Joule Thief 101

MileHigh

Re: Joule Thief 101

MileHigh

Re: Joule Thief 101