Joule Thief 101

[minnie]

  Unfortunately I can't see anyone getting anywhere with the tinman.
  He won't accept "First Principles" ab initio.
  His April 1 post demonstrates this.
  Researchers know the electron magnetic dipole moment to an
  accuracy of 7.6 parts in 10 to the minus 13.
  When you look at induction at a really fundamental level it
  is a thing of beauty, one of the wonders of the world.
  There is obviously more to discover, but what we do know is
  pretty rock solid.
  There must have been billions of electric devices built and if there
  was a chance of one "running away" it would have surely happened 
  by accident if it were there.
         John.

[tinman]

Didn't ask you to, nor did I suggest you tread on rose peddles! 


I can read Brad, I know who said what and when.  My comment was general, if I were referring to you I would have mentioned your name in the post.  However, in light of being accused of something I didn't do, I recommend that if the shoe fits wear it.  You didn't find your name in my comment, you therefore assumed that I was referring to you, ego....your mistake.   


It would be awesome to see all this going somewhere....as it stands, I have yet to see anything that hasn't been demonstrated countless times already.  Where is the real?  There is no research taking place here, by the book or otherwise.  All that's going on here is position defense, and it matters little to me how you react to this, I stated this before elsewhere, you were a guy that had an eye for certain things, and that guy I have not seen in quite some time.  Each time I think its time to show you shit that I have shared with a few of your peers, you show me that it would be a complete waste of time, unfortunate, but it is what it is. 


No matter how the magnets are oriented, circuit geometry demands that CEMF limits current.  Current is, but should/must not be limited in this manner.  You really want to see your magnets do work, rework the circuit, allow for a path from the magnet into the coil and back (this opens the door to 180° shifts, but not like how its being discussed, and when that which is being discussed is applicable, how this understanding is applied is questioned).  As long as your current is being limited by CEMF, the magnets will not work with you, nor you with the magnets.  When increasing CEMF is of such a direction so as to augment the applied EMF,and thereby, increase consumption, (not covered in the texts books I have read) can one begin to contemplate how the magnets under this new set of circumstances can perform real work in broad sense of the term.  The general rule should be that a magnet cannot work for you if its working against you.


How we choose to view coils sets the stage for everything that follows that decision.  Part of what I see are flux gates,  our collective lack of understanding keep us from using them in a manner which results in the force we call attraction from manifesting between inducer and induced inside generators.  Repulsion is a no brainier, for that all you have to do is what you are told, the law takes care of the rest.  There is way more going on than these various debates will allow the free thinker to ascertain let alone believe.





Regards

Cheers Erfinder

I am always looking/researching,and experimenting with the unknown--of course you know this.

But ATM,i need to take action against that poor excuse for a human being.
There should never come a time where a member of this forum should recommend that one experimenter should not help another,nor should members here be exposed to the profanities used by said member.. This is the very heart of these types of forum's-where those that know could be asked for help by those that are still learning the ways of !!known! science.

I will keep on doing what i am doing,despite having to deal with this fraud.

Meters can't give us any insight into those areas we have yet to consider.  Perhaps more time and energy would be better invested in contemplating the ifs, rather than defending a point which, were it self evident, requires no defense.

I totally agree with this Erfinder,but the point i am going to make here,is that we should not stand for--oh that is wrong,but i will not provide any proof to the contrary. To many times we have seen self acclaimed ex-spurts(such as before mentioned) reel out all sorts of rubbish to try and misdirect others from knowing the truth. The !no resonance! in and around the ICE rubbish had to be stopped,and i did that. Now said negative claimant is out to do what he can to once again misdirect and encourage others to avoid helping a fellow member on this FE research forum.
Im sorry,but that stops right here in this thread,and said idiot is now in the spotlight--the very same place he put EMJ in some time back--and continues to gloat about it.
Well now it's his turn--now we get to judge him as he judged EMJ.


Brad

[tinman]

  .
 
  When you look at induction at a really fundamental level it
  is a thing of beauty, one of the wonders of the world.
  There is obviously more to discover, but what we do know is
  pretty rock solid.
  There must have been billions of electric devices built and if there
  was a chance of one "running away" it would have surely happened 
  by accident if it were there.
         John.

Oh there you are minnie.

Unfortunately I can't see anyone getting anywhere with the tinman

If MH has his way,then you may actually be correct for once

As you are the person that felt he was high enough up the food chain to judge me on my understandings on induction--but of course ,failed to answer a simple induction question,i offer you the same questions i asked MH.
Feel free to answer the questions any time--as long as it's before anyone else dose.

He won't accept "First Principles" ab initio.
  His April 1 post demonstrates this.
  Researchers know the electron magnetic dipole moment to an
  accuracy of 7.6 parts in 10 to the minus 13.

Cool.
So as you feel that you are full bottles on magnetic field's,please tell us all here what it is--what is the magnetic field/force that surrounds a permanent magnet?.

You make lots of comments and determinations minnie--but never can you back them up with your own smart's.
There is a name for that kind of person--what was it again?.


Brad

[ramset]

TinMan
Quote
There should never come a time where a member of this forum should recommend that one experimenter should not help another
End Quote

Miles Loves to talk Karma and shame yet has no issue making these DEMANDS. [Sans ..Queer Karma]

calling you Lazy is also  weird and confrontational ??

[poynt99]

To say i am wrong,or that the scope capture was wrong for the question asked,is also to say that PW and TK are also wrong.

The scope capture and schematic would be 100% correct if it was denoted with either dot convention on the transformer, OR stated that CH2 is inverted. What part of that are you having difficulty understanding?

So please do not do what MH dose,and add confusion by way of saying things are wrong by pointing out things that were never part of the question.

Brad

How is it that I am adding confusion? Tell us then, if someone built your circuit and placed the probes precisely as you have, and did not invert their scope channel nor flip the transformer leads, would they produce the same wave form as you showed? Will they not be confused when they see the secondary voltage leading the primary current?