Joule Thief 101

[wattsup]

@picowatt

Thanks again for your comments to my last post.

The AC question is a no brainer. Neutral in a home is connected to Earth ground and Earth ground will not permit any form of alternating current to occur since the hot line will never occur on that ground line otherwise all homes would be up in flames by now. There is no argument to have for this. It is categoric that AC cannot alternate as has been taught in our schools. I just don't understand why it takes 100 years to figure that out. The present Standard EE model went bankrupt with this one but as usual, it is easier to ignore stuff that does not line up with the parrot league. But my model explains it perfectly with out one single electron flowing or one single field apparition. We'll get deeper into that soon enough but in the meantime, if you want to work on countering this, please try. Even Tesla's own depiction of AC is wrong but who knew then?

Regarding the scoping I know about your comments so let me just answer the three questions I put up previously and this may give some ideas to @tinman and others.

So while you see the waveform, you remove the ground clip and see one 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.

In the three questions above, it would seem this does not bring anything to mind so let's see.

1) This means the ground is really at zero potential.
2) This means the ground is really below zero potential.
3) This means the ground is really above zero potential.

Let's say @tinman has a resistor placed between the collector and the bottom of L1. He scopes across the resistor with the ground clip on the collector side and the probe on the L1 side. He sees a waveform. He then removes the ground clip and sees that the waveform did not change. This to me means there really is zero potential at the ground clip. This for me also means many other things like this is a good ground point reference for other positive probing points. I will let you contemplate others. But what if he sees the waveform go sky high when the ground clip is removed? You have to know these things if you are serious about playing with coils and knowing what's going on in your circuits and that will get you closer to the why of all this. The differential waveform is only one third of the story.

You have two reference points but you also have two reference points when one of them is removed and that we should be using to our advantage to understand more of the comparative results. If (probe+ground)/2 equals our regular differential waveform then by removing one of them and seeing if and/or how the waveform changes, this should be another great point of information that we need to use but that is presently ignored. Why, I don't know. Why haven't our universities tackled this question decades ago?

Maybe by placing one end of a widely available dummy load to the ground clip while leaving the other end open would provide a stable ground reference without being on the circuit itself and still permit others to replicate the effect and see the same waveforms.

The points I can make are endless but I am not here to "attack" because that would be to easy. I am here to help add a new construct that will help us work better and with more precision. This is the minimal precision we need to master in order to produce devices hitting OU. Otherwise another 100 years is ready to pass us by with nothing to show for it. I am not talking about our fancy little toys as @MH mentioned the EE Kool-Aid is what is running our toys. I don't care about these. I only care about OU. The "how" is indeed useful but the "why" is supreme.

@tinman

Good work man. I see you are starting to ask yourself some questions. I'll comment more on another post.

I am putting down a diagram of a potential test as I had explained in a previous post and you had requested I put up a diagram. This is the one I would like to see as it will say a lot of how this circuit works. You may need to start the circuit pulses with a 9v battery to base just to get it going then remove it. Something like the Kapanadze devices start with a 9volt battery. Some heads should be scratching by now as to why a 9volts battery may be required to start a system. hahaha

About diode choices, 1N5817, 1N5819, TTTE2, UF104. But the first two have always outperformed the others.

@TK

"FG isolated". Is this via a car battery and inverter running the FG or is the FG output simply going to an isolation transformer?

wattsup

[picowatt]

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.

It is difficult to imagine replacing all those valve train parts with just 3 moving parts.  About all I can think of would be to use one long rotary valve which is a "been there done that" technology from the past that always had issues related to seal technology and durability.

There can be many reasons for an engine manufacturer to not want to change designs.  The engineering costs involved in reliability/wear studies, patent rights issues, tooling costs, previous licensing issues are just a few.

That said, you are very far from being the first to "invent" something that no one would buy (or even had ripped off). 

Current ICE technology has become as much or more to do with emissions control than efficiency.

