Joule Thief 101

[tinman]

 author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg480821#msg480821 date=1460744691]




MileHigh

I suggest that you don't do anything yet with respect to Brad's question because it appears that Brad hasn't even done the work himself.

If anyone wanted your opinion ,they would have asked for it.

He believes his little experiment with the oscillating post that has a magnet on it, which is oscillating in front of a coil driven by the function generator, is showing "magical work coming from magnets" once again based on the two scope shots.  Now he is coming here asking for a spoon-feeding session and he is expecting, yet again, to see you guys do the work and validate his theory.  We all know how that one will end up.

More trash talk from the trash can.

Well in fact in both of the scope shots there is a slight phase shift between the voltage and the current, and the two phase shifts are not the same.  That may or may not be significant in determining what is going on in the experiment.

As i said earlier--you dont have the skill set to work out anything in regards to this experiment--hence me asking Poynt one simple question--?which ended your idiotic reference to impedance change.

I also explained to him that when he added the oscillating post and magnet to the system, the electro-mechanical impedance of the setup changed, and that's why he was getting different results.  From the quote above, he is saying that he disagrees that the impedance is changing.

And i still do.

I told Brad before he draws any conclusions to do a full power audit in both cases and see where the input power is going.  I also told him that he could use an optical system to understand the phase relationship between the oscillating post and the voltage from the function generator so he could understand what is going on there.

So at least it appears that Brad has done none of this.  All that he did was look at a kind of glorified "numbers in boxes" deal and arrive at a conclusion.

Another incorrect assumption -as per usual.

So Brad adds the oscillating post and the current draw decreases and If I recall correctly there is also more power being dissipated in a five-ohm load resistor attached to the transformer secondary and the phase on the secondary voltage also changes.

Still cant put 2 and 2 together.
Secondary voltage !and! current MH.

So there is no point in doing any kind of analysis for Brad until he actually tries to do the analysis himself first.

Says the man who dose no bench work at all

I have asked you before,and will ask again--butt out MH--not interested in your input.


Brad

[tinman]

Perhaps PW (and others) will look a little closer at what is happening here-as would some one else that no longer can.
Maybe we can learn from measurement protocols from the past?.
Maybe more attention is required to things i say throughout the thread regarding our little magnetic oscillator--things like how !frequency! increases the effect,how it dosnt matter if the coil is oscillating,while the magnet is fixed,or the coil is fixed while the magnet is free to oscillate.
The fact that an increase in load on the output,increases the magnetic field strength of the secondary coil,which should result in a need for a higher P/in-but dose not.
A primary source-acting on a secondary source-acting on a 3rd source that reacts !!with!! the primary source.
Lights on--lights off.


Brad

[MileHigh]

Lol
You really do crack me up some times MH lol.

Quote post 1971:
Post 2033 from Poynt.
What other introduced element can cause the circuit to appear as though the impedance has increased (i.e. a decrease in current)? How about an opposing voltage, i.e. cemf?
The input current is determined by the potential difference across the primary impedance, with the assumption that the opposite end of the primary is at gnd potential (see "normal case"). In this case Vpri is Vfg=3V. Now what happens if another FG is connected to the bottom of the primary? See "cemf case". Now Vpri is Vfg1-Vfg2=2V.
Nothing was changed in terms of the transformer impedance, but the input current is clearly going to be lower in the case when cemf is introduced.


Then your next post MH :Yes, increased in-phase CEMF is what I asked him to check for

Lol-MH-Its the change in impedance
Poynt-Nothing was changed in terms of the transformer impedance. but the input current is clearly going to be lower in the case when cemf is introduced
Mh-- Yes yes-an increase in phase CEMF .

Lol-like i said before MH,you ride on the back of others to make your self look great--but you will always come unstuck.

Brad

That's a totally pretentious posting with a bunch of fake-ass lols.

