Joule Thief 101

[minnie]

   I just wondered if tinman's post on April 1 st. was meant as a joke. 1380.
   To me it was a complete demonstration of a lack of basic understanding.
   The starter in my old Honda, nearly 20 years, has pm's and although it's
   gone through 4 sets of brushes the magnets are as good as when new.
    There was obviously no dissipation of the original little bit of energy that
   was put in.
     Do bad things to your magnet and you'll make it lose strength.
    I used to pm. MarkE and he set me straight on many things, I just didn't
    recognise the beauty of the physics behind induction before he pointed it
    out.
        Consider the L/R time constant with regards super-conducting magnet.
    Please,please let me know if I'm totally wrong on these points.
        I love the old Koala's way of going on-he'll always admit if  he's wrong
   and will continue 'til he gets it right.
         Many clever people have given huge chunks of their lives to get us to where
    we are now, learn what they have discovered,build on it and enjoy!
               John.

[MileHigh]

Brad:

Ok,we will try the spoon feeding method for the baby that cannot understand simple explanations.

Look up "spaghetti brains" in the visual dictionary and you will find a picture of yourself.

A statement that clearly show's how little you know.
The blue channel is showing the current flow through L1--this is the magnetic field trace--a direct link between the rise,fall,and direction of current to the rise,fall,and polarity change of the magnetic field. Inductance has diddly squat to do with it at these low frequencies ,other than to alter the amplitude on L2,and increase or decrease the amplitude on the L1 current trace.

But it could be relevant for your two separate scope captures.  I was interested in trying to explain the second one.  What will never sink into your head is "good practice."  It's a foreign concept to you.

Because the wave form amplitude has nothing to do with the phase relationship between L1s current phase,and L2 EMF. Regardless of what the amplitude may be,the phase relationship between the two will remain the same.

"good practice"

It can be either,as with or without the steel laminated core,the phase relationship between L1 and L2 will remain the same.

"good practice"  It could very well make a difference if it is an air core or a steel laminated core since the inductance difference between the two options will be huge.  "good practice"

That is absolutely correct.

Yes indeed, the setup is not the same between the two captures and in your posting #1576 and #1580 you don't say that even though your question is "Is it the first scope shot/schematic that is correct,or is it the second scope shot with same attached schematic that is correct?"   That makes you a jackass asking a loaded qeustion.  Only in posting #1587 do you reveal that the deck is stacked and the two setups are not the same.

Me:  What does, "oscillating at the resonant frequency of that transformer" mean?
You: You do not need to understand that,nor do i have to explain it.
Me:  You need to explain it.

As we were talking about the PM,then it means the PMs magnetic field stays aligned with the transformer,and dose not turn,revolve,or move so as the PMs field alternates in regards to the transformer.

LOL You need to go back to school and take some courses in English.  Go buy yourself a Brad Secret Un-decoder Ring.

Which wave form represents the schematic posted with each wave form?--forget about the magnet being in play with one of them--just show which one is standard transformer induction.

The output on the secondary is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux in the transformer, so that would be the first scope shot.

What is a complete disaster is you not being able to answer a simple question regarding standard transformer action--and i see minnie has also gone completely silent

No, I was curious about the second capture and trying to explain it, the first capture was a no-brainer.  And of course I misplaced my secret decoder ring and was trying to fill in the blanks.

Go to school Brad and learn how to write English.

MileHigh

[tinman]

   .
   To me it was a complete demonstration of a lack of basic understanding.
   The starter in my old Honda, nearly 20 years, has pm's and although it's
   gone through 4 sets of brushes the magnets are as good as when new.
    There was obviously no dissipation of the original little bit of energy that
   was put in.
     Do bad things to your magnet and you'll make it lose strength.
    I used to pm. MarkE and he set me straight on many things, I just didn't
    recognise the beauty of the physics behind induction before he pointed it
    out.
       
    Please,please let me know if I'm totally wrong on these points.
        I love the old Koala's way of going on-he'll always admit if  he's wrong
   and will continue 'til he gets it right.
         Many clever people have given huge chunks of their lives to get us to where
    we are now, learn what they have discovered,build on it and enjoy!
               John.

Consider the L/R time constant with regards super-conducting magnet.

There is no L/R time constant if the magnet is in a true super conducting state,as a super conductor has no R value. So how is it that an L/R time constant can be calculated when there is no R?.
As soon as there is resistance,it is no longer in a super conductive state.

I just wondered if tinman's post on April 1 st. was meant as a joke. 1380

Quote 1380: Not related to resonance,but why dose a DC current through a coil produce a stable magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field around a coil will not produce a DC current?.
Why is there no equal and opposite effect here ?.
To make this clear,i know that a DC current flow(as well as AC current flow)) cannot exist without a magnetic field,but a stable magnetic field can exist without a flow of current-or can it?
How do we have this !!half! type action/reaction.

Perhaps you got mixed up between asking a question to others to see who knows what,or asking a question because you think i do not know the answer.
The first is what i was asking--i was asking those here as to where the current flow is in a PM that give's rise to the PMs field,such that we see with an electromagnetic field--no current flow--no magnetic field.

