Joule Thief 101

[tinman]

The first sentences of the first post on page one of this thread:
More recently there has been discussions related to resonance. 

Some resonant conditions can be a bad thing, some can be a good thing, but I was unaware of any "anomalous effects" related to resonance that "standard EM theory", for example, cannot account for.

PW

Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.

The biggest problem here,and by here i mean !world wide!,is that it seems most(if not all) have just settled for knowing what the magnetic field dose,and how we can use that magnetic field. It seems that no one is any longer interested in knowing -or trying to find out what the magnetic force is.
If we knew this,then we could then design devices based around that new found knowledge,and only then would we have machines that can be powered by PM's alone.

No one seems to even want to try and find out what the magnetic force is--but it is something,we know it is,as we can feel it.


Brad

[Johan_1955]

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."

- Winston Churchill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4IVEUapInk

Mirror mirror, recognise: That the guy is talking only about his self, like you mostly when its over others!

The proof, picking the most short convenient so called true movie, study before you talk, this especially because our a appriciated host, Stephan Hartmann is also German, you blind Soul.

Educate you're self before typing, see the full true:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA7_S8oD7HU

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheWorldWar2History/videos

You talk, and have no idea what you're saying!

So you're also believing that Napoleon was beaten by UK?

You are the perfect Tax-Payer, non social or democratic.

[tinman]

author=Erfinder link=topic=8341.msg479193#msg479193 date=1459507665]

I mean no one any disrespect, I get something from all of you, and would like to give back to the community one day.  I feel I cannot accomplish this task so long as we cannot get beyond defending concepts which which didn't originate at least in part with individuals participating in the discussion.

Speaking for myself, I do want to know what the force is and where it comes from, and am actively perusing this aim.

As am i,and i think i may be close--we shall see.

The discussions taking place here, specifically the debate between you and Milehigh, is what keeps folks like myself from participating.

Because the time has come for me !once again! to believe in what i see,and not what im told i should be seeing.

The books have their place, and that place is not at the center of a brainstorming and speculation discussion.  Nothing in the literature as far as I have been able to discern, has led anyone to a definitive answer.

That comment is at the heart of the problem we face here. There are those that !stick to the book's!,and those that believe we have not been told the complete truth--through the eyes of the book's.
We are guided by !so called! laws that are older than anyone on this forum.
The fact is,they are not laws at all--they are nothing more than a !best guess! ,that is derived from that that is known so far--or has been given

This is not to say that the answer isn't in there somewhere, nor does it imply that if and when the answer is found, that the books cannot qualify it.

Anything can be twisted,so as it kind of represents something that is not there. It's much like being able to make pictures from cloud's-even though there just cloud's.

Our position should be neutral, this enables us to take the best from that which we are exposed to and combine it in any manner we see fit.

That is !how! it should be,but it is how it is not.
There are those here that !must! adhere to the book's,and the partial truths they preach.

The answer is probably not going to be as straight forward as books would have it to be, nor as simple as some researchers wish for it to be.  We wont catch a glimpse of it if we are preoccupied with defending ideas which were prepared for us.

Time defending truth's are never a waste of time--they are a path built toward a correct understanding to the subject at hand.
If we let untruths slide,then those behind us will only be set on a false path--and this is how great things are missed.

The answers are in the book when we identify them, until that time, they aren't there.

I do not believe they are. In fact,i believe they have been left out on purpose-so as man can go no further than he has gone. Even when there are those that provide systems that greatly increase efficiencies--no one is interested.

I will give you an example of such,and this example is for an ICE--the 4 stroke,186ci holden 6 cylinder ICE valve train. It has 87 moving part's,and draws about 4HP from the engine. It has a limit of speed at which it can operate.

At the age of just 23,i designed a valve system for the same motor,that had only 3 moving part's,required only 1/40th of the power to drive it,and had no limit to the RPM at which it would operate--you could never get to a stage where you would encounter valve float--or valve bounce as some call it.
A local machine shop produced a prototype of my system,and the engine ran extremely well.
Over the next 6 month's,i(and my employer at the time) tried to find an interested motor manufacture to take on the design--but not one was interested.

The ICEs of today have many more moving part's--not less. Now we have 2 or 4 cam shafts. We have 4 valves per cylinder,which means more valve spring's,retainer collets,stem seals,clearance shim's-the list go's on. All these extra parts need more power to drive them.

It just seems to me,that we are going backwards in this area--the ICE.
I feel the same about many thing's,where as it seems that we are just not going any further forward--we are stuck with the same old stuff we had 30 years ago when it comes to power generation--of all types.

It is becoming more and more apparent each day that there are technologies  out there that are being hidden from us,and if anyone comes up with something that the powers that be cannot control -or give us some sort of freedom,then they are quickly silenced one way or the other.


