Joule Thief 101

[minnie]

  Perhaps I'm totally wrong, anyone put me on the right track??
  The thing that satisfied me in my quest to understand induction
  came from Einstein and special relativity,then it all seemed to make
  sense.
  if I was "the creator", I believe I couldn't much improve on what
  already exists, I think nature is fantastic as is!
                        John

[EMJunkie]

You are again MISREPRESENTING my work. You apparently did not notice, or are deliberately ignoring, the actual points of my demonstrations, as usual.

1. You misrepresented the measurements on that circuit-- it is the circuit where you took current and voltage measurements on different branches and multiplied them together and claimed "overunity". For which you were soundly criticised and refuted many times over. You still haven't learned your lesson, clearly.

2. I lit up 30 neons in series-- wired together in series -- with that circuit. This indicates a voltage of around 2700 volts. I can light up a lot more neons than that --- WIRELESSLY-- should I care to do so. You are simply lying, and trying to aggrandize yourself, when you claim that that is my "best" . It's not even close. Lighting neons with high voltage is trivial, especially when they are _wired_ into a circuit. If 2700 volts can light up 30 neons, imagine how many could be lit up with 10,000 volts, or 30,000 volts, or the 300,000 volts that I've shown in some other demonstrations. Your claims that the 30 are the "best" I can do is just laughable. That circuit is rather feeble, and can't hold a candle to my hybrid SS-SGTC, for just one example. Furthermore, you yourself have NEVER demonstrated anything even close to that, because you are stuck in your non-functional fantasies.

3. The coils in my 30 neon demonstration are connected in _aiding_ configuration, not your "partnered" bucking configuration which produces nearly no output when the coils are actually matched. The whole demonstration is a solid REFUTATION of your silly claims.

4. Why should I want you to "help" me? You have done nothing but demonstrate how you can't even make proper measurements with your own equipment, and even in this thread you have demonstrated such ignorance that it's not even funny. You can't even help yourself!

5. LEAVE ME OUT of your fantasy delusions. You've been banned before for your insulting, non-helpful and non-cooperative posts, are you trying for that again? You've done nothing in this thread but try to hijack it with nonsense. At least MileHigh and Brad and PW and the others are having some kind of constructive discussion, even if the tone is a bit antagonistic. YOU, however, are contributing nothing but nonsense and diversion, and I see that you have once again descended into your insulting, vile and gross posting of meaningless insulting images. You need to be spanked, or sent to bed without supper, as appropriate for childish minds like yours.

Hahahahaha - Classically pathetic - Again. True to form!!!

A shame, you have the potential to be so much more, yet you blow it all away for Arrogance? I fail to understand these tendency's...


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

Now you are getting it. In the DC case, the magnetic field is set up while the current is changing during the "switch on" time of the current. Once the current is flowing at a steady rate, it "costs" nothing more to maintain the magnetic field, and the field itself doesn't dissipate power. This is how superconducting magnets work. The situation is perfectly symmetrical. You get no current produced from a stationary magnet sitting next to a coil, because there is nothing changing. Move the magnet (or the coil), so that the coil experiences a changing magnetic field, and you get current.  Remember Faraday's Law of Induction (and pay no attention to the confused ravings of EMJunkie): The induced EMF is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the linked magnetic field. You can take this algebraic equation and re-arrange it according to ordinary algebra, and see that the two situations are indeed symmetrical. The "conundrum" comes from mis-stating the problem or situation in the first place.

OMG - Foolishness like I have never seen before!!!

When I push my Toy Car around the Room I get no Induction? No Sparks arching out across anything...

You dammed Fool!!! What does Motion introduce?

Now I know I was wrong, you do not have the potential to be better, you're completely lost if the tangle of confusion you're happy to sit in - You have no idea what so ever on Magnetics at all!!! Period!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[minnie]

   Good Koala,
           super conductivity is a nice proof of what you're saying,
                   John.

[EMJunkie]

Now you are getting it. In the DC case, the magnetic field is set up while the current is changing during the "switch on" time of the current. Once the current is flowing at a steady rate, it "costs" nothing more to maintain the magnetic field, and the field itself doesn't dissipate power. This is how superconducting magnets work. The situation is perfectly symmetrical. You get no current produced from a stationary magnet sitting next to a coil, because there is nothing changing. Move the magnet (or the coil), so that the coil experiences a changing magnetic field, and you get current.  Remember Faraday's Law of Induction (and pay no attention to the confused ravings of EMJunkie): The induced EMF is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the linked magnetic field. You can take this algebraic equation and re-arrange it according to ordinary algebra, and see that the two situations are indeed symmetrical. The "conundrum" comes from mis-stating the problem or situation in the first place.

Truly - you are ignorant to facts! Or is it a chosen response, then that would make it arrogance!

Truly you have no idea, what does motion introduce?

This being the primary and most important concept in Electromagnetic Induction – and You, All Mighty Guru, have no idea!!!


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org