Joule Thief 101

[tinman]

One more thing MH,so as this thread may return to it's original topic

You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys.  At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts.  Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts.  Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
What happens from T=0 when the ideal voltage is connected to the ideal coil?.

I cannot answer this question--i do not know the answer.


Brad

[MileHigh]

Oh Wattsup, yet another rant.  I have news for you:  Sometimes threads around here are about electronics and not OU.  In fact a lot of them are about electronics just for the fun of discussing electronics.  I see you are just as biased as ever.  Spintronics is nonsense, sorry.

Brad, there is no hope for you.  Stop trying to play the angel, you get down into the gutter a lot.  Look at your own comments to me after I discussed the fist steps towards answering the 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.

It's been a miserable horrible experience trying to discuss electronics with you and you will likely never make any real progress unless you change your attitude.  I doubt that will ever happen.  The miserable horrible experience talking to you and your ridiculous obstinate refusal to listen to sense is the reason it got nasty and the nastiness was a two-way street.  Again, don't try to play the angel, it's pure BS.

I was tired of the "let's create a special space for Brad" business.  Believe me, you have been given a "special space" all this time because you don't have to be a rocket scientist to get a sense of your psychology.  The "resonant Joule Thief," is a Joule Thief an RLC circuit, the wine glass issue, resonance in general, the simple question that you wanted to open a thread for, they have all been epic failures on your part.  It's like talking to a stone.

You are not going to change, and it was worth the battle to try to talk some sense into you.  It never happened and in a month or two you will do some new pulse motor with the usual cringe-worthy mistakes showing how serious your limitations are and if anyone tries to engage with you and correct the mistakes, they will most likely fail.  It certainly won't be me.

So I admit failure in trying to engage with you and get you up the electronics and engineering learning curve.  But the real failure is you failing yourself.  That's exemplified by you saying, "there is a difference between an object vibrating at it's natural frequency to that object resonating."  That says it all right there in a nutshell.

MileHigh

[ramset]

And lest we forget that MH was excited to finally show that resonance is nothing special and completely misunderstood here

"nothing But a worthless OU trigger word"

"I can't wait to put an end to this resonance nonsense"
----------
well here is some meat for the table.. regarding resonance and breaking the laws of physics

Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive


M.E. McCulloch
April 13, 2016

Abstract
It has been shown that truncated cone-shaped cavities with microwaves
resonating within them move slightly towards their narrow ends (the emdrive).
Standard physics has no explanation for this and an error has
not yet been found. It is shown here that this effect can be predicted by
assuming that the inertial mass of the photons in the cavity is caused by
Unruh radiation, whose wavelengths must fit exactly within the cavity, using
a theory already applied successfully to astrophysical anomalies such
as galaxy rotation where the Unruh waves have to fit within the Hubble
scale. In the emdrive this means that more Unruh waves are allowed at
the wide end, leading to a greater inertial mass for the photons there, and
to conserve momentum the cavity must move towards its narrow end, as
observed. The model predicts thrusts of: 3.8, 149, 7.3, 0.23, 0.57, 0.11,
0.64 and 0.02 mN compared with the observed thrusts of: 16, 147, 9,
0.09, 0.05, 0.06, 0.03, and 0.02 mN and predicts that if the axial length is
equal to the diameter of the small end of the cavity, the thrust should be
reversed.

[MileHigh]

One more thing MH,so as this thread may return to it's original topic

I cannot answer this question--i do not know the answer.


Brad

Well the first part of the question has already been answered for you.  Take that information and try to answer the full question or get some help from somebody else.

[tinman]

Oh Wattsup, yet another rant.  I have news for you:  Sometimes threads around here are about electronics and not OU.  In fact a lot of them are about electronics just for the fun of discussing electronics.  I see you are just as biased as ever.  Spintronics is nonsense, sorry.

Brad, there is no hope for you.  Stop trying to play the angel, you get down into the gutter a lot.  Look at your own comments to me after I discussed the fist steps towards answering the 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.







So I admit failure in trying to engage with you and get you up the electronics and engineering learning curve.  But the real failure is you failing yourself.  That's exemplified by you saying, "there is a difference between an object vibrating at it's natural frequency to that object resonating."  That says it all right there in a nutshell.

MileHigh

As i said MH,you cannot distinguish between oscillations and resonance,nor a high value and infinity.
You lack vision,and wisdom.
Your claim that the first part of your answer has been answered cannot be backed by any real test--so you are guessing as much as you think i am.

I never claimed to have never called you names in return fire,but i refrained from profanities such as you posted.

Many here have explained the difference between an object being in resonance and vibrating at a natural frequency. We tried to explain that resonance is between two oscillating object or forces,when the prime mover oscillates at the natural frequency of the receiver,giving rise to a maximum amplitude of that receiver .
But you dont listen--the MH paradox kicks in,and you change definitions to suit your need to be correct.

You are only fooling yourself MH--no one else.

It's been a miserable horrible experience trying to discuss electronics with you and you will likely never make any real progress unless you change your attitude.  I doubt that will ever happen.  The miserable horrible experience talking to you and your ridiculous obstinate refusal to listen to sense is the reason it got nasty and the nastiness was a two-way street.  Again, don't try to play the angel, it's pure BS.

MH,be honest --you got your knickers in a twist when i proved you wrong about the ICE resonant issue--and you never got over it. It's all on this thread for everyone to see.
Your tunnel vision bought you unstuck,and you have not coped since.

You are not going to change, and it was worth the battle to try to talk some sense into you.  It never happened and in a month or two you will do some new pulse motor with the usual cringe-worthy mistakes showing how serious your limitations are and if anyone tries to engage with you and correct the mistakes, they will most likely fail.  It certainly won't be me.

MH
You are not my teacher--please do not portray yourself to be such. This thread showed me(and others) how little you know about the subject at hand. When i read your comment about the simple J/FET--well i think that topped the cake. Then saying that a wine glass vibrating at it's natural frequency was resonance--well the hole got deeper for you. And now ,finally,the DC saga,where the MH paradox kicks in again,and you do some more of your redefining work,where DC now means a steady state unidirectional flow of current,rather than it's actaul meaning of !current flowing in one direction,that may vary in amplitude.

I was tired of the "let's create a special space for Brad" business.  Believe me, you have been given a "special space" all this time because you don't have to be a rocket scientist to get a sense of your psychology.  The "resonant Joule Thief," is a Joule Thief an RLC circuit, the wine glass issue, resonance in general, the simple question that you wanted to open a thread for, they have all been epic failures on your part.  It's like talking to a stone.

They havnt been failures MH. They have shown everyone here how you work. You only need to read the comments from many of those members here on this thread to see they all think the same--MH changes things to suit his needs.

Of course we are all wrong,and MH is correct--as usual. But that is the MH paradox.

There is no need for you to engage with me any more MH,as i dont need the MH paradox information or definitions any longer.


Brad