Joule Thief 101

[MileHigh]

Brad:

Shocking eh?  You have been told that you are wrong and all that you can do is whine and complain and stomp your feet and insist that you are right.  You tried a few times and you were wrong and then you Google searched and did a few mini copy-paste-a-gasms.  Why don't you try to answer the questions in your own words, four sentences or less for each question.  Demonstrate that you know what you are talking about.  Go ahead, you have nothing to lose.

For the ICE issue, initially you made a typical "Brad statement," something like "An ICE is in resonance."  Only later when you were pushed to put you brain and mouth in gear did you try to offer up any specifics.  I have stated to you repeatedly that we are talking about the standard engineering and scientific definition for resonance, not motor shop talk or motor marketing talk for "resonance."  Nonetheless, I am open to understanding exactly what you mean by "resonance" in this case and have asked you and Johan for motor schematic diagrams of any supposed resonant system along with an explanation and a timing diagram and so far I have seen nothing.  Pointing to a clip of a guy revving a two-stroke engine is meaningless.

The car speed analogy was done for one purpose only:  To prove to you that you can indeed answer a question on a conceptual level without having to give specific measurement numbers or solve for a specific configuration.  Just the fact that I had to do that because you would not accept that line of reasoning to answer a conceptual question with a conceptual answer is absolutely mind boggling.  It's the equivalent of taking your hands and showing you how to tie your own shoes.  It's so ridiculous but I did it anyway so you would stop whining and complaining about the question about determining the resonance frequency of the wine glass.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Brad:

Resonance guru MH--do you not understand this,as it seems very straight forward to me.
If our child on the swing has a resonant frequency,can that frequency be maintained if we only give him a push every 3rd swing,or 4th swing,or 5th swing?,while adding the needed energy to maintain the amplitude of each swing.

But we are not pushing on a swing anymore now are we?  We are talking about the frequency content in an excitation signal trying to excite a core at its resonant frequency or a possibly at a harmonic of its resonant frequency.  Things don't resonate at a frequency that is lower than the fundamental frequency.  The core is acting as a filter with its own frequency response and it will not respond to any excitation that is below the fundamental frequency.

I am pretty sure that Smoky2's logic is wrong on this one, but I don't want to get into it beyond that and I am truly not interested.  I am not holding my breath expecting anything to come from the resonance guru working with you and Magluvin.  I won't be surprised if he flies by night if all you guys come up with is resonant goose eggs.

MileHigh

[tinman]

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?

Oh bugga.

I am going to have to agree with you MH on this one.
Sound needs a medium to travel in,as it is a mechanical wave,and as a vacuum is void of any medium,then the sound wave cannot propagate.

Sound can be transmitted across a vacuum,but that is via way of electromagnetic field's,and not sound waves them self.

I also see no reason a wine glass will not resonate in a vacuum,we just wont hear it do so.


Brad.

[tinman]

 author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476814#msg476814 date=1457533651]



   

MileHigh

Shocking eh?  You have been told that you are wrong

By who?-->you? lol.

and all that you can do is whine and complain and stomp your feet and insist that you are right.

I cant stomp to much MH,as you know,i am nursing a broken foot.
Im not complaining much,other than your idiotic 4 to 8 weeks for an answer bullshit.

You tried a few times and you were wrong

Havnt been proven wrong yet--where did you come up with that?.

and then you Google searched and did a few mini copy-paste-a-gasms.

There googlegasms MH-get it right.
But yes i did--to back up my answers i gave you in my own words. They are here on this thread to repost when you dump your load in 4 to 7 weeks.

Why don't you try to answer the questions in your own words, four sentences or less for each question.  Demonstrate that you know what you are talking about.  Go ahead, you have nothing to lose.

Already done--see reply above.

For the ICE issue, initially you made a typical "Brad statement," something like "An ICE is in resonance."

Nooo-go back and reread-then come back and correct your self!once again!

Only later when you were pushed to put you brain and mouth in gear did you try to offer up any specifics.

You mean i had to waste more of my time educating you.

I have stated to you repeatedly that we are talking about the standard engineering and scientific definition for resonance, not motor shop talk or motor marketing talk for "resonance."

All data supplied fits well within the standard scientific definition of resonance.

Nonetheless, I am open to understanding exactly what you mean by "resonance" in this case and have asked you and Johan for motor schematic diagrams of any supposed resonant system along with an explanation and a timing diagram and so far I have seen nothing.  Pointing to a clip of a guy revving a two-stroke engine is meaningless.

I provided you with all the information required to explain the resonant systems in an ICE,along with a complete explanation of the timing involved--along with the relevant links to back up my claim's. MH just did a post skip reading session-as you often do.

The car speed analogy was done for one purpose only:  To prove to you that you can indeed answer a question on a conceptual level without having to give specific measurement numbers or solve for a specific configuration.

What you did end up doing,was show how your conceptual level explanation was flawed right from the word go. It was incomplete,and never had a chance in hell of being able to determine the top speed of a car--that is fact.

Just the fact that I had to do that because you would not accept that line of reasoning to answer a conceptual question with a conceptual answer is absolutely mind boggling.

Here is exactly what your example showed.
It showed us the very reason we should stick to what we believe in,and not what others think we should believe in. The very moment i read that post of yours,regarding the top speed of the car,i picked it apart in no time flat--and your wheels fell off MH.
What you ended up doing,is showing us all here,that you have no idea what the hell you are doing.
You also showed why it is very important not to take the word of one person over reality.
You failed badly in that one MH,and only re-enforces my disbelief in what you are trying to peddle.
!!!Have you worked out what you missed in that top speed of a car!! analogy yet?.

It's the equivalent of taking your hands and showing you how to tie your own shoes.  It's so ridiculous but I did it anyway so you would stop whining and complaining about the question about determining the resonance frequency of the wine glass.

And there is the idiotic post for today.
The man that cant tie his own shoes,is showing us all how it should be done.


Brad

[tinman]

 author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476818#msg476818 date=1457534548]




MileHigh

But we are not pushing on a swing anymore now are we?  We are talking about the frequency content in an excitation signal trying to excite a core at its resonant frequency or a possibly at a harmonic of its resonant frequency.  Things don't resonate at a frequency that is lower than the fundamental frequency.

If the resonant frequency of the core it self is in the GHz range,then the pulse of energy/force that is the energy input giving rise to that resonance of the core, can be a divisional/lower harmonic of that resonant frequency--the very same as the child on the swing,that will maintain his resonant frequency,even when the supplied energy pulse is a divisional of that frequency.

 

The core is acting as a filter with its own frequency response and it will not respond to any excitation that is below the fundamental frequency.

And you have proof of this theory of yours MH?

I am pretty sure that Smoky2's logic is wrong on this one, but I don't want to get into it beyond that and I am truly not interested.  I am not holding my breath expecting anything to come from the resonance guru working with you and Magluvin.  I won't be surprised if he flies by night if all you guys come up with is resonant goose eggs.

I thought you were the guru MH.
You are the one that is going to rewrite resonant history--in 4 to 7 weeks

So far,the rest of us are all correct,as you are yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.
You keep saying we are all wrong--where is your evidence of that.
So far you have made only mistake's,and there has been no presentation of truth from you yet.


Brad