PW

[picowatt]

@picowatt

Thanks again for your comments to my last post.

The AC question is a no brainer. Neutral in a home is connected to Earth ground and Earth ground will not permit any form of alternating current to occur since the hot line will never occur on that ground line otherwise all homes would be up in flames by now.

You are correct, this IS a no brainer...  You are absolutely wrong.

Check out how Earth can and is used as a return conductor in SWER systems. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-wire_earth_return

Using SWER systems does indeed require careful consideration regarding electrocution hazards, particularly with regard to live stock.

However, in most of the US a separate return conductor is used.  As well, a separate neutral is used to carry L1-N or L2-N (120 loads) return current back to the pole transformer center tap from your service panel. That neutral is also connected to a ground rod driven into the Earth.  This is related to safety (there is also a separate ground from all socket third prongs also connected to that ground rod).

Consider this:

Connect a light bulb across a battery so that the bulb lights.  Now, also connect one end of the battery to an Earth ground.  Did you suddenly prove there are no electrons flowing from the battery and thru the bulb just because you also connected one end of the battery to an Earth ground?

PW

[tinman]

 



PW

It is difficult to imagine replacing all those valve train parts with just 3 moving parts.  About all I can think of would be to use one long rotary valve which is a "been there done that" technology from the past that always had issues related to seal technology and durability.

Nope. Mine was a slide valve setup--one rod,and two gears--thats it.
You make the slide and seats from the same material that the valves and seats are made from.
The counter weight fitted to the drive gear is the same weight as the slide rail,and so maintains balance.

Current ICE technology has become as much or more to do with emissions control than efficiency.

The more efficient your ICE is,the less emissions you have.
Take a more efficient valve train(such as mine),where it takes less energy to drive the valve train it self. That means less fuel used for the same amount of mechanical power going to the wheels.
Less fuel= less emissions to do the same job.

They may be improving in emissions output,but they are not to interested in efficiency--there all in cohorts with big oil,and regulated by the government.
I seen it happen first hand here in Western Australia with Ralphs orbital engine.Designed and built just 160km up the road from me. This ICE was 50% smaller than any other ICE for the same power output,and 35-50% more efficient. Ralphs biggest mistake was taking on BHP as a partner,who finally got Ralph to sell up to them,and then BHP shelved the project

Ralph is now into large realestate deals,and worth over 700 million.
He also still makes great amounts of cash from his fuel injection systems that are fitted to most 2 stroke outboard motors today.

Any car maker that waffles on about how fuel efficient there cars are--are full of shit.
Guys in there back yard workshops were killing todays fuel efficiency 50 years ago.

It's all about money,and there all filling each others pockets--not ours.


Brad

[wattsup]

@picowatt

I understand very well the present beliefs. This explanation has been used so many times but under any logic base it does not correlate. It is very common and normal since you guys do not have any higher level of logic to base it on so of course this is all you have to go by. I respect that and appreciate you bringing it forth so it does not come from me. But deep down, you cannot really expect that hot current is coming in from every half cycle via the ground and neutral. This is what science is expecting you to believe because at the time, science was "stuck" with the popularizing of the "electron flow" (EF) model. So all new inventions, like AC had to absolutely tow the EF line. There was no other possible way to explain it and being stuck with the EF model, AC had to alternate in order to explain the effect even if the EF part is totally out of wack. hahaha

So I will have to produce an experiment that will show you guys once and for all about AC. But just realize that all these notions of energy were derived in times where there was not really any place for real debate. Communication took weeks even months to circulate and if there were any strong opposition to any such notions, they were hindered by the limitations of the times plus by those controlling higher learning. We cannot accept these just because they found their way into our present constructs. Things have to make sense first before they should be accepted as common knowledge but our history if chock full of these. But we will get around to this in time and please understand that I am not intending on causing any animosity towards you or anyone else in these matters. These go far beyond all of us.

wattsup