Joule Thief 101

[tinman]

Wattsup:

Your "half coil syndrome" is nothing more than a variation in the strength of the AC electrical field relative to ground as you sweep your tape head from the side of the coil with high AC potential to lower AC potential, and then to ground.  The coils you play with on your bench and doing nothing more than acting like AC voltage dividers and your tape head is picking that up.  There is no "half coil syndrome."  It's a fallacy to say that there is "more energy" on one half of a coil relative to the other half.  It's completely ridiculous.  Every loop of the coil subtends a magnetic field and all of the magnetic fields add together.  When you energize a coll with AC, each loop of the coil is "stacked" on top of the adjacent loop in terms of voltage.  When you sweep your tape head back and forth, you are going up and down the AC voltage stack.

That's all there is to it.  That's what you are seeing.

Sorry, I am not here to debate the "big issues" that you made your speech about.  Believe what you want to believe.

MileHigh

Yes-this is what was explained over at OUR.
We could use a variac as another way of explaing what wattsup is seeing,where the wiper of the variac is the tape head. The voltage across the wiper and ground on the first loop of the variacs windings would be very low,and as you got closer to the live end of the variacs windings with the wiper,the higher the voltage across the ground and wiper would be.


Brad

[MileHigh]

Webby:

stiffness is a property by the way,, in the real world we do not have "stiff" interactions and or reactions,, we have ELASTIC reactions and interactions,, and since this is in reference to a mechanical motion that is limited and RETURNS potential then it is referred to as elastic.

That is absolutely basic stuff MH,, get it correct or do NOT bring things up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffness

Quote:

Stiffness is the rigidity of an object — the extent to which it resists deformation in response to an applied force.[1]

The complementary concept is flexibility or pliability: the more flexible an object is, the less stiff it

Quote:

(Stiffness and it's) Relationship to elasticity

In general, elastic modulus is not the same as stiffness. Elastic modulus is a property of the constituent material; stiffness is a property of a structure. That is, the modulus is an intensive property of the material; stiffness, on the other hand, is an extensive property of the solid body dependent on the material and the shape and boundary conditions.

There you go, you are wrong.

MileHigh

P.S.:  Go find a posting where someone answered both questions correctly.  Good luck.

[poynt99]

Post 1902-quote: As I alluded to before, the "phase shift" is not even real - there is no phase shift. It's just an abstraction we use to make it easier to describe sinusoidal-type waveforms you see on your scope display There is no true "phase shift" if you interpret "phase shift" as meaning "shifted in time.

If my post was fully understood, there would be no need to protest with this quote from MH.

There is an apparent time shift, but it is not caused by a discrete time delay, which is what MH means by "shifted in time".

The example given of two children on swings IS an example of a discrete time shift. The phase shift between current and voltage in a reactive component is due to differentiation or integration, but on the scope it appears as a discrete time shift.

What part do you not understand?

[Pirate88179]

Ok. sounds right

I was thinking like this....

If we had a thin layer of carbon fiber strip, resin and cure. It would be a bit bendable as the thickness from side to side is thin.  The thicker the lairs become, the stiffer the strip will be due to the outside bend would need to stretch for the bend to occur. And the carbon doesnt want to stretch due to tensile strength. So higher freq.   But you are right. Carbon has very little elasticity, but still necessary for it to bend.

Hmm. just a thought.  If we had a 1/8in strip of layers of carbon fiber resin cured, it will bend, but very little before it breaks. Like glass or the wine glass.  So as we had seen in the vid, that wine glass had some crazy amount of distortion for glass, as we know it in normal life. So, maybe that 1/8in carbon strip would also bend a lot further when bending at say its resonant freq before breaking.  If so, could we say that at resonance we can enhance elasticity? It would certainly seem so with the wine glass. Just try to physically distort it that much at any freq other than the resonant freq. I wonder if the wine glass gets warm oscillating like that?

Mags

This reminds me of when we first discovered how to make ceramic springs...real, working coil springs precision machined from zirconium oxide. (A very rigid and non-flexable material)  We had to develope a way to get around the property limitations of the materials and still have springs that work like metal ones did...except these springs could take over 1,500 degrees F, were not bothered by acid or corrosive materials, were not changed very much due to temperature extremes (like in space) did not mess up electrical fields, and were non-conducting insulators of electricity.  Later, we were able to make them out of aluminum oxides as well.

I still have a few small ones...I should make a video to show how they work.

Bill

[tinman]

Well, I was fed up with your nonsense and I used tough language and I won't do it again.

