Joule Thief 101

[Johan_1955]

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

About the first 2-stroke resonance, read this:

http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/classic-japanese-motorcycles/suzuki-ernst-degner-ze0z1202zsch.aspx

MZ, Jawa, en CZ, are in located in the Europe area of where Tesla is born, mostly named as Gipsy / Occult area, a name calling because of other knowledge, to difficult for the book-keepers.

Japan did steal it (2-stroke) from above with money, US was the not invited gast for the Werner VonBraun Fire-Cracker now Nasa technology, and using Churchill for there goal, so UK is used without that they know it by US!?

[picowatt]

@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.

There is nothing mystical about the operation of an oscilloscope.  Regardless of what you do with the ground clip (scope reference), the 'scope will continue to measure between the probe tip and its ground reference (which may, depending upon what it is you are measuring, just be just capacitive or inductively coupled noise). 

Your questions are no different than asking about the use of a voltmeter.  If you connect the two probes of a voltmeter across a battery's terminals to measure its voltage, should I be perplexed when disconnecting one of the leads changes that measurement?

Do you have a particular measurement you wish to discuss?

Regarding the use of a CVR, there is no mystery there as well.  The measurements across a CVR allow the current flow to be measured with a meter or visualized with a scope.  Adding the typically small resistance of a CVR to a circuit and the effect that has on that circuit is also well understood.  More often the use of a CVR is less desirable because of the need for a measurement isolated from another measurement than it is with regard to how that CVR affects the circuit.

When use of a CVR is deemed to invasive or impractical, a current probe can be used, which is isolated from the citrcuit.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that all measurements are made with regard to a point of reference.  Forgive me if not, but was it you that stated AC proves electron's don't exist because the neutral in US AC distribution systems is "zero volts"?

Again, all measurements are relative...

PW

[tinman]

There is nothing mystical about the operation of an oscilloscope.  Regardless of what you do with the ground clip (scope reference), the 'scope will continue to measure between the probe tip and its ground reference (which may, depending upon what it is you are measuring, just be just capacitive or inductively coupled noise). 

Your questions are no different than asking about the use of a voltmeter.  If you connect the two probes of a voltmeter across a battery's terminals to measure its voltage, should I be perplexed when disconnecting one of the leads changes that measurement?

Do you have a particular measurement you wish to discuss?

Regarding the use of a CVR, there is no mystery there as well.  The measurements across a CVR allow the current flow to be measured with a meter or visualized with a scope.  Adding the typically small resistance of a CVR to a circuit and the effect that has on that circuit is also well understood.  More often the use of a CVR is less desirable because of the need for a measurement isolated from another measurement than it is with regard to how that CVR affects the circuit.

When use of a CVR is deemed to invasive or impractical, a current probe can be used, which is isolated from the citrcuit.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that all measurements are made with regard to a point of reference.  Forgive me if not, but was it you that stated AC proves electron's don't exist because the neutral in US AC distribution systems is "zero volts"?

Again, all measurements are relative...

PW

Well i have found a problem here,and it involves the resistors.
The discovery came after the video below that i made in the search for junction capacitance.
Please pay careful attention to the diode test. This is a 1n4007 diode in the video.

After a couple of days thinking about this,i knew something was not right. There was just no way that diode could have enough junction capacitance to light that LED the way it was.

Tonight i ran some more test,and made a discovery that define's a major flaw in the JT circuits measurements by way of scope,and DMM's. What you see on your scope and DMMs ,is not what is there at all.

I will let you watch the video,and see if you can see where these errors lye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyvcMbSxAo0


Brad

[MileHigh]

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 ?.

It took me about five seconds to come up with a thought experiment that does exactly that.  Don't bother asking me, you "out of the box" brainiacs can ponder that one yourselves and answer it yourselves.  If nobody can answer it, then you are back to the same old conundrum where "you guys only know what is in books" and yet you guys can't apply the knowledge that you are supposed to know to answer simple questions.  Both EMJunkie and Wattsup could not answer the very same simple question that I posed to them about a coil.  EMJunkie had a hard time with that and threw every "tech sounding" phrase that he associated with coils at the problem and nothing was correct.  So after about 15 to 25 tries in vain by EMJunkie, MarkE answered the question.  Then EMJunkie had the gall to come here and post that it never happened, which was an outright lie.  And that's part of the reason I posted the two wine glass questions.

