Joule Thief 101

[MileHigh]

Well, I am not really sure what to say to that except the Joule Thief "is what it is."  It energizes an inductor and discharges it where the timing mechanism is derived from the energizing cycle and discharging cycle itself.

The "battle" has been about rejecting the concept of leading yourself down a garden path and playing "wishful thinking" pseudo electronics games instead of dealing with the reality of what is actually taking place for real on your bench.  That is very much the fishing technique the scammers use so why scam yourself where the currency is not money but instead it is ideas.  I will stress again once the "campaign" is over, it's over.

With respect to the SRF of a core, honestly I don't know why you would really be concerned with this.  You have mentioned very high SRF frequencies for cores.  If you excite a coil around a core at the SRF of the core, then does that really do anything for you?  Take the example of the SRF for a coil itself.  Nobody has ever done anything special with this.  It's all because of a Tesla patent, the patent that launched 10,000 inconclusive bench experiments.  A coil at its SRF is a coil that has crapped out and is basically useless except for perhaps some small niche applications.  But don't let the fanboys hear that, they will get all upset.

Anyway, the Joule Thief has been covered to a certain extent, but very basic investigations have never been done as far as I am aware.  What happens as you increase the number of turns in L1?  What happens as you increase the number of turns in L2?  What happens as you play with the ratio of L1 and L2 for different sizes of L1 and L2.  How can you adjust the energizing period with a certain measure of control?  Can I change my threshold voltage and timing for the snap OFF of the transistor.  Just some very basic basic tests to understand how the operational parameters of the Joule Thief will trend as you change different basic parameters.

Here is a real doozie:  My energizing time period for my Joule Thief is x milliseconds.  What is the initial current flow when the transistor switches off and is that current flow a proper match for my LED or is the initial current flow too high or too low?   Instead, people build Joule Thieves and just get their LED illuminated and they have no clue about this issue.  You would think that they would want to do a separate test to know if the current flow is in the sweet spot for the LED - but they never pose that question to themselves and they don't care or are completely oblivious to the entire issue.   If the current flow was too high, they would need to shorten the time period for the energizing cycle.  How do you do that?  See above where I suggest a series of tests on varying the parameters to explore that issue.

The Joule Thief is just a novelty, and even though some properly controlled tests like I state above have never been done from what I can see, in the long run it doesn't matter.

MileHigh

[tinman]

Well, I am not really sure what to say to that except the Joule Thief "is what it is."  It energizes an inductor and discharges it where the timing mechanism is derived from the energizing cycle and discharging cycle itself.

The "battle" has been about rejecting the concept of leading yourself down a garden path and playing "wishful thinking" pseudo electronics games instead of dealing with the reality of what is actually taking place for real on your bench.  That is very much the fishing technique the scammers use so why scam yourself where the currency is not money but instead it is ideas.  I will stress again once the "campaign" is over, it's over.

With respect to the SRF of a core, honestly I don't know why you would really be concerned with this.  You have mentioned very high SRF frequencies for cores.  If you excite a coil around a core at the SRF of the core, then does that really do anything for you?  Take the example of the SRF for a coil itself.  Nobody has ever done anything special with this.  It's all because of a Tesla patent, the patent that launched 10,000 inconclusive bench experiments.  A coil at its SRF is a coil that has crapped out and is basically useless except for perhaps some small niche applications.  But don't let the fanboys hear that, they will get all upset.

Anyway, the Joule Thief has been covered to a certain extent, but very basic investigations have never been done as far as I am aware.  What happens as you increase the number of turns in L1?  What happens as you increase the number of turns in L2?  What happens as you play with the ratio of L1 and L2 for different sizes of L1 and L2.  How can you adjust the energizing period with a certain measure of control?  Can I change my threshold voltage and timing for the snap OFF of the transistor.  Just some very basic basic tests to understand how the operational parameters of the Joule Thief will trend as you change different basic parameters.

Here is a real doozie:  My energizing time period for my Joule Thief is x milliseconds.  What is the initial current flow when the transistor switches off and is that current flow a proper match for my LED or is the initial current flow too high or too low?   Instead, people build Joule Thieves and just get their LED illuminated and they have no clue about this issue.  You would think that they would want to do a separate test to know if the current flow is in the sweet spot for the LED - but they never pose that question to themselves and they don't care or are completely oblivious to the entire issue.   If the current flow was too high, they would need to shorten the time period for the energizing cycle.  How do you do that?  See above where I suggest a series of tests on varying the parameters to explore that issue.

The Joule Thief is just a novelty, and even though some properly controlled tests like I state above have never been done from what I can see, in the long run it doesn't matter.

MileHigh

So many claims MH,based around assumptions 

There is an easy way to test which circuit is more efficient-the first, or the second ?.

After taking into account resistive losses in the battery,do you still claim the first circuit to be more efficient?.
I now have a test bed,where we can accurately calculate light output per mW of input power.

What ya say MH--do you still stick with the first circuit as being more efficient?.


Brad

[Pirate88179]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K53beWYdIpc

How to make an authentic Joule Thief. By BigClive


Clive is the guy that coined the term Joule Thief way back when and here he shows how to make a "real" one.


Bill

PS  He also gives a detailed explanation on how the circuit works.

[MileHigh]

So many claims MH,based around assumptions 

There is an easy way to test which circuit is more efficient-the first, or the second ?.

After taking into account resistive losses in the battery,do you still claim the first circuit to be more efficient?.
I now have a test bed,where we can accurately calculate light output per mW of input power.

What ya say MH--do you still stick with the first circuit as being more efficient?.

Brad

I have some news for you.  You make a simplistic anecdotal comparison between two scope captures for two different setups and you make the huge assumption that everything is on a level playing field for a host of parameters that you haven't even measured.  Then you make the totally unrealistic assumption that you have valid data and a valid conclusion.  Then when you are told this you say nothing because you are the infallible Dr. Brainfry.

When I make an assumption I am trying to be conscious of any problems or pitfalls associated with the assumption and I am trying to avoid them and make reasonable assumptions that will stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.

With respect to your test, there is another issue that I realized.  Even if you could hypothetically ensure that both pulses that illuminate the LED have the same amount of energy in them, if one pulse is taller and shorter than the other pulse, then the LED will be brighter for the taller and shorter pulse.  Then you can add in the factor of the persistence of human vision, making the taller and shorter pulse appear to be brighter also.  Then there is the issue of how sloped the top of the pulse is.  So in an ideal case you would want both pulses to not only have the same energy, but have approximately the same height and width and slope, then measure the losses.  It's not an easy thing to do at all.

Nonetheless, go ahead and do whatever test it is that you want to do.  But be aware that if I see any problems associated with your test that render it invalid then that is exactly what you will hear from me.  If your test is valid and the second circuit is better and more efficient than the first circuit, then that is exactly what you are going to hear from me.

I am never going to be a bobbing duckie for you nodding affirmation for what you do, if there are indeed shortcomings in your test.  I am just going to be real.

MileHigh

[ramset]

MH
quote


When I make an assumption I am trying to be conscious of any problems or pitfalls associated with the assumption and I am trying to avoid them and make reasonable assumptions that will stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.

------------------------------------------
MH
You go way past assumption and declare _FACT_ things you are clueless about !

In this area ..you stand head and shoulders above the fray ,and routinely holler scam where you have
no experimental ,personal or any knowledge whatsoever.

I speak mainly Of LENR ,however most recently your claims on an ICE and  resonance are a blaring example !

you are a shameless Hypocrite .