Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Joule Thief 101  (Read 767226 times)

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2490 on: May 12, 2016, 11:36:59 PM »
The problem is that CEMF is just a measurement, it's not a tangible entity like a coil or a voltage source or a current source.  You should realize this.  It's just an electrical version of Newton's third law.

Look at this very familiar differential equation:  v = L di/dt.

Whoops, there is no resistance in that equation.  That equation is an equation for an ideal inductor and yet it is used all the time.  I suppose we are just waiting for this business to be resolved and move forward.  I am already smelling the possibility of dismal failure with no resolution to this silly impasse and the question never gets answered.  That would really be unfortunate.

Why doesn't somebody just take the lead on the question and leave Brad to stew in his own juices?  Move forward and let Brad figure it out for himself.


"The problem is that CEMF is just a measurement, it's not a tangible entity like a coil or a voltage source or a current source.  You should realize this."

Cemf is just a measurement and not an effect?  I fail to realize that. Cemf is an action within the inductor. It is the action that impedes current flow. It is part of the definition of impedance. You should realize this. ;)

Mags

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2491 on: May 12, 2016, 11:45:14 PM »

"The problem is that CEMF is just a measurement, it's not a tangible entity like a coil or a voltage source or a current source.  You should realize this."

Cemf is just a measurement and not an effect?  I fail to realize that. Cemf is an action within the inductor. It is the action that impedes current flow. It is part of the definition of impedance. You should realize this. ;)

Mags

I am not going to play a dumb-ass mind game with you.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2492 on: May 12, 2016, 11:50:29 PM »
The issue of an ideal voltage source varying in time has already been discussed several times on this thread.  Just look at the original question, the ideal voltage source varies with time.  I don't know how ideas like "an ideal voltage source cannot change in time" take hold but apparently they do.  Somebody says it and nobody thinks to question it.

<<< The only thing that could possibly rise is current, that is if current flows at all considering the argument of cemf being ideal also >>>

We are beating an old horse to death at this time.  It's a second strange idea, it's baffling and it and the "fixed ideal voltage source" idea would not last more than eight minutes apiece on a real electronics forum before they were sliced to pieces.

Look at this clip that discusses ideal inductors and brush up on your inductor concepts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8CPGiK59f8

lol.  You say 'your' ideal voltage source is self varying????????????????  here is a vid for you..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSH3I4cqoJc

So far I do not see an explanation that the ideal voltage source is self varying in any way.

"Being that an ideal voltage source has zero internal resistance, and, thus, 100% efficiency to outputting all of its voltage to a load due to perfect voltage division, its voltage ouput to a load is steady and constant and doesn't fluctuate even if load resistance values change."

http://www.learningaboutelectronics.com/Articles/Ideal-voltage-source.php


So again, you are playing by your own rules with 'your' self imagined ideal voltage source that is self varying. 

I dont need to brush up on anything except on how the rules change as you describe them. ;)

Mags  ::)

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2493 on: May 12, 2016, 11:55:33 PM »
"Being that an ideal voltage source has zero internal resistance, and, thus, 100% efficiency to outputting all of its voltage to a load due to perfect voltage division, its voltage ouput to a load is steady and constant and doesn't fluctuate even if load resistance values change."

No a single word there about it not varying in time.

Sometimes you are expected to be able to think on your own.  Like this, "Hey, a voltage can have a zero output impedance and change value in time."

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2494 on: May 13, 2016, 12:04:31 AM »
I am not going to play a dumb-ass mind game with you.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Its not a mind game. You cannot just say that this is how things are and refer me to a vid on inductance. ??? If the official definition of the ideal inductor 'includes the reasoning' that the cemf is not ideal, then maybe they do not have that definition down pat with every aspect of the ideal inductor. But you dont seem to be able to find a reference on that other than you just saying so.  No mind games. Just prove what you are saying and maybe we can move on. Until then my argument stands. ;)


Please show me some definition of an ideal inductor that explains why the cemf of the ideal inductor is not ideal cemf, rather than just stating that is is so and that I just have to accept that. Please. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D    Show me the money Jerry Maguire! Show me the money! ;) Otherwise it is just you feeding us your made up rules as we go. How else can I look at it? Why cant you provide a strong definition that states 'why' an ideal inductor cannot have ideal cemf???? I havnt found it yet. Where do I find such info other than what is stated in these 2 threads???

