Joule Thief 101

[tinman]

I am going to guess that the rotational inertia of the propeller allows the motor to sometimes act as a generator.

No,that is not the reason. In fact,it is opposite to that.
The fact that the propeller acts as a load only,is the reason the energy transfer is more efficient.

So with the load,we get a more efficient transfer of energy from one cap to another,but why.
As i said,the answer is quite simple,and it has to do with more current flowing through the system.
You would think this would produce more waste heat,and there for you would loose more energy to that--and you do. But there is a second effect taking place due to the higher current flow,that increases the efficiency of the transfer to a higher amount than the extra energy that is lost to the waste heat increase.

Hint.
We can clearly see the answer on the scope,when the scope is placed across the motor terminals.


Brad

[MileHigh]

An LED is a resistive load,and i guess you missed my post to Poynt.
When the LED is in play,then the energy lost is less than half-->and remember,there is a 5k resistor across that LED,so as C1 keeps draining after the LED stops conducting.
But dont get your knickers in a twist yet.
If i use just a resistor alone(without the LED),then yes,your are correct,and exactly half the energy is lost. As the LED is also a resistive load,and should not make a difference to the test,i can only conclude that the LED is putting some energy back into the system,by way of the ambient light--as we know,they act like a small solar panel as well.

So i do have the ability to correct my own mistakes MH,and yes,this time i spoke to soon.
This hinges on the fact that the LED is able to return energy to the system by way of acting as a solar panel.

Of course i do,as a brushed DC motor is not just a resistive load,but also with a small inductive content as well.

We dont need to know what the tolerance of the caps are(but they are +/-2%),as long as there the same cap's. We eliminate the tolerance issue by swapping the cap's around,and carrying out the same test. As long as they are the same cap's,we should get the same results--and we did.

Yes,and that is why we swap the caps around,and carry out the same test. If the caps are equal in there energy storage capacity,then the results should also be equal when the caps are swapped around,so as cap A becomes cap B,and cap B become cap A.

OK. To clear this up,the caps used in the LED tests were 10 000uF high current caps,and the ones used in the motor tests are the 55F super caps.

As i said,we swap the caps around,and carry out the same tests. If the results are different,then we look for the issue. If the results end up being the same,then no need to look for issue's regarding the caps actual value.

So the conclusion is-in the LED tests,using the 10 000uF cap's,we can conclude that you are correct,based on the fact (maybe) that the LED it self was adding energy into the system,by way of acting as a solar panel.


Brad

Well the LED looks like a dynamically changing resistor and it does not have the IV properties of a resistor so perhaps there is a clue in there somewhere.

But saying this: -

<<< Once again--very wrong.
You do not loose half of the energy--you loose less than that. >>>

- is 100% bullshit.  And I see on the other thread you tried to pull off another little stunt.  You need to put your head on straight because it's not your nickers, it's your brain that's in a twist.

Then afterwards I say this:

<<< I don't think you acknowledged that switching to a motor is false and meaningless and can't be compared to a resistor. >>?

And you say this:

<<< Of course i do,as a brushed DC motor is not just a resistive load,but also with a small inductive content as well.  >>>

You can't have it both ways and contradict yourself so stop it.  You should never have said I was wrong about the resistor causing a 50% energy loss in the first place.

With respect to the LED producing power, and considering that you are using 10,000 F supercaps for the LED test, any notion that the LED is putting measurable power into the supercaps makes no sense at all.  Here is where you seemingly have no sense of proportion at all.  The amount of power produced by the LED would be minuscule.  You can just cover the LED completely with black tape as a test and you will not notice any change at all.

[tinman]

Well the LED looks like a dynamically changing resistor and it does not have the IV properties of a resistor so perhaps there is a clue in there somewhere.

But saying this: -

<<< Once again--very wrong.
You do not loose half of the energy--you loose less than that. >>>

- is 100% bullshit.  And I see on the other thread you tried to pull off another little stunt.  You need to put your head on straight because it's not your nickers, it's your brain that's in a twist.

Then afterwards I say this:

<<< I don't think you acknowledged that switching to a motor is false and meaningless and can't be compared to a resistor. >>?

And you say this:

<<< Of course i do,as a brushed DC motor is not just a resistive load,but also with a small inductive content as well.  >>>

You can't have it both ways and contradict yourself so stop it.  You should never have said I was wrong about the resistor causing a 50% energy loss in the first place.

With respect to the LED producing power, and considering that you are using 10,000 F supercaps for the LED test, any notion that the LED is putting measurable power into the supercaps makes no sense at all.  Here is where you seemingly have no sense of proportion at all.  The amount of power produced by the LED would be minuscule.  You can just cover the LED completely with black tape as a test and you will not notice any change at all.

Oh MH-go and take some valium.
I have clearly stated that i was wrong,and still you carry on like a two bob watch--Mr no resonance in or around an ICE what so ever.
Get your head out of your ass,and stop being a baby.

Why not do some thinking of your own for a change,and answer one of my questions.
Why do we loose less energy from our cap to cap transfer when loading the motor up?
Hell,i have given you half the answer,and a big hint to go with it.

Your not infallible MH,we have all seen that in this thread alone. So stop prancing around like a show pony,and start being a little more positive for a change.


Brad

[MileHigh]

You mean like the benefit of doubt that he gave me regarding the ICE having resonant systems?. Guessed you missed all that. This is the very same situation. He told me i had no idea what i was talking about,when Internal combustion engines are my forte--my area of expertise.
The difference is,i backed up my knowledge with provided fact's,and this is something no one here can do with an actual test,as we are talking about ideals we do not have. What we are doing is placing a theory based around !best guesses!.

