Joule Thief 101

[MileHigh]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827804-600-sound-can-leap-across-a-vacuum-after-all/

discovered nearly 7 years ago, we now have well founded equations that describe this.
the speed of sound in a vacuum is slightly faster than that of air, but not by much.
the propagation, void of medium, is a character of the wave function,
which was defined by the atmosphere that created it, prior to entering the void.

has anyone seen my marbles?

I think that you lost your marbles.

<<< Now a theoretical analysis by Mika Prunnila and Johanna Meltaus, both of the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland in Espoo, suggests that sound may be able to leap across a vacuum separating two objects made of piezoelectric crystals. These crystals generate an electric field when squeezed or stretched by sound waves or other forces, and deform in an electric field.

When a sound wave reaches the edge of one crystal, the electric field associated with it can stretch across the gap and deform the crystal on the other side, creating sound waves in that second crystal (Physical Review Letters, vol 105, p 125501). "It is as if the sound waves don't even recognise the vacuum – they just go through," says Prunnila. >>>

Who is the asshole that came up with the title for the article I wonder?  "Sound can leap across a vacuum after all"  A 21-year-old journalism grad that has a minor in Basket Weaving and has a certificate in Social Studies in Differently Enabled Philosophical Speculations in the 21st Century?

[MileHigh]

These are comments from the peanut gallery and you can ignore them if you want.  I will not get involved at all in your toroid resonance discussion.  Just my two cents for the heck of it:

what this means for a 2 inch torroid, is that the fundamental resonant frequency
or base resonant frequency,  is somewhere close to 3 Ghz.

I am pretty sure that if the base resonant frequency is 3 GHz, then you can only go up in frequency to get a harmonic resonant response, and that itself will be attenuated.  You can't get lower resonant responses, that doesn't make sense.

The only thing that you can do is excite the toroid with a square-wave-type signal and line up an odd harmonic in the signal with the 3 GHz base resonant frequency of the toroid in an attempt to get a "rise" out of the toroid.  However, the amount of spectral power at 3 GHz you can get from a standard bench function generator is presumably very very low.  Then on top of that, the chances of anybody having a scope that can even see 3 GHz is probably close to zero.  In other words, with such high frequencies, the toriod will look like a dead parrot no matter what.

The fundamental (no pun) point being that the toroid can only potentially resonate at harmonics above 3 GHz, nothing below 3 Ghz.

End of the peanut gallery - good luck Mr. Resonance Guru.

[hoptoad]

Cool I watched this while testing the resonance of some more wine glasses.   Oscilloscope provide a nice visuals as well.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnL40CbuodU

Great Video. Loved it.
Cheers

[hoptoad]

snip..
it resonates with me 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI

Another great video. Awesome! It sounds like a mosquito on steroids.

[tinman]

 author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476774#msg476774 date=1457503042]
     


MileHigh

Only in Brad's strange world can he insist that he is right when he is told that he is wrong by the person that posed the actual question.

You mean i am assumed wrong by some one that has posted no counter argument,or any proof what so ever that i am wrong.
What was the !actual! question?
Was it the original question--> !what! determines the resonant frequency of a wine glass?.
Or was it the second question--> !how! is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?.
Then there is the bonus question-->what is resonance?.

All three questions have been answered by not only myself,but from other members as well,and they all say the same thing .
Of course we are all wrong,because a man that has no counter answers says we are.

The whole reason for presenting this exercise the way it was presented was because of Brad's overbearing attitude about his "supreme powers of reasoning" where he is devoid of listening to other people's input.

I have read and listened to every one's input MH,and it's the same as mine.
The only one here saying that i(and everyone else here) is wrong,is you--the man that has provided no input but to say we are all wrong--none of us know how the resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined,and none of us know what resonance is,and none of us know what determines the resonant frequency of that wine glass.
The only one with the correct answers(apparently),is the very same single individual that has provided no answers at all-->that be you MH.

He was pushy and forceful and brash about "better efficiency through resonance" and was so sure of himself, and look where it has ended up.

Yes--look where he has ended up.
1-had to show MH that resonant systems do indeed exist in ICEs that improve the efficiency of that ICE,and provided all the info to back it up. This was after you quoted that there is no resonance in an ICE.
2- I also had to inform you that your way of determining the top speed of a car was missing vital information needed to calculate the top speed of that car,and to this date,you cannot work out what that needed information is. You insist that there is only frictional forces at work that will be acting upon the car. The fact that you have no idea as to what the other major factor is that is also needed before your way of determining the top speed of the car will even be close,shows me that you know far less than i thought you did.

Because he was so brash and so unwilling to listen to other people he was asked two simple questions about resonance that anybody that knows their stuff should be able to answer no problem.

The !fact! is MH,i have answered all the questions correctly--along with every one else--and you are yet to prove me wrong--those are the facts MH.

He was put on the spot this one time because he deserved it.  And he has been unwilling to take other's people's input countless times before about a myriad of subjects so I just decided to stick it through to the end this one time.

This sounds more like you MH--not me. You have been corrected a number of times on this thread by those that know far more than you do--EG,the resonant systems in an ICE,your bogus car speed calculations--to which you cannot even work out the 1 major thing you have missed that is needed for you to get even close to being correct.
I had to correct you on how the cool joule circuit was able to oscillate,due to the miller capacitance effect--and that is just in this thread alone.
What other myriad of  subjects are you talking about MH?.
Are you still sore about me kicking your ass all over the place regarding the moon landing's?
Or maybe it was when i had to correct you on your assumption that a single coil with a lower resistance provided more pull force acting upon a PM than that of two coils that resulted in twice the resistance,and so 1/2 of the current draw. I know you were not happy about me showing by way of accurate experimental data that you were wrong on that one as well.

Brad has willfully ignored advice about electronics from true electronics experts, bloody geniuses with 40 or more years of senior electronics design experience.

To whom are you referring to MH? ,and to what advice are you referring to?

Then you came along and couldn't answer the two simple questions either, in fact you said some stuff that is totally whackadoo.  Our "resonance guru" has lost his bells.

The two simple questions have been answered correctly,not only by myself,but also by others here as well.
The only one here that is yet to provide answers ,is you MH.
So looking at the statistics MH,we are all 3up,and you are 0.

Presuming you are referring to the automotive question that Brad posed to me, then here you are espousing the same kind of retarded logic that is a hallmark of this thread.

Ok-so we have to use our brains to answer your question's(that we have answered correctly a number of times now),but you expect me to provide you with the answer to my question,regarding your flawed top speed of a car calculation method.

That's just the way the cookie has crumbled.  If Brad answers my question to him about the car issue I am thinking that there is a 75% chance that his response will be inexplicably nonsensical and my statement about about determining the top speed for the car will still be valid.  That's just the way it goes.

Sure,i'll give you the answer MH-->in about 4 to 8 weeks-->right after we hear your new revelations on resonance.
The fact that you have no idea as to what other major environmental forces act upon the car that are not frictional forces,is scary to say the least.


Brad