Joule Thief 101

[Johan_1955]

Johan:Yes the wall pushes back and there is no friction in this discussion.You should be ashamed of yourself for comparing me to a notorious child abuser and you should apologize to me and to everyone on this forum.  Your behaviour was disgusting.

Can you back up you'''re claims, or lets agree on: Independent 3e Party, right, is the best!!

[MileHigh]

Brad:

<<< I do not remember seeing verpies in agreement with you. I did see he agreed with one of my posts--did you miss that?.
Partsman and poynt are yet to show a sim of an ideal inductor doing what you say it dose. Yes that right,they must include some resistance for the sim to sim lol. >>>

Verpies is in agreement and you saw his quote.  He also made some other somewhat confusing posts, but I am talking about the post that counts.  The sim is not relevant to this discussion and it's probably been explained to you at least four times why the resistor has to be added.  What they themselves state is what counts and we are in agreement.

So, you are non-responsive to this question and you are avoiding it.

<<< I have answered your question correctly.
You cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor,as an ideal inductor dose not exist.
That being the case,all answers are theories only,as the answer cannot be proven to be correct. >>>

So you are non-responsive on the issue of answering the question where you use a real-world inductor with a series resistor instead of an ideal inductor.

So that means that you are incapable of answering the question at all and you are in the same boat as Wattsup and EMJunkie.  Six years of experimenting with coils, countless discussions about electronics on the forums with experts, and when presented with a circuit that consists of a power supply and only two components, a resistor and an inductor, you can't answer it.  So much for all the lols and attitude, the real joke is on you.

<<< We already know that a superconductor produces an equal and opposite magnetic force to that which created it. We know that current can flow through a superconductor without a voltage across it. An ideal inductor would be wound with superconducting wire-hence no resistance. So what is the difference between the two MH? One has it's current induced by the EMF placed across it,and the other has it's current induced by the external magnetic field.
Your saying one will work--produce the equal and opposite,while the other will not.  >>>

Your example is just two magnets in opposition, and that is in no way comparable to a voltage source exporting power into an energy storing device that also responds with an equal and opposite EMF.  Power does not flow in one example and power flows in the other example.  (See the shopping cart example.)

<<< You didnt ? 
Are you sure?. >>>

You better believe that I didn't say it you naughty little imp.  This is your cue to pull up a quote out of context.

So, you are incapable of answering the question and the thread has degenerated into mush.  That is par for the course.

MileHigh

[tinman]

You are talking nonsense and I am being serious.

If you stand next to a wall and push on it, it pushes back at you with the same force.

When you push on a shopping cart and it accelerates, it doesn't matter and the shopping is still pushing back at you with the same force.

Do you understand this and agree with this or not?

If you disagree then I want your full explanation.

It was a variance to Force=mass x acceleration that MarkE showed me during the air tank transfer thread. As far as i can remember ,it went something like this--it had to do with two variations of the amount of friction in the combined unit.

We have an air ram,where the cylinder is fixed,and so the friction is extremely high due to the fixture of the ram to earth,and cannot move(high friction value). The ram that moves within the cylinder has a much lower friction value,and can move with some force applied to it.
When compressed gas enters the cylinder,this gas pushes against the piston of the ram,and the ram moves. I stated that the piston pushes against the gas as much as the gas pushes against the piston,and he said i was wrong. He stated that if the piston was pushing against the gas as hard as the gas was pushing against the piston,the piston would not move. This was due to taking into account the friction ratio's of the two parts of the air ram as a whole.

With the shopping cart,the persons feet has a higher friction ratio to that of the shopping trolley wheels in reference to the ground/earth. So i would think the same applies here,and that friction offsets your force=mass x acceleration.
If i could find that thread,i could post you the post where MarkE explained this,as i may not have it 100% right. But i know there is a situation that involves friction where force =mass x acceleration deviates. Force =mass x acceleration only in a frictionless environment.


Brad

[MileHigh]

Can you back up you'''re claims, or lets agree on: Independent 3e Party, right, is the best!!

You should be ashamed of yourself for comparing me to a notorious child abuser and you should apologize to me and to everyone on this forum.  Your behaviour was disgusting.

Take a look:

http://www.studyphysics.ca/newnotes/20/unit01_kinematicsdynamics/chp05_forces/lesson17.htm

Anytime an object applies a force to another object, there is an equal and opposite force back on the original object.

    If you push on a wall you feel a force against your hand... the wall is pushing back on you with as much force as you apply to it.
    If this wasn't happening, your hand would accelerate through the wall!

This thread is just filled with rocket scientists and sleazeballs, isn't it Johan?

[MileHigh]

It was a variance to Force=mass x acceleration that MarkE showed me during the air tank transfer thread. As far as i can remember ,it went something like this--it had to do with two variations of the amount of friction in the combined unit.

We have an air ram,where the cylinder is fixed,and so the friction is extremely high due to the fixture of the ram to earth,and cannot move(high friction value). The ram that moves within the cylinder has a much lower friction value,and can move with some force applied to it.
When compressed gas enters the cylinder,this gas pushes against the piston of the ram,and the ram moves. I stated that the piston pushes against the gas as much as the gas pushes against the piston,and he said i was wrong. He stated that if the piston was pushing against the gas as hard as the gas was pushing against the piston,the piston would not move. This was due to taking into account the friction ratio's of the two parts of the air ram as a whole.

With the shopping cart,the persons feet has a higher friction ratio to that of the shopping trolley wheels in reference to the ground/earth. So i would think the same applies here,and that friction offsets your force=mass x acceleration.
If i could find that thread,i could post you the post where MarkE explained this,as i may not have it 100% right. But i know there is a situation that involves friction where force =mass x acceleration deviates. Force =mass x acceleration only in a frictionless environment.


Brad

No, there are not going to be any stream of consciousness plays or bait and switch plays here.  There is nothing about friction in this discussion at all, nothing.

You clearly are not able to answer this question.

http://www.studyphysics.ca/newnotes/20/unit01_kinematicsdynamics/chp05_forces/lesson17.htm

"For every action force there is an equal and opposite reaction force."

Action-reaction pairs can also happen without friction, or even with the objects not touching each other, known as "action at a distance" forces ...

    Action: a rocket pushes out exhaust...
    Reaction: the exhaust pushes the rocket forward.

The rocket also obviously accelerates.  This is basic high school physics.  It applies to the shopping cart and when you switch over to the electrical domain it applies to a voltage source energizing an inductor.