Joule Thief 101

[minnie]

   I'll bet she's got a natural resonant frequency when she's jogging!

[Pirate88179]

   I'll bet she's got a natural resonant frequency when she's jogging!

Probably has many of them, ha ha.

Bill

[minnie]

Who'd a thought it, Einstein and a mate patented a refrigerator.

[Pirate88179]

Only 5 min., Dutch 20 years guy, old and 2 times World-Champion,
look same driver fast driving on a 2- and on 4-stroke machine,
so good / nice to hear the different resonance's!

Begin is 4-stroke, and at 3 min comes the 2-stroke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU0aSrdyHnk

--------------------------------

Please: Lets talk about: 0.2-0.3 volts JT with a tor and a resonator!!!

Very cool.  I know the 2 strokes have the power/weight advantage but, I still like the sound of a 4 stroke engine better.

Here is a photo of my 4 stroke 49cc scoot.  It does not pull wheelies but it gets over 100 mpg.


Bill

PS  It has over 4,500 miles on it.

[tinman]

 author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg477227#msg477227 date=1457882725]


         

A while back you took on the strategy of "since he is telling me I am wrong about stuff, I will tell him he is wrong about everything and heap it on."  It's painful to watch.

What i took on MH,is to put an end to your negativity and incorrectness,in a hope that others will not give up based around the falsehoods you present.

The stuff about the car's top speed is ridiculous and painful to watch.  I brought up that to give you a simple analogy to show you that you could answer the question about determining the resonant frequency of the wine glass without measuring it (ridiculous) or having any specifics.

I understand that MH,but you dont seem to understand that if you are going to make such presentations about simple analogies,then they have to be complete in order to be correct. Your analogy is incorrect,as you have included an assumption that others using it will assume that the road surface the car is to be traveling on is level/flat. For it to be complete and correct,then you simply add the gravitational factor in,and everything is accounted for.
I bet you cannot show me one of your books that says assumptions are ok in making accurate  determinations.

These are concepts that a 15-year-old will easily understand so why can't you?

Any 15 year old will know that a car will go faster down hill than it will on a flat road,and so there go's your accurate determination of the cars top speed.

The car speed and the wine glass resonant frequency are two examples of you disrupting the thread.  Both of them should not even be issues at all yet 10 or more pages have been devoted to these non issues.  You are making people cringe.

What i am doing,is showing people that you cannot think things through properly or completely,and that your word is in no way a determination of how things will turn out.
The cars top speed was your input,and yours alone,and i pointed out your required missing data.

The big fat lie is to say, "Everything this !!teacher!! has said so far -in this thread alone,has been incorrect."  You are preposterous and there are other outright lies and I am sure many people have spotted them.

No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

Thats what i would call a lie MH.

You have really dug yourself into a hole, your brain is frying.  You have been having one good long tantrum in this debate, and it's an ugly spectacle.

MH
I can assure you that i am having no such tantrum. What i am trying to do is make people aware of your way's--and it seems you are helping me do so.

You are the main cause of the disturbance in this thread because I decided to treat you as a 100% normal person that had to understand normal things that other normal people understand

Well it seems that i understand !!normal!! things a little better than you do MH,and that much is evident in this thread. I am also seeing no others here agreeing with you as of yet.

Getting you to accept a question that a normal person would not have any issue with and not giving you a "special pass" led to you ranting and raving and disturbing the thread.

What i see here MH,is people answering your questions (myself,smOKy,ETC) with our own thought's,and then backing up those answers by way of research (google),and you saying we are all wrong. Then i read that you answered your own questions by way of your own thoughts,and then did some 20 minute google research,and your answers are correct. So how is it that all of our thought's and google research are incorrect,but your thought's and google research are correct?.

I get it now, an ICE can have Helmholtz resonators on the air intake and exhaust to improve the air flow into and out of the cylinder.  I get it, I learned something new, and I acknowledge it.

This is good MH--we are slowly teaching you

I never claimed to be an expert about car engines, and if you had just explained yourself properly it would never have been an issue in the first place.  It's not an issue anymore.  It's too bad that you can't do that.

I explained myself very clearly MH,but some how you got timing confused with resonance.
Remember MH--it was you that got confused with the difference between timing and resonance,and it was because of your mistake that the resonance issue in ICEs came about.
My exact words were Quote post 510: I dont think you grasp the reasoning behind resonance. The reasoning being much the same to that of having the timing correct in an ICE engine-done for best performance.
So am i incorrect MH?,is the timing not critical in both cases in order to achieve best performance/efficiency?.

Look in the mirror and see Brad's brain fry and kiss my ass

My brain is fine thank you MH. But it appears that yours is starting to take on a little more--learning is a good thing.

Pull yourself together and do some research and try to answer the two questions.

As far as im concerned,my answers are correct--along with smOKy's,as his are much the same as mine

The answers are ridiculously simple.

As were the resonant factors in an ICE,and the determination of a car's yop speed--but you got both them wrong MH.

The only thing I want to hear from you are answers to the two questions.  Anything else at this point would be useless and just disrupt the thread.

You have my answer's--many of them--and that's all you get.
The only disruption MH,is you and your silly 4 to 8 weeks posting !your! answer's,and then having the balls to say--we should be debating this. How do we have a debate when you do not provided any input toward the debate?.

Please point out where i have been wrong in this thread MH--that is backed up with actual proof,and not a MH assumption.


Brad