Joule Thief 101

[picowatt]

@all

If you really are interested in talking about curiosities, then follow this.....very simple test.

If anyone here has an OU bench, plug a simple 110 volts light bulb into the wall socket while scoping with both CHA and CHB scope probes (only)(DO NOT CONNECT THE GROUND CLIPS - EVEN BETTER REMOVE THE GROUND CLIPS) on each side of the bulb and both set at 50v/d and AC and seeing the waveforms that the scope produces. Post the waveforms here.

Assuming that you have a modern oscilloscope with a third prong on its AC cord plugged into a correctly wired three prong outlet (without a ground lift/adapter on the scope's AC plug), you will see a sine wave on one channel with an amplitude that swings between approximately +170V and -170V.  On the other channel, you will see near zero volts.

(If you have an isolated scope or a ground lift on the scope's plug, you will see a lot of capacitively coupled noise with a large 60Hz AC component on both channels because you will then have no scope ground reference connected)

Then set the probe on the neutral line to 100mV/d and post that image as well while the other is still on 50v/d.

With the same conditions as discussed above (scope with AC third prong ground connected to properly wired 3 prong socket) you will see the noise and voltage drop on the AC neutral caused by loads connected to the circuit you are measuring (and likely some induced noise up to RF as well).  If the AC socket you are measuring from is physically very close to the service panel and the same one your scope is plugged in to and there are no other loads on that AC circuit,  the observed voltage and noise will be fairly low.

With a basic understanding of how the center tapped pole transformer is connected to the house's service/distribution panel and AC sockets, there is nothing "curious" about these observations, they are as we would expect.

Perhaps someone can post a better schematic, but this link shows you how the AC ground and neutral are connected to earth and the pole transformer center tap.  Perhaps if you study this a bit you will better understand what you are seeing.

http://www.generatorsforhomeuse.us/electrical-wiring/

   

When that is done to advance even faster then do this.

Take any primary coil and use two cvr's one on each side of the primary then connect the cvr's to your pulse generator set at sine wave and then scope across each cvr, and post again the image of the two produced wave forms. Also you need to identify which channel is on the positive side and which is on the negative side as well as how the probe/grounds are connected. 

This measurement is a bit more difficult to perform, as one needs to be aware of both the scope and FG ground references.  Without fully isolated test equipment it is a bit more difficult to directly measure the drop across both CVR's simultaneously.

If you are unable to understand the what and why of what you are seeing with the AC line measurements above, making you understand how to perform this dual CVR measurement correctly using your scope and FG is likely a lengthy and uphill battle.

However, if instead of your scope you were to use an isolated, battery operated DVM, you will measure the same AC voltage across both CVR's.

PW

Added:  The above of course assumes you are in the US and that your AC line adheres to US split phase standards...

[tinman]

That one is a lot more complicated than just Ohm's law.

Lewin left out a few important details on that one, resulting in misleading information.

Bottom line is Kirchhoff always holds, regardless of what your measuring tool is telling you.

So we are talking about a circuit such as below,where the solenoid has a 1 volt potential placed across it,where the magnetic field is coming out from the page,and the 100R and 900R make a completed loop around the outside of the solenoid coil--but not connected to the solenoid coil?.

If so,i still do not see how he could have 900mV measured on one side,and 100mV measured on the other side,when both sides of each resistor are joined by a common wire-or the resistors wire it self.. The two voltage potentials should still be the same value,and same polarity

Maybe it is the electric field he is measuring?,but even then,how do you get a difference in potential across a piece of wire that short.
As far as i know,non inductive resistors conduct current instantly,so when you see a voltage across them,regardless of the electric field,current must be flowing through them.


Brad

[wattsup]

@picowatt and @MH

Well I was going to post this long post answering @MH in general and @PW line per line. hahahaha
There is no point to that. Let's just cut through the chase here and look at the problem head on and if both of you could shift your attention from the given EE doctrines and just migrate over to a position of objective logic and observations, maybe between us we can arrive at some better conclusion.

The fact is 120 VAC is impossible with the idea of electron flow or current flow alternating at every half cycle from the hot to the neutral conductors of our AC driven homes. It is impossible because the set-up is just too flagrant to be logical and the fact that this cannot be easily measured should shoot off a big RED ALERT in terms of construct. How can you have a construct that cannot be show to be true? Why is there always something that gets in the way. In this case it is a question of ground. Imagine AC says the current alternates from hot to neutral but we cannot easily measure these because the neutral is also grounded. Now what kind of fairy tale story is this?

So first I will give a few more questions to you guys and if you can answer these to the best of your ability, we will slowing work it out. The first set of tests and waveforms @PW got them right which is very easy indeed. The second test where the probe on neutral set at 100mV will take that first neutral flat line waveform and show a larger waveform that is IN PHASE with the hot side. Oh no, why is that if this is AC even if this is at 100mV?

OK, then @PW referred to a web page of a standard home AC connection going from the hydro pole to the home. OK, if you look at that diagram you will see the mains transformer on the pole. You see the primary line going into the transformer. Then you see a center tapped secondary and also showing two hot lines that are 180 degrees out of phase (220VAC) and both are sharing the same neutral line. Right there, that is impossible under the AC construct of alternating from hot to neutral. Why? OK, how can the neutral be 180 degrees out of phase with both of the hot lines at the same time? That is impossible. The neutral cannot be the opposite phase of two hot lines that are already out of phase from each other. Look this is not even making any measurements, just if you guys use objective logic, you have to see this for what it is and not what you have been taught it is. There is no "close the door to logic" just to make things comfortably fit into our minds. We don't need comfortable. We can take the stress of realizing the truth.