As i have stated after that question(that only TK had a go at answering),most are happy that the PMs magnetic field exists,and in no way,shape,or form do they care how it is sustained,or what is taking place within that magnetic material.

You quoted post 1536 : Thank you MH,  a magnet does not dissipate energy.

How have you come to this definitive answer?
Can you tell us all here what the magnetic force/field actually is?
If you cannot,then how can you say that a magnet dose not dissipate energy?.

Your post 1487: 

Oh dear tinman, you really do need to study basic induction,

I have asked both you and MH a very basic question on induction,and neither of you have answered the question,despite being asked several time's.
You both have avoided answering this very basic question on induction.
When either of you are given a multiple choice,you both tuck your tail between your leg's,and hide behind each other--waiting for some one else to answer for you.

As has been seen time and time again in this thread-you two are out of your league,and both of you try bluffing your way through--only this time i am watching,and will correct every mistake you two make.

Yours and MHs bluffing has turned around,and bit you on the ass.

So how are your induction skills minnie?
Who is correct?-TK or EMJ?
I have posted both wave forms attached to one circuit.
TK has one result,and EMJ has the other--both have shown the scope shot's.
Which one is correct ?-1st or second?.


Brad

[tinman]

Brad:












MileHigh

Look up "spaghetti brains" in the visual dictionary and you will find a picture of yourself.

Look up self acclaimed bullshit artist--your picture is plastered all over the page.

But it could be relevant for your two separate scope captures.  I was interested in trying to explain the second one.  What will never sink into your head is "good practice."  It's a foreign concept to you.

More bullshit and bluff attempt.
Post 1531--go look at it MH.
There was only one scope shot related to the attached circuit and scope probe placements--not two. The second was added only after EMJ answered what the scope traces should have shown-as far as he was concerned.
So your bluff is once again squashed.

"good practice"  It could very well make a difference if it is an air core or a steel laminated core since the inductance difference between the two options will be huge.  "good practice"

I am glad you posted this comment,as it shows you know very little about induction.
As i stated before,the increase in inductance at these low frequencies may increase the amplitude of the EMF on L2,but will have an extremely (if any at all) effect on the phase relationship between L1s current,and the induced EMF in L2.

Yes indeed, the setup is not the same between the two captures and in your posting #1576 and #1580 you don't say that even though your question is "Is it the first scope shot/schematic that is correct,or is it the second scope shot with same attached schematic that is correct?"   That makes you a jackass asking a loaded qeustion.  Only in posting #1587 do you reveal that the deck is stacked and the two setups are not the same.

More absolute bullshit from you MH,as the first time i asked the question(post 1531),there was no second scope shot. The second scope shot was added to represent EMJs answer to my question.
After that,you were simply asked which one of the two was correct,but before that,you were asked if the only scope shot that went with the attached schematic was correct.
If you know all about induction,then how on earth can the question be loaded?
You either know the answer,or you do not. You either know what the waveform should look like,or you do not.

Me:  What does, "oscillating at the resonant frequency of that transformer" mean?
You: You do not need to understand that,nor do i have to explain it.
Me:  You need to explain it.

The oscillating magnet has nothing to do with you knowing what the waveform should look like that is associated with the schematic i posted.
Both TK and EMJ had no problem with the question. Both replicated the circuit,and posted there resultant wave forms.

LOL You need to go back to school and take some courses in English.  Go buy yourself a Brad Secret Un-decoder Ring.

I think you have dyslexia.

The output on the secondary is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux in the transformer, so that would be the first scope shot.

Lol-How is it-all of a sudden,you can answer the question-even if you have worded it wrong by using the term transformer,when it should be primary coil-or L1,as the whole thing is the transformer-->maybe try wording things a little clearer,or correctly.
Funny that one day you couldnt make sense of any of it,and that is why you couldnt answer the question,and yet now(after TK had posted the answer,and you had ample time to have a googlegasm)you some how are able to understand the question,and give an answer.

, the first capture was a no-brainer.  And of course I misplaced my secret decoder ring and was trying to fill in the blanks.

Good thing TK did not misplace his decoder ring--hey MH

No, I was curious about the second capture and trying to explain it

Forget it--you have no chance at explaining that one,as !your PMs! cannot do useful work.
This is only something that the likes of TK,verpies,and a few others could take on.
You have no chance in hell of explaining how one coils phase could shift,while the other coils phase remains the same,when both of those coils are wound on the same former together,and the frequency is unchanged.

Go to school Brad and learn how to write English.

As no one else had any problem with the very simple question i asked,then i would think it more productive if you sort treatment for your dyslexia.

You say i have problems explaining things correctly
Quote:-->The output on the secondary is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux in the transformer

Not so perfect your self-are you MH.


Brad

[John.K1]

Hello Guys,  As I see here some schematic of two coils , take a look on my experiment with two  coils and comment please the error in my setup or measurement.
I think Dog-Dog was saying the current transformer works in range up to couple hundreds KHz. But the same one is on both sides of equation and the frequency I feed the main coils is not as high.  Just want to know your opinion. At the moment I have four of such same coils and want to make two more to make it six. My aim is to get Eather to spin between coils in triangle or other configuration

The result on the picture is very dependent on the distance between coils- it has to be in absolutely sweet spot.

Thanks