Joule Thief 101

[MileHigh]

Im beginning to wonder if this is actually MH speaking,or his 7 year old grandson has hacked his account .

Brad

Earlier in this thread you argued and argued that a standard Joule Thief in its normal operation mode was an RLC circuit.  There is no capacitor in the schematic, there is no oscillation or resonance taking place because of the minuscule insignificant parasitic capacitance present in the circuit.  That was pure willful ignorance on your part.

The fact that Magluvin made reference to his switching power supply design book has no bearing whatsoever on the battle about the Joule Thief circuit type.

Take a look at the timing diagram again and observe no capacitive effects whatsoever and observe traces that have a signature of an L/R-type process taking place in the circuit.

So you are dead wrong about a Joule Thief being an RLC type of circuit.  I suppose a related issue is are you mature enough to admit it?

MileHigh

[massive]

just lurking , thought Id throw this in .....

4001 , 4007 , LED etc give a pf reading on any capacitance meter , thats in reverse bias , fwd bias theyre conducting .
same goes for mosfets etc ....

yea Ill go back to my corner .....

[tinman]

 author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476419#msg476419 date=1457144080]

Earlier in this thread you argued and argued that a standard Joule Thief in its normal operation mode was an RLC circuit.  There is no capacitor in the schematic, there is no oscillation or resonance taking place because of the minuscule insignificant parasitic capacitance present in the circuit.  That was pure willful ignorance on your part.

You need to stop quoting incorrect bullshit MH.
Any circuit with an inductor has a C value-like it or not,thats how it is.
There for,the circuit is an RLC circuit-unless you can provide what the C value in a circuit has to be before it is not considered an RLC circuit.
I have never claimed that your JT circuit shows signs of resonance. What is being discussed here,is if we made the JT circuit to operate at a resonant state,what would the benefits be. Your stuck on that!there is only 1 JT circuit! thing again,and that is just crap.

Everyone else is playing with ideas as to how to get a JT circuit to resonate,and here you are waffling on about !your! particular circuit.
You have done nothing but bring negativity to the subject at hand.
You cannot even answer your own question's--you need 4 to 8 weeks to go gather all the information from the net. This has been a habit with you over the past year-asking questions that you your self cannot answer-->and yet determine that others that answer those questions are wrong-like with the wine glass.

Take a look at the timing diagram again and observe no capacitive effects whatsoever and observe traces that have a signature of an L/R-type process taking place in the circuit.

You off with the fairy's MH-->once again,who are you to determine what a JT circuit is?.
Who said that we cannot increase the capacitance of the circuit to gain the desired effect. This is a rule you have put upon your self MH,and we do not follow your rules--believe it or not.

So you are dead wrong about a Joule Thief being an RLC type of circuit.  I suppose a related issue is are you mature enough to admit it

?

The related issue here MH,is that your stuck on one circuit design.
As i have told you time and time again--MH dose not decide what the JT circuit is.
Can you not understand that those here are designing circuits where a resonate state can be achieved. What your saying is-here is an ICE. I want you to increase the HP of that ICE without modifying anything.<-- Thats how silly you sound MH.

So after chatting to some people,we have decided that we are no longer interested in your negativity and one tracked mind.
We will simply be paying no more attention to your bullshit--like not being able to answer your own questions--stuck on one JT circuit design--ETC,ETC.
There is simply no room here for some one that has no vision,so please go annoy some other group.

Quote:  An ideal inductor would not behave like a capacitor, but in the real world there are no ideal components.

Basically, any real inductor can be though of an ideal inductor that has a resistor in series with it (wire resistance) and a capacitor in parallel with it (parasitic capacitance).

Now, where does the parasitic capacitance come from? an inductor is made out of a coil of insulated wire, so there are tiny capacitors between the windings (since there are two sections of wire separated by an insulator). Each section of windings is at a slightly different potential (because of wire inductance and resistance).

As the frequency increases, the impedance of the inductor increases while the impedance of the parasitic capacitor decreases, so at some high frequency the impedance of the capacitor is much lower than the impedance of the inductor, which means that your inductor behaves like a capacitor. The inductor also has its own resonance frequency.

This is why some high frequency inductors have their windings far apart - to reduce the capacitance.

This is my last response to you MH.


Brad

[MileHigh]

Brad:

You are back to playing the drama queen.  We are talking about the standard Joule Thief circuit and it's not an RLC circuit.  Nobody at this point can demonstrate a resonating standard Joule Thief circuit because the standard Joule Thief circuit was not designed to resonate.  No need to be a resonance fanboy and believe resonance will do something special - prove it for real on the bench if you can - don't just blindly believe in it.  Present good solid data to your peers and summarize it.

You were so cocksure about yourself with all your big talk about resonance so I called your bluff with the example of the wine glass and surprise surprise you are lost.  Why should I pose a few simple questions to you that I don't know the answers to myself?  You better believe it I know the answers and people that are familiar enough with me know I would not lie about something like that.

So learn what resonance actually is before you try to do something with resonance on the bench.  Prove your newly acquired smarts and answer the simple questions about the wine glass.  If you fail, I will answer them later.  I will just repeat, don't you dare say, "I knew that" when I answer the questions.  If you know it then say it.

Let's just say you got your cage rattled out of your fantasy cocoon, and that's a good thing - or at least someone tried.  It's an attempt to break the near endless cycle of mutual stagnation with little or no progress.  Like it or not, that's good for you in the long run.

MileHigh

[sm0ky2]

How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?


How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?

Can you list all those things that will determine the resonant frequency of a wine glass MH

These are very good questions, I am glad you brought this up.
My answer is going to be exactly the same as I have been saying to you all along.

the wine glass is very similar to the ferrite core. and as I will note,
the "input" frequency - i.e. your finger rubbing the edge of the glass
does not play a very important factor in the resonance of the wine glass.
You can test this by varying many factors of the wine glass set-up,
while the vibration frequency of your finger (caused by friction) remains relatively constant.

the resonant frequency is determined, primarily, by a materials constant of the glass, the physical dimensions of the wine glass,
as well as the materials property (as a factor of density) of the  medium inside the glass. (water, oil, etc)

in a ferrite core, the "medium" outside the core dimensions, is that of the permeability of air.
When all factors are accounted for, you will see that these two examples are rather synonymous.

Now - what happens to the resonance of the glass, when your finger-vibrations are sporadic?
or are caused to be interfering with the frequency of the wine glass?

the glass does not resonate as intensely, does it?
This is the same as switching a JT , in an incoherently digital manner.

I know you "get it"... you cannot "not get it" at this point in the discussion.....

Why, then, do you insist on propagating this "apparently" ignorant viewpoint?
Is it just for the fun of conflict? Do you want to deter this line of thinking for some other goal?
or is it that you are truly that indoctrinated, that you cannot allow yourself to see what is right in front of you?