A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

[tinman]

 author=MileHigh link=topic=16225.msg488175#msg488175 date=1468128463]

You've got problems.  You can't even get "charging" vs. "discharging" right in your head.  The second sentence is an illogical disaster.

As i said MH,only you think there is a problem with how i word thing's,as you have no idea as to how the JT work's when the battery is included in the inductive kickback circuit.

You don't know that.  If nobody says anything you don't know one way or the the other.  Critical thinking skills, Brad, say something that makes logical sense.

A classic example where my thinking is spot on,and yours is Miles off.

Look at this mangled pathetic excuse for the English language:

As  i pointed out to MH,the second circuit eliminates the losses associated with charging the battery also,when a battery is used in place of your PSU. The battery will produce more waste heat,when being discharged and charged continuously,and also there are the internal resistive losses that grow as the battery voltage drops.

Everything i said in that statement is correct MH,and even a grad 1 school kid would understand it.
The reason that you do not understand it,is because you have no understanding as to how !your! JT circuit works.

So, knowing that, please tell me how you measured the output resistance of your battery.  I take nothing for granted with you and you will have to state how you did it so I can verify that you got it right.

Lol
I most certainly do not need your verification MH on anything,and more so now that i have seen just how limited your understanding on a simple circuit really is.

And there is another challenge for you.  Don't you dare rattle off one vague and ambiguous sentence.  You have to properly articulate how you go about measuring the output resistance of a battery.  You have to put a sequence of sentences together that actually make proper sense.

And again--making demands.
Like i said MH,i in no way have to bow down to your demands,or have you judge me on if i have it right or not.
You clearly have lost the race,and are now struggling to keep your head above water.
You know how it looks ,when an amature hobbyist like myself has to explain a simple circuits operation to some one like your self--a self acclaimed guru,who is now struggling for air,as he slowly sinks to the bottom.

I posted two schematics that represent the two circuit's,and gave a valid reason as to why circuit 2 was more efficient,but i see you avoided that like the plague,and we all know why.

Like i said,there is two reasons you did not take me up on my challenge.
1-you know the bench is mightier than the pen,as you said your self,you would need a bench before putting pen to paper.
2- You know that i would wipe the floor with you,and this much has become apparent from the foolishness of your claim that circuit 1 would be more efficient than circuit 2.

TK's power measurements are off when the battery is used,and when he has a good think about it,i bet you he will be back,and tell us what he found,or overlooked when he made those power measurements-on the assumption that he reads these last few posts.
This is something you would not do,as you would have no idea as to where to look--why the efficiency swap between the two circuits,when the battery was used in place of the PSU.
These are things i know,due to time on the bench MH,and things you are blind toward--as is evident by your insistence that circuit 1 will be more efficient.
And so that is the difference between bench workers and pen pushers MH--the bench man will go searching as to why the two efficiency differences between PSU and battery exist,and will find that reason,while you(the pen pusher) will just keep on wallowing in your own self pity,and continue to peddle rubbish-like you are here and now.


Brad

[tinman]

I am going to shift this conversation back to the JT 101 thread,where it belongs.

Lets go have a recap on that thread MH,at some of the things you have argued against your self about.


Brad

[MileHigh]

The reason that you do not understand it,is because you have no understanding as to how !your! JT circuit works.

Brad, back in the days when we were discussing the Joule Thief I found the following YouTube clip that describes how a Joule Thief works quite well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg

You were flustered and confused by that clip.  You couldn't understand it, and you disagreed with it and you obstinately refused to accept what it said.  This went on for a considerable amount of time.  So that means the whole time we were getting into the discussion about the Joule Thief, you didn't even have a clue how one really worked.  For sure you can build one on the bench and get it to run.  However, at the very same time you can still not have a clue about how one really works.  You were in that boat, and for all I know you still might be there.

So you can be a poser all you want, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Brad:

I most certainly do not need your verification MH on anything,and more so now that i have seen just how limited your understanding on a simple circuit really is.

I think every single time I have asked you to explain one of your procedures you play the bullshit "I won't bow to your demands" card.  You clam up and freeze up.

Right now I am operating under the assumption that either you don't know how to measure the output impedance of a battery or you think that you do and whatever you do has some hapless tragic mistake in it.  I have seen things like this before.

Or, you can wipe the ridiculous attitude away, and simply explain how you measure the output impedance so we can check if if makes sense.

Why are you freezing up?

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

@Brad:
The measurement points are indicated on one of the photos of the apparatus. I am measuring input current by the voltage drop across a 0.1 ohm non-inductive resistor on the negative side of the circuit, and input voltage simply across the input terminals. I have done both measurements with oscilloscope and DMMs. We have seen from Poynt99's work that the DMMs do a very good job of averaging pulsed inputs, and I also used the oscilloscope's "average" measurements of each channel's raw readings to confirm the DMM readings. I used the scope's Math function to multiply the raw (not averaged) instantaneous voltage and current inputs, then had the scope compute the "average" of this power measurement,which I then used in the Lux per Watt calculation. The current traces are very different between the two circuits, as you probably know yourself.

Later on I'll do a comparison between the input current, and the output (Collector wrt emitter) voltage, for each circuit configuration. This will show the duty cycle of the output light pulse and its relationship to the input current waveform.