Mags

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2495 on: May 13, 2016, 12:12:07 AM »
Task yourself with this:  Define "ideal CEMF" first.  I really want to know what it means.  Then go find proof that when you connect a voltage source across a resistor that you get "ideal CEMF" from the resistor.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2496 on: May 13, 2016, 12:13:46 AM »
"Being that an ideal voltage source has zero internal resistance, and, thus, 100% efficiency to outputting all of its voltage to a load due to perfect voltage division, its voltage ouput to a load is steady and constant and doesn't fluctuate even if load resistance values change."

No a single word there about it not varying in time.

Sometimes you are expected to be able to think on your own.  Like this, "Hey, a voltage can have a zero output impedance and change value in time."

Well Im happy that when I look up 'Ideal Voltage Source" that it is described as a voltage source that the voltage cannot drift, change or vary.  So you will have to invent a new name for what you consider a 'Self Varying Ideal Voltage Source" . Because that is not the definition of an 'Ideal Voltage Source'.  ;) ;) ;)

Can everyone reading this please look it up and find whether Im wrong or right on this? ;D


"Sometimes you are expected to be able to think on your own. " 

Well that is exactly what you are doing is making up your own definitions and calling it an Ideal Voltage Source, is it not? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?  You make it up as you go to fit your argument without a shred of proof as to being what you say. Thats a problem when it comes to comprehending what you say. Can you understand that from our point of view?  ???


Mags

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2497 on: May 13, 2016, 12:17:36 AM »
Task yourself with this:  Define "ideal CEMF" first.  I really want to know what it means.  Then go find proof that when you connect a voltage source across a resistor that you get "ideal CEMF" from the resistor.

Dude, that is just a beat around the bush statement. There is not even the word Ideal Resistor in that statement, of which Ideal is what we are talking about. No???

If it were an ideal resistor there wouldnt be any cemf, as the ideal resistor has no inductance to have cemf occur.  You act as if we know nothing at all. Gees. Well you are wrong.  ;)


Mags  ::)

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2498 on: May 13, 2016, 12:28:00 AM »
"Being that an ideal voltage source has zero internal resistance, and, thus, 100% efficiency to outputting all of its voltage to a load due to perfect voltage division, its voltage ouput to a load is steady and constant and doesn't fluctuate even if load resistance values change."

No a single word there about it not varying in time.

Sometimes you are expected to be able to think on your own.  Like this, "Hey, a voltage can have a zero output impedance and change value in time."


"No a single word there about it not varying in time." 

I totally agree that there is 'not' ::) a single word in the definition of an Ideal Voltage Source that states that the voltage can vary with time.  Only your definition which changes the rules as you need them to be to hold up your argument.

So show me 'thee' definition of Ideal Voltage Source that states the voltage from the source varies with time.  ::) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ::)

Mags

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2499 on: May 13, 2016, 12:40:25 AM »
You are just making a fool out of yourself Magluvin and if you are trying to play me then you are a double-fool.  Go chase after Brad because he is the brainiac that invented the term "Ideal CEMF."  It's an on-the-fly definition from him, another "pearl of wisdom" from his stream of consciousness.  Yes, in the basic definition of the term counter electromotive force, a resistor also generates CEMF in response to the current that is flowing through it.  It's a matter of perspective.  Deep thoughts Magluvin, deep thoughts.  You make me laugh about the "rules" about an ideal voltage source.  One more time, you can trace that back to another inspired steam-of-consciousness "pearl of wisdom" from Brad.  Go get your training and the definitions of the "new terms" from Brad - he is the originator of this stuff.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2500 on: May 13, 2016, 01:08:31 AM »
You are just making a fool out of yourself Magluvin and if you are trying to play me then you are a double-fool.  Go chase after Brad because he is the brainiac that invented the term "Ideal CEMF."  It's an on-the-fly definition from him, another "pearl of wisdom" from his stream of consciousness.  Yes, in the basic definition of the term counter electromotive force, a resistor also generates CEMF in response to the current that is flowing through it.  It's a matter of perspective.  Deep thoughts Magluvin, deep thoughts.  You make me laugh about the "rules" about an ideal voltage source.  One more time, you can trace that back to another inspired steam-of-consciousness "pearl of wisdom" from Brad.  Go get your training and the definitions of the "new terms" from Brad - he is the originator of this stuff.

