Joule Thief 101

[sm0ky2]

and of course the point of the questions being answered, in accordance to commonly accepted physics
goes entirely uncommented on...

im not sure what the point of the whole exercise was...

"I bet you can't explain this!"

"<detailed explanation>"

"you're wrong!"

"<more details>"

"well...  you were wrong about something else!"

this could go on perpetually.......
-----------------------------------------------------

I am arguing with a man who admits to not having the necessary knowledge set to understand a particular problem.
Yet insists on everyone being wrong when they try to give him the knowledge.

doesn't build, doesn't experiment, doesn't read....
thinks he knows things, but isn't sure why.
refuses to state an opinion of his own, other than to profess disagreement with that of others.

even when he cites the work of others, to substantiate his nonsense, he refutes portions of those others' work
which is a self deluding fallacy, and negates the very argument of using the others' work as a reference.

we seem to be going in circles, as the thread has been effectively hijacked, by the Knights who say Nay!
"Get back here you bloody bastards, I'll bite your kneecaps off!"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just had a holy revelation:

perhaps the Wine Glass resonates, because MileHigh willed it be so......


it is an odd curiosity that a man who has never owned a joule thief, posts more times in JT threads than most adamant experimenters....

[sm0ky2]

moving forward...

[MileHigh]

I am arguing with a man who admits to not having the necessary knowledge set to understand a particular problem.
Yet insists on everyone being wrong when they try to give him the knowledge.

doesn't build, doesn't experiment, doesn't read....
thinks he knows things, but isn't sure why.
refuses to state an opinion of his own, other than to profess disagreement with that of others.

even when he cites the work of others, to substantiate his nonsense, he refutes portions of those others' work
which is a self deluding fallacy, and negates the very argument of using the others' work as a reference.

we seem to be going in circles, as the thread has been effectively hijacked, by the Knights who say Nay!
"Get back here you bloody bastards, I'll bite your kneecaps off!"

Only in Brad's strange world can he insist that he is right when he is told that he is wrong by the person that posed the actual question.  The whole reason for presenting this exercise the way it was presented was because of Brad's overbearing attitude about his "supreme powers of reasoning" where he is devoid of listening to other people's input.  He was pushy and forceful and brash about "better efficiency through resonance" and was so sure of himself, and look where it has ended up.  Because he was so brash and so unwilling to listen to other people he was asked two simple questions about resonance that anybody that knows their stuff should be able to answer no problem.  He was put on the spot this one time because he deserved it.  And he has been unwilling to take other's people's input countless times before about a myriad of subjects so I just decided to stick it through to the end this one time.  Brad has willfully ignored advice about electronics from true electronics experts, bloody geniuses with 40 or more years of senior electronics design experience.

Then you came along and couldn't answer the two simple questions either, in fact you said some stuff that is totally whackadoo.  Our "resonance guru" has lost his bells.

I am arguing with a man who admits to not having the necessary knowledge set to understand a particular problem.
Yet insists on everyone being wrong when they try to give him the knowledge.

Presuming you are referring to the automotive question that Brad posed to me, then here you are espousing the same kind of retarded logic that is a hallmark of this thread.

That's just the way the cookie has crumbled.  If Brad answers my question to him about the car issue I am thinking that there is a 75% chance that his response will be inexplicably nonsensical and my statement about about determining the top speed for the car will still be valid.  That's just the way it goes.

MileHigh

[sm0ky2]

as shown in the image above, the resonant standing wave of the ferrite torroid is a half-wave.
the wavelength of this wave is ~twice the diameter of the torroid.
(negating for now, the effects of the materials constant)

what this means for a 2 inch torroid, is that the fundamental resonant frequency
or base resonant frequency,  is somewhere close to 3 Ghz.

you can plug the wavelength into the equations in my earlier posts and get a close estimate to the actual values.
its the same math for both wineglass and ferrite torroid,

the torroid has an additional magnetic component whch must also be taken into consideration, this applies to amplitudes, not frequency.

most of you do not have fast switching transistors that can hit the 3Ghz mark.
So, as I stated before, we look for resonant nodes at lower frequencies.
How do we find them?

We simply increase the wavelength by odd multiples until we get into the range of our transistors capabilities.
preferably within the range of the linear mode of operation

the first node will occur at just under 0.75Ghz
the second node around 93.685Mhz
11.711Mhz
1.464Mhz
182.98Khz
22.872Khz

the actual resonant node will be slightly different from this, due to the materials constant.
so a slight tuning from this point of reference is necessary to find the actual resonant node.
it is clearly visible on the scope, as an increase in amplitudes, and an associated "cleaner" waveform.

note: if you start with the natural resonant frequency value provided by the ferrite manufacturer
        the calculations will be more precise to the actual resonant nodes, and less adjustment will be needed.

[a wise man told me to just ignore MH's rebuttals, as what he has to say at this point probably doesn't matter]

[sm0ky2]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827804-600-sound-can-leap-across-a-vacuum-after-all/

discovered nearly 7 years ago, we now have well founded equations that describe this.
the speed of sound in a vacuum is slightly faster than that of air, but not by much.
the propagation, void of medium, is a character of the wave function,
which was defined by the atmosphere that created it, prior to entering the void.

has anyone seen my marbles?

sound is not just the air vibrating. that is plain silly.

the air vibrates as a response to the sound frequency.
radiowaves in the audible spectrum can stimulate air molecules into making sound.
especially when there is a receiver nearby that can physically vibrate in response to the radiowave.
when a soundwave hits a boundary where there is no more "air" through which to propagate
it forms into an extremely low power form of the radio wave equivalent frequency.
still in the same tone as the sound, but traveling in a form of radio wave.

there was a good documentary done back in the 80's or 90's called "the sounds of space"
this stuff has always been in the background of most theories, we just couldn't verify it until recently.