There is a big red glow on Poyn't comment about nothing being changed in terms of transformer impedance.  Then he says the current will be lower when CEMF is being introduced.  You are getting the usual soft treatment.  When the input current lowers the impedance does indeed change.  What I did was wrap your whole setup in a black box and said that system impedance changes.  So your red glow means nothing Brad and there is no opportunity to lol.  It's probably the usual issue with you and language again.

"Mh-- Yes yes-an increase in phase CEMF ."  - The joke is on you Brad.  An increase in in in-phase CEMF will indeed change the impedance of the coil as seen from the point of view of the function generator, you are just being treated with kid gloves.

"Lol-like i said before MH,you ride on the back of others to make your self look great--but you will always come unstuck."

That is just another ridiculous bald-faced lie one more time.

From my post #1838:

"Just set up a photocell and light source and scope it along with your voltage trace and find out what the phase is like for the vibrating post below the resonant frequency, at the resonant frequency, and above the resonant frequency.  Then just make a simple test on the EMF generation in the coil for when post approaches the coil and when it recedes away from the coil."

"So if you make your measurements and account for where all of the input power is going in both cases, and if you can demonstrate that the vibrating post is acting like an inductive mechanical reactor that is adding to the inductance of the coil, and you can account for the changes for the load resistor, then you would be in pretty good shape."

There I am telling you to determine what the timing is like for the CEMF in the coil.  Unless you can't figure that out for yourself from what I wrote.

I am not riding on anybody's back, you are just shamelessly lying, or, your technical and English comprehension problems resulted in what I quoted in my post #1838 "passing right through you like you weren't even there."  If the latter is the case then you have a big fail for not asking me to explain it further so you could understand it.

So your little laughing barrel of monkeys is not there, it's a fake.  Like it or not, on this thread you are getting the real deal from me and you are not going to be coddled.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Okay, Brad, time for a little bit of repartee.

If anyone wanted your opinion ,they would have asked for it.

Really brilliant.  I will restate my opinion:  I don't believe that you have done all of the power measurements like you claim.  If you did that you would share your findings and you haven't.  You should not be helped until you actually demonstrate that you really tried to understand your setup by making all of the power measurements and calculations, and tried to account for any missing power and explain it.  You should do the full CEMF phase analysis and plot everything out on a timing diagram and try to understand the timing and the power trail for both setups before you come here with your hands held out looking for a hand-out.  There is no reason at all that you can't do that work yourself and document it.  Do your work first and then come here to discuss it.

More trash talk from the trash can.

We all really do know how it will end up.  Instead of doing the work yourself and giving it your best shot, you are going to be coddled and your hand is going to be held and after you do everything you are told to do, you will prove that in your simple setup, once again that there is no magical work coming from magnets.  You will say, "Aw shucks" and move on, or you might even prematurely disappear without saying anything when you sense that once again that you have nothing.  This has been going on for years.

As i said earlier--you dont have the skill set to work out anything in regards to this experiment--hence me asking Poynt one simple question--?which ended your idiotic reference to impedance change.

You better damn well believe that I have the skill set to analyze your simple experiment.  This is an example of you shamelessly making a spectacle of yourself like clown.  You know that I have the skill set to do it, Poynt and PW know it, and everybody knows that you are lying.  It's embarrassing.

My reference to impedance change is dead-on accurate.  You are just showing your limitations when you state that.

And i still do.

And you still do disagree that the impedance is changing.  The bloody power consumption is different between the two setups Einstein, and therefore by definition the impedance is changing.

Another incorrect assumption -as per usual.

My belief is that if you had done the full power audit for both setups then you would have shared that information.  We know you and what your behaviour is like when it comes to these things from tons of past experience.  Or, right now you are working away furiously after you made your statement in order to deliver the goods.  If either one of my beliefs is true, then you are lying through your teeth.

Still cant put 2 and 2 together.
Secondary voltage !and! current MH.

So you are "correcting me" there, about a resistor?  You look like a clown stating that.

Says the man who dose no bench work at all

I have asked you before,and will ask again--butt out MH--not interested in your input.