Brad

[Johan_1955]

It just seems to me,that we are going backwards in this area--the ICE.
I feel the same about many thing's,where as it seems that we are just not going any further forward--we are stuck with the same old stuff we had 30 years ago when it comes to power generation--of all types.

It is becoming more and more apparent each day that there are technologies  out there that are being hidden from us,and if anyone comes up with something that the powers that be cannot control -or give us some sort of freedom,then they are quickly silenced one way or the other.

Brad

The Uni's need money, so students are not anymore selected on there natural talents, most youngsters are graphing a study direction for status, MH on R&D is not working, but a Luc would be Perfect.

The book-keeper technicians are taking over, licking to above and kicking to below, or in there thinking what below is, like proven if you miss in grammar a pointy or comma.

The 2-stroke engine is killed, why?

Not because of CO2, below a pic of a 2-stroke patent, CO2 neutral like a 4-stroke, old and now open-source!?!?

Because of: Small factories with TALENT could beat Honda, Suzuki, Yamaha or ..................... , look: Kreidler, Jamathi, Piovattici, Derbi.

[wattsup]

Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.

The biggest problem here,and by here i mean !world wide!,is that it seems most(if not all) have just settled for knowing what the magnetic field dose,and how we can use that magnetic field. It seems that no one is any longer interested in knowing -or trying to find out what the magnetic force is.
If we knew this,then we could then design devices based around that new found knowledge,and only then would we have machines that can be powered by PM's alone.

No one seems to even want to try and find out what the magnetic force is--but it is something,we know it is,as we can feel it.
Brad

@tinman

That's what I am working on. Exactly to find a new way. You will see soon man.

Example: In the JT circuit, the 1k resistor for me is the worst component to use. It is better to find a small transformer that has a primary with 1k resistance where the secondary can still put energy back into the battery.

I am about to post two effect diagrams of the circuit using my new STEP model of Spin Conveyance. This is new. I am just holding back because I do not really think guys are really ready for this. Anyways I will finish it and post it and we shall see how our present EE structure mentality will be able to cope with the premise. Premise maybe but it fits all our effect right down to a "T".

@picowatt

Thanks again for your response. I had prepared a post but it is too long. I would simply like to provide a practical description of using the scope.

You measure across a CVR, probe on one side and ground clip on the other side. You see the waveform on the scope. The waveform tells you something which is based on the difference in energy states of both the positive and negative side of the CVR (or high positive and lower positive, or, high negative and lower negative).

So while you see the waveform, you remove the ground clip and see on of the following;

1) The waveform shows the exact same waveform result.
2) The waveform shows a higher energy state.
3) The waveform shows a lower energy state.

What do each of these states tell you? I do not want to give you my input on this as I do not want to influence how your response may be.

Then,,,,,,,,,,,

The fact that a CVR is being injected into the circuit for measurement purposes automatically cancels the real effect of the circuit. We never know up to which level of effect the CVR will have on the circuit and as we measure and correlate those results, are we now actually following a slightly or widely warped functionality of the circuit and not the true intended circuit operation?

This is the problem. We can use CVRs for years and nothing will be truly known because the CVR could be creating bottlenecks in the circuit that we are totally unaware of during the measurements.

So then why has science not established a method of measurement requiring only the one scope probe where the ground potential is set to a universally accepted level in order for everyone to measure at a same method. Or why are we not using small current measurement inductors like a miniature clamp on ammeter. Imagine if this was created and used in all our benches, we could then measure the true functionality without modifying the real circuit.

I can give you examples like this to fill up pages and pages more. It seems to me that in these forums we have the EE side and the OU side. The EE side spends all its time setting the OU side straight. But I could tear down the EE side in a few pages and then what would we be left with?

It seems to me that if the EE side is to become a useful and pertinent part of the OU effort, then those EEers should unite their efforts to establish new accepted ways of non-intrusive measurements. If the EE side established this on their own, the outcome would be uncontested with new tools for the OUer to use and understand and explain circuit operations. Right now, if we take the JT thread as an example, all these measurements @tinman made amount to what? What have we really learned about the circuit? Such a simple circuit yet what have we learned any more then what we always learn as being the surface effect and not going any deeper. There has to be a way. There absolutely has to be a way to just put your scope probe anywhere on a circuit without the ground clip connected and see the actual energy states in that specific point of the circuit without modifying or influencing any deleterious effects to the circuit. How come EEers have not worked this out between themselves after how many countless decades on the bench? Don't know.

We will see this weekend when I post up my effect diagram, using @tinmans JT circuit, just how polyvalent our minds are. But most importantly just how objective we can be to understand something new.

wattsup