"limited understanding"  "just plain wrong"

It just goes on and on and on.  What I stated was perfectly correct.  You were just spinning the same old lines, it's vulgar and gratuitous and nonsensical.  It's behaviour that is beyond ridiculous.  You did it just for the sake of doing it when you knew full well that there was nothing "wrong" in what I was stating.  You are just uttering propaganda for the sake of uttering propaganda.

The truth is that although you have been slowly getting up the learning curve, there are still many pregnant jaw-dropping pauses where you inadvertently reveal how limited and/or skewed your understanding is.  When you stared playing your "wrong again" game with me you got the truth from me.  You get the truth from me about your limitations because you keep lying about me.

Look at your explanation for the question about how a wine glass resonates and the mechanism for the resonance.  To paraphrase, "a wine glass resonates by hitting it at the resonant frequency and it starts to resonate" is a joke.  It's a jaw-dropping example of the fact that although you are making progress, sometimes you are still completely clueless.  You are in no position to drone on falsely claiming over and over that I don't know what I am talking about.  It's grotesque and vulgar behaviour and it's all a lie.

  You are making a vulgar spectacle of yourself.  You were called out early in the thread for mistakes and now you have gone full haywire.  It's ridiculous and you have no shame.

So that's why you were called a bad name.  You are like the disruptive kid in the class going on and on and on driving all the other students and the teacher nuts.  Now when is it going to stop?  Your whole "pitch" about me is a complete lie.  I might not be perfect, but your little strategy is a dark stain on your character.  It's your irrational reaction to being held to a normal standard.

So when is it going to stop?

MileHigh

You are a liar MH--plain and simple. I gave many detailed descriptions of how a wine glass resonates,why it resonates,and what determines the resonant frequency of that wine glass.

I will no longer put up with people such as your self trying to belittle me because you think you are better than me.-->Your not,and you found out the hard way when you tried to take me on regarding internal combustion engines--thats when it all started--your first smart ass remark toward me,saying i did not know what i was talking about when it camme to resonant systems in ICEs--BIG mistake MH,as internal combustion engines are my life--i work with them every day,and have been doing so since i was 7 years old.

I have sat back long enough,and listen to others like your self tell me that i was wrong with this,and wrong with that-->well,no longer MH,and you just happened to be the first to start your crap with me once i decided it was time to stop those that think they are better than me,feeding rubbish to others that want to learn the truth.

Time and time you tried to knock me down,and time after time i came back swinging--with the correct answers MH,that showed you were wrong,even to the state of electronic components,when you said my idea of using a J/FET in a low voltage JT type circuit was nonsensical.

And now the latest load of rubbish about phase variations being fictional--when will it stop with you. You spend more time--in fact,let me rephrase that--you spend !all! your time here trying to refute nearly everything anyone says,and it's time it stopped.

So no-i will not stop or bow down to the likes of you when i know i am correct.
Nor will i give up on my beliefs because some one of your !self acclaimed! stature says i am wrong.

You(and others) sit there and try your hardest to get people to believe that the PM can not do useful work,and you are the very same people that have no idea as to what the magnetic force/field actually is,and until you do,then your claim that a magnet can do no useful work is void. The worst part about it,is that some of these people that say a PM can do no useful work,are the very same people that believe in the TPU--but to bloody scared to come forward and say so,as it may damage there reputation both here,and else where.

You never see one guru telling another guru that they are wrong--even when they bloody well know they are,but those very same guru's are happy to jump straight in,and lay the law on those they think are beneath them--no problem there,only take on the weak,as a win is insured,and there stature grows larger. Well you made a big bloody mistake this time MH,and you got caught with your pants down,-you under estimated your opponent. Then-and only then,once that opponent started correcting you-with absolute proofs attached to there counter claims,did you start with your usual abusive tactics--as seen on this forum many times.

You mocked my answers for the two wine glass questions when the answers that I provided are perfectly correct.

You call it what you want--i call it correcting mistakes--something you have no problem doing to others here on this forum.
Example--you used the word !stiffness!,and i said the correct term is elasticity--also backed up by Bill. This is the word i used in one of my given explanations to your questions.
Many correct,and more accurate answers than the ones you provided were given well before your big reveal,and you had to hit the !!automatic! wrong button--to all of them.
And now you sit there and complain when many here(many MH) say that the answers given by others to your questions were more correct than the ones you provided your self.

So stop your bitching and moaning MH when you are corrected--as we have had enough.


Brad