I will repeat it:  There is no point in doing any kind of analysis for Brad until he actually tries to do the analysis himself first.

MileHigh

[tinman]

 author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg480871#msg480871 date=1460784776]


MileHigh

There is a big red glow on Poyn't comment about nothing being changed in terms of transformer impedance.  Then he says the current will be lower when CEMF is being introduced.  You are getting the usual soft treatment.  When the input current lowers the impedance does indeed change.

Absolute rubbish MH,and you know it--or maybe you dont

Impedance-->

the effective resistance of an electric circuit or component to alternating current, arising from the combined effects of ohmic resistance and reactance

As neither the ohmic resistance or reactance has  changed in the circuit MH,please tell us all here how the impedance has changed.
You have done what you normally do,and associated a drop in current being the result in the change of impedance--which it is not.
You are more than welcome to take another 4 to 8 weeks,and come up with your great reveal on impedance.

"

Mh-- Yes yes-an increase in phase CEMF ."  - The joke is on you Brad.  An increase in in in-phase CEMF will indeed change the impedance of the coil as seen from the point of view of the function generator, you are just being treated with kid gloves.

You are acting like a child your self MH.
Lets have you answer some questions then--shall we?.
1-The drop in current flow through the primary coil(the drop in P/in),means the impedance value of the primary coil went up or down?
2-The increase in current flow through the secondary coil,resulting in a higher power value dissipated across the 5 ohm resistor, means the impedance in the secondary coil went up or down?
3- The combined results of the transformer as a whole,means the impedance went up or down?.
4-The phase relationship between the primary and secondary coils current is bought into phase with each other how?
5-Show another transformer test carried out that shows the EMF and current phase relationship between the primary and secondary coil of a transformer to be in phase.

You want to be part of this MH,then it is your turn to answer some questions.

"Just set up a photocell and light source and scope it along with your voltage trace and find out what the phase is like for the vibrating post below the resonant frequency, at the resonant frequency, and above the resonant frequency.  Then just make a simple test on the EMF generation in the coil for when post approaches the coil and when it recedes away from the coil."

From the mechanical resonance thread
Quote: Next i am going to use a laser to find out where the magnet is in relation to the primary coils magnetic field. I want to find out what kind of interaction the PMs field is having with the primaries field. I have this feeling that some how the PMs field is leading that of the primaries field,and this is how the secondaries EMF phase is able to come back into phase with the current of the primary,and not 90* out as it should be --we will see.

"So if you make your measurements and account for where all of the input power is going in both cases, and if you can demonstrate that the vibrating post is acting like an inductive mechanical reactor that is adding to the inductance of the coil, and you can account for the changes for the load resistor, then you would be in pretty good shape."

If you had watch the video carfully,then you would have seen that i increased the inductance of the transformer to a far greater value than the magnet increased it to,and the results were no where near that of when the oscillating magnet was in play.

There I am telling you to determine what the timing is like for the CEMF in the coil.  Unless you can't figure that out for yourself from what I wrote.

Lol. I guess you think i have never done this sort of thing before--timing that is

I am not riding on anybody's back, you are just shamelessly lying, or, your technical and English comprehension problems resulted in what I quoted in my post #1838 "passing right through you like you weren't even there."  If the latter is the case then you have a big fail for not asking me to explain it further so you could understand it.

As i said,your input is neither wanted or needed,and there is nothing that you could explain to me.

So your little laughing barrel of monkeys is not there, it's a fake.  Like it or not, on this thread you are getting the real deal from me and you are not going to be coddled.

Like the resonant systems in and around ICEs?--or perhaps the workings of simple electronic components -like a J/FET ?

Lets see how you go with my 5 question's,and then i may reconsider the value of your word's.
My guess is that you will wait for some one else to answer the question's,and provide the required transformer test,and then you will go--yes yes,that is what i was going to say--just like you said others will do after you handed down your wine glass big reveal.


Brad