Joule Thief 101

[Magluvin]

Yup. Say we ping the wine glass on the side, that impact on the side of the glass creates an initial wave around both sides of the glass that peak on the other side of the glass and the wave travels back to the other side of the glass where it was impacted. If the wave were more dispersed, as in an off freq of the glass resonant freq then the ring, oscillation would not continue. And the liquid called glass is quite flexible at resonant freq as compared to trying to reshape it as in the glass breaking vids with a vice or a clamp. Thats for sure.

Mags

And depending on the distance around the glass, glass makeup, thickness and maybe other factors that determine the freq of the wave. Those factors determining how long it will take the wave to travel from ping point to the other side and back again for 1 full wave..

Mags

[EMJunkie]

Hey Brad,

That is correct,and the yellow trace in the scope shot is measuring the columb's of charge by way of showing us a voltage trace.

But the other is measuring Current. Which is not the EMF of the Source.

That is also correct. And if we use a PM generator,the EMF produced from the stator coil will be 0 when the PM is directly at the center of the stator coil's core-where the induced magnetic field into that core is at it's greatest,but the rate of change of that magnetic flux through the core is 0,and so the EMF is also 0.

Dont agree entirely here, this is dependant on the Passive Inductance's and or Capacitance's present, or Purely Resistive, Load characteristics in the circuit.

The magnetic field is the result of current flow through a conductor.
As i said,and showed above with the generator example,the magnetic flux through the core will be at maximum when the EMF is at 0,and so the current flow will be at maximum when the rate of change of magnetic flux is 0,and the EMF will also be at 0 when the rate of change of magnetic flux is at 0.

It is not only possible, but common to see Voltage and Current in Phase, or very close to it on the Terminals of a "Generator" - Again this depends on the Load. It is also possible to see a Phase Shift of 90 Degrees as you have shown.

So no Sir, I dont agree.

See pic below.

That is correct.
But a changing magnetic field through a conductor produces an EMF in that conductor.

Yes, and this is the part that is being confused. The Magnetic Field (B): 1 Gauss = 3.335641e-10 Amperes

Again Current and the Magnetic Field are one and the same things.

The issue is, Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction, by definition, predicts EMF, Coulombs of Charge (C), a quantity measured in Volts - The E.M.F and B are Two different things.

As it stands, the equation for Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction (E.M.F = -N dϕ_B/dt), does not, at all, predict a Phase Shift of 90 Degrees between E.M.F (measured in Voltage) and the Magnetic Field (ϕ_B) or any other angle as a mater of fact between these two quantitys E.M.F (measured in Voltage) and Magnetic Field (ϕ_B)!

Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction does predict a Phase Shift of 180 Degrees, thanks to Heinrick Lenz, from the Source E.M.F and the Destination E.M.F

Yes,but it has been with a load placed on the secondary,which will then put the secondaries CEMF 180* to that of the primaries EMF,as the secondary now will have current flowing through it,and will produce it's own CEMF which is 180* from the EMF of the primary that produced it.
The primary has an EMF placed across it,and the secondary produces an EMF that apposes it-(a counter EMF-our 180* phase relationship) - but only when current flows through it.
But if the secondary is open(as it was in my schematic),then the EMF across the secondary is inline with the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the core,not the strength of the magnetic flux in the core-where maximum field strength is indicated by peak current,and maximum rate of change is indicated at the 0 volt line of the current trace.

Brad

Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction does not, never will, and can not, ever, precdict the Passive Component Effects in a Circuit, Period!

Series RLC Circuit Analysis

Please compare the equations, they are not even close to the same!!!

TK was wrong and should Correct himself!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

Brad, I really feel like swearing, PW should have picked this up and done the right thing, he will know what I have said is true.

Damn even our Local Resident Clown, MileHigh should know this stuff. Many hundreds of readers here should know this stuff.

It honestly is not hard to see this massive error that TK has made!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[hoptoad]

Wrong and wrong.

What a great explanation from you. It's as informative as the rest of your explanations.

[MileHigh]

What a great explanation from you. It's as informative as the rest of your explanations.

If you have been following along I stated that I will not give any clues to lead people to the correct answer.  It's a no-spoon-feeding zone.  You either get it right or you don't.  I also said that if nobody gets it I will provide the answers next week.

Over the years I have provide a ton of informative explanations so you should take back your words because they are a lie.