Then let's continue. I have a solution for the measurement problems of floating versus grounded and I tried in on the bench.

A simple setup will show you guys much of the problem here. Take a light bulb, put a cvr on each side, connect it to a Variac that is plugged into the wall socket. Very simple set-up. The Variac is used just to lower the voltage to a more manageable level. Now using the scope set at A-B math function, this will cancel the ground connection of the probes and now with CHA and CHB probes only you can scope across the cvr's one by one and see what the waveforms are across the cvr's. You can even use the CHA probe alone and see again what the waveforms are at a single point. If you do that then you will realize there is one hell of a problem with the AC construct. If you guys think this is an acceptable method then I will make a small video and show you guys the results.

I am not here for confrontation and you guys should not be here to "protect" the "reputation" of AC. We all have to be here to look at things objectively and arrive at some conclusion, whatever this may entail. It is both your responsibilities to ask these questions yourselves at least once every few years, putting your own "beliefs" on trial as an auto-analysis when you are provided with valid reasons to do so.

Is the above enough to provide a valid reason to be concerned about how we see AC. I am not saying AC is not real. It is real but it is not what we think it is at this time and both of you should refrain from any character attacks in my regard for doing so. I'm like the insurance adjuster looking to see if the insured machine is installed and running and working to spec. You cannot blame me for this since I do not see anyone else on these forums employing a logical method of analysis to ask and analyze these questions. This is only a small portion of a new construct I have managed to produce that is 100 times more in tune with our effects then all our present constructs so this is not a joke. This AC question is one of them. Then we will have a DC question as well later.

Why am I doing this here. Because of the JT circuit is very simple and easy to deconstruct. In the few "useful" pages of this thread, we see @tinman working away doing his measurements of the JT circuit where he has one cvr in one location and one voltage reading in another location and the only thing we hear from this (and from every other OUer who does these types of experiments) is the cvr is showing "current flow". But that is not true to use the word "flow" because there is nothing flowing anywhere and there has never been concrete proof that anything is flowing anywhere. You can place a cvr anywhere you want and and see 5volts across a 1 ohm cvr then say there is 5 amps of current flowing. But there is not even a micro amp flowing. If one side of the cvr is 0 volts and the other side is 5 volts what is flowing? If you need voltage to produce current then what is flowing at 0 volts? Nothing is flowing otherwise each side of that cvr would read 5 volts but if each side of the cvr showed 5 volts the scope would show 0 amps (differential). For current to flow through the cvr, you would need to measure 5 amps before and 5 or 4.9 amps after the cvr. I have been a well paid water treatment professional for over 35 years now and in our book flow in is flow out. There is no exception. Yes in EE there are losses just like it WT there are leaks. OK. But in the normal usage of these terms the electron flow model is not possible and this is why I am saying that when Tesla invented AC, he killed the electron flow model. That would signify a start to even mention the word flow.

Again please do not refer me to any form of lack of "education". I am an extremely learned person with a great variety of proficiency and I am not working or employed as a standard EE circuit maker for iPhone or anyone else. Just consider me as a Grand Sleuth and my expertise is in analyzing logic bases. This I have been doing all my life. I am the origin of our Wire X on this forum given that I will find the inconsistencies in many of those purported OU devices that wound up fakes. So do not think for a minute that you have some dummy on the forum. If we can converse in a mutually respectable manner and if you take the discussion without being bent on protecting constructs even in the face of conflicting logic then let's move forward here. What is at stake. @MH said is very well. If we continue in this present line of construct of our effects, we will never advance for another 10 years. I know @MH meant it as a direct "insinuation" to me but unknowingly he put that nail on all of our coffins. Look, there has to be an element of trust here. I am not a stupid guy. If I investigate something ans see that it is totally in sync with the present state of construct, I would have been the first one to say it. In this case I took 5 years to mull it over because I know this is not chicken feed. THIS IS SERIOUS S*&T. So, if you guys want to partake without insults, then let's work together.

Final question. If I wanted to put cvrs on a bulb and plug it directly into the wall socket without a Variac, what value CVR and what rating should it have for it to be "acceptable" in your eyes. If you can find an image of one I would appreciate it to make no mistakes.

wattsup

[Johan_1955]

So we are talking about a circuit such as below,where the solenoid has a 1 volt potential placed across it,where the magnetic field is coming out from the page,and the 100R and 900R make a completed loop around the outside of the solenoid coil--but not connected to the solenoid coil?.
Brad

Hi Brad,

http://www.transformacomm.com/en/tech/tesla-hairpin-circuit.htm

In this circuit a bit the same, the connection wire's (R) become the voltage adjusters, to the load, please try!!!

Thanks for ALL you''''''''re sharing! ;-))

Regards, Johan

[picowatt]

Again please do not refer me to any form of lack of "education". I am an extremely learned person...

Wow...

As you feel you have it all figured out, there is no need to bother answering any of your questions, which is a shame, you might have learned something.

As both a legal disclaimer and as friendly advice, I AM STRONGLY URGING YOU TO STOP MEASURING THE AC LINE!!  You very obviously are not qualified as an electrician or EE and SHOULD NOT be messing about with AC line voltage!!  At the very least you may damage your test equipment, at the worst you could injure or kill youself or someone else. 

Again, for safety's sake, I strongly urge you to stop measuring the AC line!!

Before coming up with a new theory about electricity and electronics, perhaps it would be wise to learn the current one. 

Be safe...

PW