Joule Thief 101

[MileHigh]

Wattsup:

Also, I think your free attacks on @tinman are highly unwarranted and will soon approach some level of indecency.

Did you see Brad repeatedly attacking me with a bunch of unwarranted nonsense?  You did but like a jackass you won't say anything about that.  Why not?  What is wrong with you?

When this thread dies I am likely never going to debate him again, and this is the third or fourth time I have stated that.  The arguments are sometimes beyond ridiculous, like arguing if you have to factor in whether or not you are on a hill when you measure a car's top speed.  I have had enough of that nonsense.

Don't you give me your crap without looking at the other side.  That makes you morally bankrupt.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Brad:

I am also confused as to why or how you went from emitter/base junction breakdown, to collector/base junction breakdown. Just out of the blue, you make this switch, and I was doing my best to check your claim, and try to work out where this switch came from.

Yes, I was part of the mass confusion here and I looked back in the thread.  In post #1191 I speculated that there was a collector-base breakdown.  Then in post #1199 PW confirms an emitter-base breakdown and congratulates me on getting it right.  I mistakenly think he is confirming my theory.  Then in post #1219 you congratulate me for getting it right.  I even make a posting about the collector-base junction capacitance potentially starting an avalanche that leads to the collector-base junction breaking down and nobody says anything.

I thought the collector-base junction would break down before the emitter-base junction because the collector would be at higher potential than the emitter.  I have long forgotten about the nuances about the inner guts of a transistor nor did I look at a datasheet.  Needless to say, reverse current going through the base could theoretically come from the collector or the emitter.

So if you and PW have been talking about an emitter-base junction breakdown, then I apologize because I thought that the focus was on a collector-base junction breakdown.  Only much more recently did I start thinking about a possible emitter-base junction breakdown.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Brad:

In post #1296 I say this:

Why didn't you put the CVR for the collector trace on top of L1 so that you would not disturb the equipotential between the LED anode and the collector because preserving that equipotential might be important?

This is your reply in #1297:

For the very simple reason that we are looking for your current flow through the collector junction,into the base junction,due to junction breakdown.
You ask the dumbest of questions some time's.

<<< It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.  Learn something new.  >>>

Oooh, I could take that as an insult.  Wattsup would have an issue with your tone, better watch out.

Take a look at the attached schematic and weep.  Is this not clear enough for you, "Why didn't you put the CVR for the collector trace on top of L1?"

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Anyway, I have had it talking about the Joule Thief.  I couldn't care less about various unresolved technical issues, it's not worth the slog and I am totally burnt out on the crazy ridiculous arguments with Brad.

Instead of the stupid worn-out Joule Thief ad nauseam, I suggested a project for a circuit that is purpose-designed to drain a battery of as much energy as possible, and also keep a LED lit at a certain minimum brightness.  Nobody said anything, just blank stares.  How about an egg dropping competition then?

Where is the resonant Joule Thief I wonder?  I am not expecting anything to come of it.

On the subject of resonance, the questions about the wine glass will be answered later.

MileHigh

[tinman]

 author=wattsup link=topic=8341.msg478897#msg478897 date=1459256292]
@tinman






wattsup

The scopes of base/collector junction show 20 something volts so one side of the scope probe (ground or probe) had to receive 0 volts (or near 0) while the other side had to receive the higher volts to produce that scope shot. So where did that 0 come from while the transistor is on (closed).

I have no idea as to what you are referring too?. Could you post the scope shot,and point out what you mean.
0 volt's is just a reference point for the scope,as that 0 volt's may be a negative voltage to that of ground.If we place the scope across an AC voltage--where is 0 volts as far as the scope is concerned?. Well as most scope's negative and earth ground are common,but then we measure an AC voltage that is isolated from earth ground--where is the 0 volt point?.

As per my last post, can you please as per your test "explain 2.JPG" where you have the cvr placed between the collector and L1, now try it with the cvr between the emitter and ground. That's the one I want to see and maybe even you too. Then put the cvr between the LED ground and ground and do it again. If you can do that, it will help explain this circuit.

My scopes common is also earth ground,so you would see nothing between the emitter and ground-as they are one in the same.

Here is a curiosity? Try repositioning the LED between L1 and the collector. Since the LED would require a ground from the collector, what will happen? Will it light or not?

I would think not-->will have to think about that one a little.

I can get into more detail showing the actual circuit flow with dots, if these tests can be done. The "effect pattern" because it is not really a "flow pattern", because there is not really any flow, should marry perfectly to the scopes wave pattern.

You post the circuit,and i will test it

Then, for more confirmation try with the LED between the emitter and ground and this will show if positive will now pass the transistor when it is on. The LED is good because it can delimit up to where the negative can reach before it is consumed with the positive from the other side.

Which way around?--turn ratio of L1 to L2 ?
Draw up the schematics ,and i will test the circuit.

Also, I think your free attacks on @tinman are highly unwarranted and will soon approach some level of indecency. Best you stop it.

Some times you have to stand back,and think about thing's for a while.
I think we have both given as good as we got,and it is not doing much good either way.
The blame must go both ways Wattsup,and putting an end to it must also come from both.