Joule Thief 101

[TinselKoala]

What i am going to do-and what i have done,is show people the truth,and not believe everything they are told. You just happened to be the example-a position you placed your self in.

You also continue with your insult's,and claim that i am always wrong-even though you admit your self that it is you that has been wrong so far on this thread in regards to resonant system's,and how those resonant systems increase the efficiency of the systems they are working in.

For many years now,you thought of your self as being above me--better than me,and yet here in this thread,we see that that is not the case. But still you continue to belittle me,and insult me as you see fit,and all based around the fact that i know some things you do not in the area you consider yourself to be so great at.

I have asked you and minnie twice now to answer a simple question,in an area yourself and minnie think i need to work on,and learn a bit more toward--that being induction.
But so far,neither of you have stepped up to the plate,and answered this simple question about induction--which scope trace is correct for the circuit schematic.

There is only one of two reason's neither of you will answer-
1-you do not know the correct answer yourselves-a simple question on induction-
2-you do not want to agree with what EMJ says about Lenz's law in relation to faraday's law of induction-simply because EMJ is saying it. This is just the cowards way out ,if that is the case.

So here it is once again-for you and minnie--the two that claim i need to brush up on my understanding of induction.
Is the first scope shot with the associated schematic correct?
Or is the second scope shot with associated scope shot correct.

1 is correct,one is not--which is it?.

I will add a little something for you to think about.
Both scope shot's are from the same circuit.
1 scope shot is the result of a PM (that can do no useful work )placed next to the transformer,and oscillating at the resonant frequency of that transformer,but where the field alignment dose not change.


Brad

You may find this video of interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GOMqlamVHk

[EMJunkie]

What is cosine of 90 degrees, O Great Sykes? It is ZERO.

Current is not voltage (EMF).  When a _Voltage_ is applied to an inductor, the _current_ takes some time to rise up to its final value. In Brad's schematic he is measuring _current_ through a resistor on one coil, and _voltage_ across the second coil.

We used to have an insurance company over here, it went broke, their Moto was "State the Obvious"!

TK, youre back pedling and it doesnt look good at all!

Ole Mate, admit it, you were terribly wrong! I am right, The EMF, Electromagnetic Induction, is 180 degrees out of phase to its source unless another Source of induction enters the equation!

And also, youre not right entirely about the EMF thing only being voltage... You are really generalising and expecting others to read between the lines and get it, what you actually mean. EMF is Electro Motive Force, this is not defined simply as Voltage! It is defined as "coulomb's of charge"...


Bad day old Mate?



   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

You may find this video of interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GOMqlamVHk

With respect Old Mate, your 148KHz --->>> 1.1Mhz compared to TinMan's 30Hz is an entirely different and not related to, series of effects.

Apples and Oranges ole Mate!!! Perhaps you can show us a little more on the Delay Line Tech in another topic?

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[MileHigh]

@ Minnie & MH

Well minnie/MH,it seems we have a problem.
As i need to brush up on my induction skills,i am awaiting your input.
Which is the correct wave form(scope shot) for the below circuit ?.

Maybe MH might even like to have a go at this one.
Which is correct MH--surly you are full bottles on plain old induction

Is it the first scope shot/schematic that is correct,or is it the second scope shot with same attached schematic that is correct?.

Either of you two dare to answer>?

Brad

One more time, we are back with trying to deal with your stunted communications skills, laziness, and inability to state something properly.

You post two drawings that include scope captures and ask which one is correct.  You are asking about phasing issues were the relationship between the frequency, the resistance, and the inductance is critical for determining the phase, but you don't provide any inductance measurements.

It looks like you may intentionally be hiding the voltage scales so we cannot tell what the waveform amplitudes are.

It says, "air or steel laminated core" on the drawings, so which is it?  I am assuming that it is a steel laminated core but you don't say.

This is the doozie:

First you say:

Maybe MH might even like to have a go at this one.
Which is correct MH--surly you are full bottles on plain old induction

Is it the first scope shot/schematic that is correct,or is it the second scope shot with same attached schematic that is correct?.

Either of you two dare to answer>?

Then  you say:

I will add a little something for you to think about.
Both scope shot's are from the same circuit.
1 scope shot is the result of a PM (that can do no useful work )placed next to the transformer,and oscillating at the resonant frequency of that transformer,but where the field alignment dose not change.

So the setup is not the same for the two scope captures.

What does, "oscillating at the resonant frequency of that transformer" mean?

What does, "the field alignment dose not change" mean?

You are so crippled in your communications skills it's almost unbelievable.  You can't punch your way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to describing something in a logical fashion with no ambiguities.

You ask a completely loaded question and you at first don't even state that you changed the setup between the first and second scope capture.

Like usual, when you try to present something just moderately detailed, it's a complete disaster.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Brad:

Or are you going to think for your self for once,and answer with what you think is correct.

My ass, "think for myself for once."  You will say anything, any damn thing, you are grovelling in the dirt.

Remember when I said that this thread has turned you into a borderline psycho person?  The quote above is a prime example of you degenerating into a borderline psycho that will say or do anything.

I think for myself and you damn well know it.

MileHigh