Joule Thief

[xee2]

@ resonanceman

Have  you  tried to see how many  LEDs  you can light ?

I have blown 2 LEDs with this. I do not think I will play with it anymore. Please report your results.

[TheNOP]

I once performed a mechanical resonant experiment whereby I attached a vibrating motor from an electric toothbrush (1.5v) onto the end of a 1/8th inch rod 14 inches long. The rod/vibrating motor was held in my bench vice and the vice attached to a 30" x 60" x 3/4" thick bench top. I tuned both the speed of the vibration motor and the rod length to match the resonant frequency of the bench top(a resonant cavity) at which point I noticed a 1lb weight would jump up to 1/2" off the bench top almost continuously. In fact I calculated there was over 10 lb's of material on my bench moving and jumping about.The so-called experts told me the vibration stored energy at resonance and that this was the cause for these effects, like pushing a swing or the swing of a pendulum. What the experts could not tell me is how a 1.5v input at milliamps could lift all that weight upward while the objects were also producing dampening effects. The work calculated, force times distance displaced upward had little relationship to the 1.5v milliamp input. The simple answer to this puzzle few seem to understand is that the rod oscillated on the horizontal axis and the bench top on the vertical axis therefore the oscillating rod could not perform direct "work" on the table top it could only set it into oscillation at it's natural resonant frequency. This is nothing like the effects quoted by the experts ie... pendulum's and swings, LOL. The only thing I would ask people to consider is the fact that many of the laws of nature we are taught were written with quill pens under oil lamps over 100 years ago. Most of these laws are valid ---- while others are not,as some are based on repitition or making the same mistakes over and over. In any case keep up the good work.
Regards
AC

you are assuming that 1.5 volts few mA can't do that.
i am not.
neither am i saying that what you have experienced can't be reproduce.
i can do the same thing, not with an electric toothbrush, but i can do it.
the lenght of the rod is not as important as the off center weight.

your's "so-called experts" are probably not far from the truth.
they tell you how, it is energy compression.

beleive me, you can do more with only 1.5volts then you can think of.
for me, the jt is just the proof of such energy compression concept.
your's vibration experiment is an other one.

it is not because something has been observed and studied 100 years ago that it is not still valide today.

what do you understand of those kinetic energies "rules" ?
maybe you have not even learned all of them, as you can't see how they apply to your vibration experiment.
my reasonning to say this is the fact you don't see how a relatively small source of energy can achive what you saw.

but what is all that have to do with "resonance alone not being able to substain itself" ?

[TheNOP]

Hi Allcanadian
As you said
I would ask people to consider is the fact that many of the laws of nature we are taught were written with quill pens under oil lamps over 100 years ago. Most of these laws are valid ---- while others are not,as some are based on repitition or making the same mistakes over and over. In any case keep up the good work.
Regards
AC
I like to think of them as rules,and it is the exception that proves the rule.
peter

then even what Tesla has wrote might be mistake repeted over and over...

modern physic laws are based on observed phenomenas.
no laws are perfect tho, part(s) might be missing in some of them.
but if you don't know them, you don't know what is missing and will not be able to say if a laws can be used or not in what you are doing.

ex: Ohm's law, Kirchhoff rules, can not be used when the current is induced by a magnetic field.
does that mean they should be ignored ?

it have nothing with being old or not.
it is about what you understand of those laws and rules.
learn them, know their limits, and used them where they can be applied.

if your goal is to rediscover those phenomenas (laws/rules) by yourself, in case something might have been missed, it is your business not mine.

for me it is simpler to think about what have been teached to me in my physic classes, then see where i should look for the missing part(s).

[jeanna]

@ jeanna

I assume Picture 2.png  is 3TB,4TC,92T2 and Picture 3.png  is 4TB,3TC,92T2. Is that correct?

Yes, it is.
I am sorry. I forgot to relabel the lower half of the page. I outclevered myself. I saved many hours by copy/pasting the whole table after I finally got it  right... then just changed the numbers inside, but didn't re-label the lower half. - sorry.

What are the two mA readings given for mAmp LED2 in second chart?

This was amazing to see.
I find it easier to stay accurate if I just put the numbers down right off the scope or dmm and analize them later.
I had the 2 wires from the secondary in 2 slots of the breadboard for this part of the test. I could only read mA from the dmm this time, but I flipped the led backwards and saw 19.8mA one way and 21.7mA when it was flipped. So, I made another column and read both ways. At that time I only noticed that the light stayed bright even when the draw from the battery went to 3.4 then 2.7mA and with the flip of the light on these 2 which was no brighter to the eye, the draw was 22.8mA and 22.7mA.
It was later that I saw that the whole column or 2 columns had diverged through the test.  The same divergence happened with both base resistor values, but was very strong with the higher base resistor value.

Do you still have your 64 uF capacitor off of the Fuji camera board?

Yes.
64uF
which one is that? Is that the clear/silver one?

EDIT:
It might be interesting to try a 2TB,5TC,92T2 with a 220 ohm base resistor, if it is not too hard to change the turns, and compare that with the results I got with a 2TB,5TC,100TP  with a 250 ohm base resistor. Although I suspect the transistor makes a significant difference in performance.

I made this with the primary in the Hazens style so it would be easy to unwind a couple of turns. I could easily try this.

Let me check first:
You used a 250r resistor at the base and with no cap across the base resistor got 350v p to p at a 140.1 mA draw.
Also you used a 104 cap and got 195.4v p to p with a 36mA draw from the battery.
Is this what you want to see if I get?

There would be 3 basic differences outside the variations caused by different individual components.

Transistor 3904 vs 3055
220pF cap across secondary leads
doide across secondary leads
edit: and the size of the toroid mine is 1 inch yours 2 inches

I will try.
Maybe you could remove the 220pF cap and diode from the secondary and give me your results also.

It may be worth doing to gain some continuity with our results.

I think the only pF we are using that is the same is the 104 which is 100000pF which is .1uF. I have smaller and you have larger. I also have 22uF and 47uF 100V
but they are cans with polarity so I don't thing they will substitute.

I also have a few 3055's that I could try.-- but I would prefer to put that off til later.

Thank you,

jeanna

[jeanna]

One wire lights 2 LEDs

EDIT: caution, can blow out both LEDs

Thank you xee2!!!

I did thin on my 2 tier ckt and the only response from someone was to tell me that high frequency could do that sort of thing.

thank you
thank you,

jeanna