[picowatt]

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.

So I guess no one can think of an "anomalous effect" caused by resonance....


As to this different question that you raise, rather simplistically speaking, here is my take on it:

We are to believe that the magnetic field produced by a PM is due to the motion of electrons in atoms with unpaired outer shell electrons, parallel alignment of groups of those atoms into domains, alignment of those domains towards a given direction, and retention of those domain alignments due to the pinning forces created by the inclusion of different atoms positioned between the domains.

When current flows thru a conductor, we are to believe that electrons are flowing from one point to another within that conductor and that the motion of those electrons thru the conductor produces a magnetic field similar to that produced by the motion of the electrons in the atoms of the PM.

Placing a PM next to a conductor may cause the electrons of atoms within that conductor to align with the magnetic field of the PM and produce a temporary flow of electrons within that conductor, but once the motion of the PM ceases and any electron alignment with the PM is completed, there is no further flow of electrons due to the proximity of the now stationary PM, with only alignment remaining. 

Moving the PM (or an EM) with respect to the conductor causes the area of electrons aligned with the PM (or EM) within the conductor to move or flow along the conductor (somewhat analogous to the flow of fluid in a peristaltic pump, or a roller moved across a wet sponge).  This flow can be out of one end of the conductor, thru an external circuit, and back into the other end of the conductor (i.e., generator and load), or the flow can loop back into itself within the conductor (i.e., eddy current). 

That explanation is rather macroscopic in nature.  If we were to consider an individual ferromagnetic atom (i.e., iron) and a single free electron, we may find that the magnetic field inherent to that iron atom due to the motion (orbit) of an unpaired electron does indeed cause that free electron to move.  This might be considered to be somewhat similar to a stationary PM producing current flow. 

Only if we were to believe that the magnetic field of the PM has some sort of coherent or statistically significant flow relative to its field alignment would we expect that magnetic field to produce a current flow when the PM is stationary with respect to the conductor. 

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.

That's complete nonsense.  Yes, engineers use what we know to develop technology, but there is a great deal of ongoing science related to just figuring out what everything "is".  It is often the technological advances that allow the continued pursuit of those unanswered questions.

I think many, and by many I mean you, have become cynical towards scientists and science in general.  Do scientists have all the answers?  Of course not.  But we only know what it is they do not know because of the investigations and discoveries made by those scientists!

For example, you point to the unexplained motion of the galaxies as proof that science does not have all the answers and therefore seemingly want to be cynical towards all scientists and the answers they have discovered.  You fail to give them credit for advancing to the point to where they are able to point out the anomalous motion of those galaxies and the new questions those discoveries present.  Sometimes it seems that laymen are just lying in wait for scientists to announce a new discovery that raise a bunch of unanswered questions just so those laymen can say "see, I told you they don't know it all", as if that were a bad thing.  If science had all the answers, there would be no need for science.

Recently LIGO in the US reported detection of gravity waves as predicted by Einstein.  In order to pull that off, they had to measure the length difference of the two arms of the interferometer to one part in 10²¹.  As I mentioned previously, I read that was equivalent to measuring the width of the Milky Way galaxy changing by the width of a pencil erasure.  This was no small feat.  Most can only just begin to fathom the technical difficulties associated with that level of measurement precision.  Even now, it is planned to further enhance the measurement accuracy of LIGO, and once additional detectors come on line throughout the world (bummer about Australia's), an entire new realm of scientific discovery will be at hand (similar to the advent of radiotelescopy).  It is very likely that detection and study of gravity waves will answer some questions, but it is also very likely that many new questions will also arise.

Figuring out what is going on at the subatomic and cosmological scales are closely related.  However, there is indeed some very leading edge, state of the art science working in those fields and related purely to what "everything is".

PW