Well there ya go! Insult me and call me names. That proves your arguments in a most professional manner. ;)   Is that all you got? Are you so frustrated that this bs commentary is what proves you are right and we are wrong. Ha!  That aint gunna cut it. But it is all you got, 'apparently'. ;)   You couldnt simply provide proof on your end instead of the bs you just posted.  But, thats just you and how we get to know 'YOU' better.  ;)


So again, tell us the reason cemf is not ideal in the ideal inductor?  Can you do that? Can you do that and 'try' to put it to bed instead of just simply saying it is what you say it is and thats it? ???


Back when we were discussing this years ago I questioned the same thing to no resolve from you, Poynt, TK, nobody. it is just brushed off. Well Im not dust Jim. ;)

Put up substantial evidence that.....

1.    Cemf in and Ideal Inductor is not ideal cemf

2.    An Ideal Voltage Source is one that the voltage varies with time


These are your statements that you do not provide anything substantial to prove your argument. What you do say is that it has been discussed before and that is the end of it.   Bull-ony.   Just because it was discussed in the past, days ago or years ago, does not prove that the questions or statements were resolved.

It is your baby. You made the statements.  ;) Prove what you say instead of just saying we need to go back to school. ;) If you cannot then maybe it is you that needs to go back to school.


If you are not just making up your own rules as it goes, then you should 'easily' provide reference for what you say. On these 2 things you refuse to discuss it further. Just insult me and call me names..  Im not doing that to you. Im asking you to provided proof of your 2 statements.  Apparently you cannot.  So go ahead and insult me more and call me what you will. Its who you are. ;)

Magluvin ;)


Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2501 on: May 13, 2016, 01:18:16 AM »
Yeah, sure.

And I will remind you again that most viscous relentlessly attacking, insulting, demeaning, and degrading person I have ever seen on this forum is YOU Magluvin.  For about one full year you relentlessly attacked me, it was absolutely disgusting.  You are just doing a schtick right now, but it is nothing compared to how absolutely grotesque and horrible your behaviour was.  A fully grown man acting like a monster and you never had the character or class to apologize for it.

So I am not interested in your techno babble.

Offline SeaMonkey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1292
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2502 on: May 13, 2016, 01:37:30 AM »
Quote from: Miles Higher
So I am not interested in your techno babble.

I believe I understand what Miles is saying (or conceding) here. :o

Although I may be wrong. ???

Anyone care to "translate" the Miles-Higher-speak above? ;)

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2503 on: May 13, 2016, 01:53:04 AM »
Yeah, sure.

And I will remind you again that most viscous relentlessly attacking, insulting, demeaning, and degrading person I have ever seen on this forum is YOU Magluvin.  For about one full year you relentlessly attacked me, it was absolutely disgusting.  You are just doing a schtick right now, but it is nothing compared to how absolutely grotesque and horrible your behaviour was.  A fully grown man acting like a monster and you never had the character or class to apologize for it.

So I am not interested in your techno babble.

So that is your proof for your statements.......

1.    Cemf in and Ideal Inductor is not ideal cemf

2.    An Ideal Voltage Source is one that the voltage varies with time


Again, the only answer you have is to insult and lay charges on me? Is that your proof of your statements? ::)   Go ahead.  Keep on throwing it at me as a distraction to why you cannot prove your own words. 

So far, I think that you will not prove either statement or you simply would have, to show you have been correct and we were wrong. Why is it not a good way to go about it by providing proof of your statements? Wouldnt this day of discussion be a lot easier if you did so?

So either provide reference proof of your statements or call me names and insult me as a substitute. Your choice. Which one will prove you are right and Brad and I are wrong??  Which is it?  For the readers of course. ;D


Mags

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Joule Thief 101
« Reply #2504 on: May 13, 2016, 02:05:48 AM »
I believe I understand what Miles is saying (or conceding) here. :o

Although I may be wrong. ???

Anyone care to "translate" the Miles-Higher-speak above? ;)

"So I am not interested in your techno babble."

I can translate it. It means he can not back up his statements or else he would. And he should if he could. But instead we get this babble to brush it off.  ;)

MH, give us proof of your statements below....


1.    Cemf in and Ideal Inductor is not ideal cemf

2.    An Ideal Voltage Source is one that the voltage varies with time


Simple, isnt it? ???

Mags