Joule Thief

[Mk1]

@all

More interesting stuff from Lidmotor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khS827uuqfM&feature=channel

[jeanna]

Mark,
I am winding a MK1 on a blue toroid. It is both thicker or taller in the cross section of the ferrite, and bigger in diameter than the one I used before.

I could probably fit more than 13 up and 12 down (per side) with the extra space.

I am wondering if you have any reason that you use the number of winds you do?

I am assuming it is the best fit, but I can change it easier now than later, so I am asking now.

thank you,

jeanna

[WilbyInebriated]

Hehehe I like that

To be honest, I don't really think it is. But I don't mind suggesting it, if that amuses you.

I personally think the view of the electron as a cloud of virtual photons is more logical, but
I am inclined to believe that is still not exactly how it works. I am inclined to believe the
electron is in fact a quasi-coherent virtual photon structure, and perhaps we need to go deeper
still and label it a quasi-coherent virtual sub-photon structure.

Not that that really has anything to do with the stuff I posted earlier, those are simply definitions
straight out of the books.
Now I don't like to use Wiki as reference because it so often contains serious flaws, but on these
definitions Wiki appears to give the same explanations as the books I have (read):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb and
And there it seems I shot myself in the foot eh
I used a wrong definition. I said before that 1 Coulomb is one mole of electrons. It is not, 1 Faraday is 1 mole of electrons,
and 1 Coulomb is approximately 1/96500th of a Faraday, therefore 1/96500th of a mole of electrons.

Nevertheless, it is this definition itself that suggests that a Faraday, and with it also a Coulomb, consists of a definite number of electrons.
Whether these electrons are indeed discrete particles or not, the definition of the Coulomb appears to view them as such,
and since this is directly related to calculating the Farad value of capacitors and the Amperage of currents,
it would seem that all these formulae do assume them to be discrete particles indeed.

So the matter is not so much do I believe they are discrete particles,
the matter is that by dfinition they are assumed to be, in electrical theory.
If you have a model in which they can be handled as indiscrete particles,
then I would really like to hear what your new definitions are of Amperage, Coulombs, Farads, etc.


Regards,
Koen

oh i was amused all right.
well said, but, there are a couple problems with assuming the electron is a discrete particle... assuming a discrete particle gives us trouble with maxwell's equations, as there are no wave solutions in spherical coordinates and the discrete electron has spherical symmetry. another problem is the infinite fields (singularities) of the point electron at the center. singularity avoidance was attempted using a "renormalization" process wherein infinity was subtracted from infinity to obtain the desired result. i don't think you or anyone else would call such 'sensible math'. 
i quoted einstein's question about the electron because einstein wished to resolve the disparity between the experimental properties of the electron and the commonly assumed discrete electron. he also wanted to know why it appears that “god plays dice” according to the uncertainty interpretation of quantum
mechanics using assumed discrete electrons, that he did not believe, which i do not believe either. it has been resolved, by wolff, meade and haselhurst who found that the wave structure completely replaces the material particle. this is what einstein wanted to know. finding that the material particle electron does not exist, removes the probabilistic interpretation of the wave functions and assures us that 'god does not play dice'. i could infact argue that quantum waves are indeed real and e m waves are not... 
but that's a different discussion for another time/place.

[jeanna]

@all

More interesting stuff from Lidmotor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khS827uuqfM&feature=channel

Pretty interesting.
I like the part that shows the connection between the spikes forming and the leds going on.

thank you MK1 and lidmotor,

jeanna

[TheNOP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTyDCigcF5U

from a circuit energy usage point of view, the energy usage will stay the same with or without the super caps.
the battery, when connected, will have to feed the jt circuit and charge the caps at the same time.
the energy stored in the caps is drainning from the battery then used when the battery is disconnected.

the only thing that might make the battery last longer is the chimical reaction inside the battery due to the relaxation time.

I suppose it is something along the lines of "Which is more important for our actual energy output, is it high volts, or is it
the amount of charge?" and in that respect, is it indeed high volts with hardly any charge that we want to store in caps,
or is it rather low to medium volts at a significant charge that we want to store?

check back my post on the MIT caps experiments.
try to investigate all the aspects of those experiments.
specially on what happen when you discharge a cap.

... I suppose it dpends on what you want to do with the output.

exactly.
the voltage and amps must fit the application for witch you build your circuit for.
if your need is to blow wires then you need lots of coulombs.

take a 10 volts 10uF cap, fill it to 3 volts and connect a 3 volts led to it.
why did the led blowed up ? you only had 3 volts 10 microamps in that cap.
do we really need lots of charges ?

for me, the talk about the "power gain" is about efficientcy gain.
if it is more efficient you have more power out that you would normally had by other ways.
the "test it and see it by yourself" is a must do thing.
it does not automaticaly imply a ou claim.

one can beleive what he want to beleive, but when facing the test results, one can no longer make assomptions of what was actually meant.




@electricme
i can't make out if you talk about discharging the caps at same time or sequencialy.

i think a cascade discharge would be more appropriate.
i was wondering how to do that.
using leds chaser..., nice idea.
might work
thanks

Where would YOU connect the ground probe if YOU were to test the secondary from a joule thief?

Please, if you don't mind, test a few usual places and see what seems to be right to you.

to one of the secondary lead of the coils you want to measure and the other probe to the other lead.

a scope is like a dmm.
if you want to measure the potential difference between one of the battery post and your coil then that is where you need to put your probes(probe and "ground").
this is a bad example tho, that would not be a usefull measurement most of the times.

so i guess what is buggling you is if your measurements are meaningfull or not, is that it ?