Joule Thief 101

[MileHigh]

Brad:

I am a "big gun" according to you, so what happened?  I can tell you what happened.  You were not given a continuously enabling environment by me, you were put on a level playing field and when you were wrong about something you were told you were wrong.  It is extremely upsetting for you to be told that you are wrong.  You can't admit that you are wrong when you are indeed wrong.  And I am not saying at all that you are wrong all the time, but like any person it does actually happen that you are wrong.

At that is enough to give you a good hard-core freak-out and make you completely compromise your integrity.  Now you will say anything and lie through your teeth repeatedly.  I am not perfect and I get things wrong and I admit that.  But you are lying about me repeatedly.  It's a very sad, very very unpleasant spectacle.  You have no shame whatsoever.

Your credibility is destroyed, poor Brad on a brain fry from hell.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Brad:

Look up self acclaimed bullshit artist

Nope, I speak the truth but ever since your brain started to fry you have been shamelessly bullshitting like crazy.

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.

Right, only one scope trace but no dots.  GOOD PRACTICE, Brad.  It shows a normal transformer action.  There you go.

GOOD PRACTICE:  Don't say two setups are the same when they aren't.  No bluff there, let it sink into your head.

I am glad you posted this comment,as it shows you know very little about induction.

Keep on lying like a drunk sailor.

The oscillating magnet has nothing to do with you knowing what the waveform should look like that is associated with the schematic i posted.

Then what the hell are you even doing that for?  More nonsense.

I think you have dyslexia.

I do indeed have a little touch of dyslexia.  And you need to take some courses in remedial English and remedial English composition so that you can learn how to spell, learn how to use punctuation, and learn how to put a proper sentence together and learn how to compose a paragraph.

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.

You are just shamelessly lying and there is nothing wrong with the sentence.

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.

More shameless lying and you are off in dreamland with your incorrect belief that magnets can do useful work.  It represents both a hopeful belief on your part and a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works.  Magnets are as dead as a door nail and are not a source of energy in any way, shape, or form.  I know that you refuse to believe this.

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

There is nothing wrong with that sentence.  Then of course you have typed out hundreds of contorted brain twisters over the years that would make any fifth grade English teacher's jaw drop.  Go to English school.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Brad:

At this point, it's time for this to stop.  Next week I will discuss the two questions for resonance in a wine glass.  That's it, there really in nothing more for us to talk about after that.  I am not interested in your projects, and I have already discussed many of them with you in the past.  I am not here to discuss your projects and I am not here to debate with you.  I am really here for different reasons.  This thread started off with a heated debate between you and me about resonance and you were told the truth by me and you freaked out and we can all see the ugly ugly result from that.

Do whatever you want with your hair dryer motors or your dishwasher motors, I don't care and I have zero desire to discuss them with you, ZERO.  Likewise, I couldn't care less what combination of good and cockamamie technical knowledge you have up there in your head.  Believe whatever you want to believe.

I won't touch any new project threads you start, not interested.  But I will speak the truth on this thread or whatever other thread I want to contribute to.

You couldn't answer the two questions about resonance for a wine glass.  So stay tuned next week and you will see how simple the answers really are.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Earlier on this thread we discussed the hypothetical concept of a "resonant Joule Thief" and then got into a discussion about resonance.

Like anything, there is a learning curve to go up if you want to understand resonance and discuss resonance properly.  Without learning about resonance, many people on the forums talk about resonance like it is some magical path to over unity without even actually understanding what it is.

There are many YouTube clips and people making resonance pitches on places like PESN.  If you have a chance to interact with any of these people just ask them, "What is resonating in your system and how does the resonating system work?" and see what kind of a response you get from them.  Don't be surprised if many of these people promoting "resonance based free energy systems" will not be able to answer the question and they give you blank stares.  That would be telling you that they don't know what they are talking about and they are just using the term "resonance" as a meaningless buzz word.

So that lead to the discussion of one of the classic examples of resonance that we all know, the wine glass.  I posed two simple questions about a resonating wine glass and requested two short and simple answers, four sentences or less.  If you truly understand how a wine glass resonates you should be able to answer them no problem.  So far nobody nobody has been able to answer them.

Here are the questions:

How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?
How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?

Anybody is welcome to answer them and if nobody gets it they will be answered next week.

[EMJunkie]

I would have to agree with the Chris,and i think we have had words about this before-in that you some times go after the wrong people--much like MH coming after me,just because i have proven him wrong on many occasions now.

You can see the difference in this thread alone,where TK takes the time to carry out experiment's,and post his finding's,while there are those like MH and minnie that say you are wrong,and carry out no experiments to back up there claims.
We then have to waste our time,delivering the correct information,so as there falsehoods do not contaminate those here trying to learn the truth.

As you just seen,TK replicated and answered my question in no time flat,while MH dose everything to avoid the question--im guessing because he dose not know the answer,and minnie -who was the one that said i need to brush up on induction,has just vanished lol<--funny that.

Chris

Can i ask you to post the test schematic you gathered those resulting wave forms from-showing the 180* phase shift?.


Brad

Certainly Brad, see below:




@TK - Although you did replicate Brads experiment, you got it wrong.

Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law: The induced (negative) EMF in the second coil is proportional to the _time rate of change_ of the inducing magnetic field from the first coil.

Faraday's law of induction is a basic law of electromagnetism predicting how a magnetic field will interact with an electric circuit to produce an Electromotive Force, E.M.F (e), is defined in Coulomb's of Charge (C), this is measured in Volts (V)

The Ampere (A), often shortened to "amp", is the SI unit of Electric Current (I), The ampere is equivalent to one coulomb (roughly 6.241×1018 times the elementary charge) per second. Amperes are used to express flow rate of electric charge.

Here in lies the problem. Brads Circuit is looking at Current (I) or Amperes on one side of the Circuit, and on the other, it is looking at the Voltage (V).

As you correctly pointed out:

Current is not voltage (EMF). 

So, you are comparing Apples and Oranges, this cant be done!!! This is wrong!!! EMF, when talking about EMF, must be compared with its couneter part, the Negative of the source EMF which IS and always will be, 180 Degrees out of phase!

Saying that 10 cars are out on the road, and 10 cars went down the road at 200MPH are totally different things, Volume vs Speed and one is not the other!

I am sorry TK but you are giving people a Bung Steer and this is very important!!!


So, E.M.F (e) has a phase relationship of 180 Degrees to the Source.


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org