So i have given MH no more than he has given me,and in fact,i have never used the foul language he has toward me.
Not once did i see you,or any other EE guy here tell MH to calm it down when the roll was reversed,but i see you are quick to jump on me when i do the same that has been done to me.

I have seen this very same thing with other members that disagree with MHs analogy.
It's an !agree with me! or your wrong attitude MH has--plane and simple.
As i said in the other thread,i will now treat him as he treats me.

As i said,there is a pattern that is followed on this forum,and that is the EE guys stick together--bar one,that being (as i have always said) verpies. I would also put vortex1 in there with verpies,but he dosnt frequent this forum much-sadly.
As verpies said in reply to this question,Quote : The equivalent circuit model for an ideal inductor is not an inductor with a wire shorting across its ends.
verpies-Just because most of the world does it wrong does not mean that we have to.

Brad

So you are admitting that you knew all the time that I was not incapable of answering my own question about the ideal coil and the ideal voltage source.  It was just you maliciously faking an allegation that I did not know what I was talking about.  It was just a cynical stunt and that's pathetic.

For the ICE business ad nausaem, you had to try quite hard to "back up your knowledge with provided fact's (sic)."  You can have tuned air input ports on two-stroke engines, that's fine.  But you then scrambled to find something beyond that and your first reference was about resonance in the combustion chamber actually decreasing performance.  You posted a linlk without even reading it properly.  So then you had to scramble again and you finally found a reference to a special resonant cavity in a cylinder that works to counteract the negative effects of combustion chamber resonance.

All that being said, I admitted my mistake and said that you were right.  But honestly, I find the argument rather weak.  I seriously doubt that in mainstream car engines in modern cars there are resonant cavities in the cylinders because presumably they don't have that problem.  I am going to assume that there is nothing in a car engine that makes use of resonance for the main crankshaft turning frequency.

And here you are repeating this stuff for probably the 40th time now which is just bogan behaviour because I owned up to my mistake.  If you were normal you would have moved on after I acknowledged what you said and admitted my mistake.

And your playing of the foul language card is pretty phony, look at what you recently said to me when I gave you the short answer to the ideal voltage source and ideal inductor question:

You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster.
Your (sic) a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.

You don't think that those are foul statements, especially when you are 100% wrong?  Magluvin even made a posting citing the comments above mistakenly attributing them to me and complaining about them.

Then you claim that you are "researching superconductivity" and several times you made the claim that "the magnetic field stays inside the wire" and say something like "so that must mean that a coil with superconducting wire will not work."   Well you fell flat on your face because in a superconducting wire, it's just the opposite, and the magnetic field is restricted to being outside the wire.  So much for your bloody "research," how many times do you want to be reminded of that?

Then on the other thread, you make one of the most blatant bald-faced bait-and-switch lies that everybody clearly saw was a lie and they must have been scratching their heads about you:

Poynt says:

<<< When you place an ideal voltage source across an ideal short, who wins? The voltage source or the ideal wire? verpies seems to indicate that the voltage source wins, as the voltage holds and the inductor still gets some current.  >>>

You say:

<<< If there is a dead short across the ideal voltage supply,the current would simply build in the ideal voltage supply until either the short exploded,or the ideal voltage supply exploded. This would depend on which one of the two could contain the most energy before it failed  >>>

I say:

<<<  An ideal voltage source does not "contain energy" and likewise an ideal short does not "contain energy."  You still need to work on that angle. >>>

You then say:

<<< When we are talking about your circuit MH,then while your voltage value from your ideal voltage source is 0v,then yes,the ideal inductor dose contain/store energy,and that energy can be recovered when the shorted(looped) ideal inductor becomes open.  >>>

That is a blatant bait-and-switch LIE.  We were not talking about "my circuit" we were talking about a hypothetical dead ideal short across an ideal voltage source.

Then there is the beyond-insane attempt by you to "bait me" in a set up with the nonsensical DC current vs. changing DC current and whether or not voltage is observed across an ideal inductor.

Now, do you want me to prepare a text file that makes this stuff into a series of bullet points that I can copy and paste until kingdom come every time you do the stupid "ICE and resonance" play?  I have no intention of constantly repeating your blatant lies and beyond-belief ridiculous technical blunders.  But if you keep on acting like this uncouth bogan and you try to pull off another similar type of cynical stunt about me with respect to my knowledge about my own question like you just did on the other thread were Poynt backed me up I just might be tempted to.

So I strongly suggest you don't try to pull off a lying cynical stunt like you just did again, and stop the madness with the ICE resonance business.  Are we on a bloody forum that is about electronics or gasoline engines?  It's time for this nonsense to stop.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Oh MH-go and take some valium.
I have clearly stated that i was wrong,and still you carry on like a two bob watch--Mr no resonance in or around an ICE what so ever.
Get your head out of your ass,and stop being a baby.

Why not do some thinking of your own for a change,and answer one of my questions.
Why do we loose less energy from our cap to cap transfer when loading the motor up?
Hell,i have given you half the answer,and a big hint to go with it.

Your not infallible MH,we have all seen that in this thread alone. So stop prancing around like a show pony,and start being a little more positive for a change.

Brad

No, not that "you were wrong," but rather like a bogan you stated that I was "wrong" about a resistor causing a 50% energy loss when in fact that is universally understood and not in dispute at all.  Your argument for me being "wrong" was a blatant phony bait and switch where you change the subject completely and aren't even talking about resistors anymore.

I am not going to try to answer your question.  My confidence that you can do a proper technical explanation for your observations and come to the correct conclusion is low based on past experience.