Joule Thief 101

[wattsup]

@tinman

Here is a simple idea for simple resonance tests with coils. Just call it a Pre-Primary coil (PP1). So you pulse PP1 to the resonance of the working Primary P1 while scoping the P1 and the Secondary (S1). This way you can now experiment with a primary in resonance without having to pulse it directly. One should soon realize that the secondary will require the most work, because getting any PP1 to resonate P1 will always be easy with an FG. But will S1 like it, that is the question and then how to help S1 like it more, that should be a better question.

In the standard primary pulse to secondary resonance losing game there could definitely be missing some interplay and I figure this would add to the play in a positive manner. So if PP1 can resonate P1 and P1 can impress an output to S1, how much did it cost to run PP1? Is it possible that in some instance it will cost less to pulse PP1 then what is produced from P1 to S1? hehehe

Then possible variations like two PP1's each on one side of the primary to dual resonate or one PP1 and 5 primaries all in resonance, or any other expansion would be good avenues to investigate.

Then the really fun parts would be looking if S1 will hinder PP1 when it is loaded or not loaded or even better, with a variable load because I think many of the problems stem from not having the right load level.

wattsup

[Magluvin]

@tinman

Here is a simple idea for simple resonance tests with coils. Just call it a Pre-Primary coil (PP1). So you pulse PP1 to the resonance of the working Primary P1 while scoping the P1 and the Secondary (S1). This way you can now experiment with a primary in resonance without having to pulse it directly. One should soon realize that the secondary will require the most work, because getting any PP1 to resonate P1 will always be easy with an FG. But will S1 like it, that is the question and then how to help S1 like it more, that should be a better question.

In the standard primary pulse to secondary resonance losing game there could definitely be missing some interplay and I figure this would add to the play in a positive manner. So if PP1 can resonate P1 and P1 can impress an output to S1, how much did it cost to run PP1? Is it possible that in some instance it will cost less to pulse PP1 then what is produced from P1 to S1? hehehe

Then possible variations like two PP1's each on one side of the primary to dual resonate or one PP1 and 5 primaries all in resonance, or any other expansion would be good avenues to investigate.

Then the really fun parts would be looking if S1 will hinder PP1 when it is loaded or not loaded or even better, with a variable load because I think many of the problems stem from not having the right load level.

wattsup

I think I get what you mean....

If we did get the pri ringing, loading the sec would change the pri freq (higher) by lowering the pri inductance. So say a resistive load if varied would vary the freq of resonance. So it would be that the sec should be first loaded then look for the new resonant freq?

Mags

[Pirate88179]

Spot on with reference to?

btw, Lewin is good, but he gives at least one lecture where he unfortunately leads his students astray.

.99

Do you mean the one where he says that Ohm's law is wrong?  I was always wondering about that one.  I love his lessons but, he is the only one that has claimed this (to my knowledge) and, if correct, I would have thought it would have been pretty big news all over the world.


Bill

PS  I have watched over 30 of his lectures and have learned a lot from them.

[Dog-One]

PS  I have watched over 30 of his lectures and have learned a lot from them.

Hope you didn't learn "too much", or you'll end up just like him, disgraced and erased:
http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N60/walterlewin.html

It's not good for educators to teach students to think, only to memorize and regurgitate.  Why if students could think, imagine what they might do, or build over a few weekends of their spare time.  No, no, we can't have that.  Breaking of the status quo is unacceptable behavior--zero tolerance.

On the other hand, if you really look into some of the physics Dr. Lewin gets in to, it's not hard to recognize what is actually possible.  Our limits aren't nearly as strict as one might think.  Just be prepared to be blacklisted or worse.  Probably best to just keep it to yourself and smile a lot.     I'm pretty certain there are a few members of this forum that have learned a valuable lesson.

[MileHigh]

It's not good for educators to teach students to think, only to memorize and regurgitate.  Why if students could think, imagine what they might do, or build over a few weekends of their spare time.  No, no, we can't have that.  Breaking of the status quo is unacceptable behavior--zero tolerance.

On the other hand, if you really look into some of the physics Dr. Lewin gets in to, it's not hard to recognize what is actually possible.  Our limits aren't nearly as strict as one might think.  Just be prepared to be blacklisted or worse.  Probably best to just keep it to yourself and smile a lot.     I'm pretty certain there are a few members of this forum that have learned a valuable lesson.

I almost fell asleep reading through your two paragraphs because they are the oldest cliche in the book.  Open your eyes, you are living through an era where the pace of innovation and change and improvement is faster and more dramatic and more marvelous and exciting than it has ever been in the history of the world. They have discovered thousands of extrasolar planets, the James Webb Space Telescope will be launched soon, and in 10 years your cell phone will talk back to you like a person, shoot 4K video at 120 fps, and have four terabytes of on-board storage.  Don't be surprised if one-third of your energy comes from renewable sources and there will be solar panels that are ten times more efficient and you will see them everywhere, including on the roofs of electric cars. You are spouting out a ridiculous tired old cliche.