Joule Thief 101

[EMJunkie]

The phase relationship is really not defined,and can change in certain circumstances.
My test was at a very low frequency,and phase distortion played no part in the test.

If you and Erfinder really want to rack your brains over something,then watch my next video when i post it,and we throw faradays law of induction out the window

Chris
If you firmly believe in what your saying,then stick to your gun's,and use it as you can to your advantage. You dont need to prove anything to me,TK,or anyone else--only to yourself.
I can only provide the information i feel is true,and that just happens to be the same as the information TK provided.

Of course, the two that i asked the question in relation to induction,where either late for lunch,or did not show up at all--until all the dishes were done.

I guess some like to use conventional current flow,while others like to use true current flow.
But faradays law of induction dose not always hold true,and needs the additives and modifications-some of which you have mentioned.


Brad

Hey Brad,

TK describes your Circuit in terms of Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction, when he should have used Passive Component Analysis to determine the Phase Shift of 90 Degrees.

Purely Inductive Circuit:
   X_L = V_L/I_L = 2πfL
   Z = ∠+90^o = 0+jX_L
   I_S = V_S/X_L

The very reason PW is staying quiet is because he can not deny this as it is beyond true! He is scared of going Head to Head with TK... Who is very wrong by the way...

Brad, as you already know now, we have to stick to our Guns in a Gun Fight, but shooting the wrong Man is fruitless. What I have said is true, it is very easily, and I already have, proven it, beyond a shadow of a doubt!

It takes a big Man to admit he was incorrect publically! Will He? Or will he Not?

In a court of Law, I would be receiving damages right about now.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

P.S: Lets not forget that your Scope Grounds are at the same point and the two Coils are effectively connected together at this point!

[EMJunkie]

You make it difficult to respond, your tone is slightly offensive, as if you feel threatened.  I am not here to offend nor defend.  The laws you place at the feet and under the nose of those who choose to enter your sand box, I don't recognize.  I have a different perspective, one where Lenz isn't a cancer.  A perspective which allows me to see the oscillator which forms the superstructure of every electrodynamic machine I have ever worked on.  A perspective which enables me to identify the higher order of capacitance and inductance as they relate to that super structure.  A perspective which has facilitated the ability to produce and reproduce the self reinforcing self oscillation effect that you mentioned, but in my opinion don't necessarily demonstrate in your "public" demonstrations of the same. 


One can also consider the chart you recently posted, where EMF associated with self and mutual induction are illustrated.  I understand from my own effort, how to setup a generator so as to negate the negative effects associated with induction. 


I contacted you in the past because I felt our paths were aligned.... I am not looking for a guru, not looking for someone to point at the answer to my question for me.  I don't need your data nor anyone else's. I have what I want.  It would be wise of you to humble yourself.  To think one knows more than one who claims to know nothing, can place one in a very precarious position when the right questions are asked, and you cannot answer them but the one who knows claims to know nothing can. 


I would like to respect that this thread has a very specific direction, and as such will continue this dialog with you, if you wish, on your thread.




Regards

Yes, if you like.

I never claimed, ever, that I am a guru, infact, quite the opposite, I have said on may ocasions, "I dont have all the answers"!

I am offended, completely, that the Scientific minds of the world think they know so much, that something so simple, is impossible.

So many minds here are suffering from: "Carpium Chronicus"

Many paths lead to Rome,

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

In regards to this statement and the image you attached to it, the above stated is only true part of the time.


I have found that there are two very specific geometries that one should look for, specifically:


            *  (a) where the point of maximum flux change is not coincident with the point of maximum flux density, peak voltage is just before and just after TDC.  (Two voltage nodes centered by a current node)
            *  (b) where the point of maximum flux change is coincident with the point of maximum flux density, peak induced voltage will be at TDC.  (Two current nodes centered by a voltage node)


Most time and energy is invested in trying to find ways to circumvent the loss mechanism, which technically isn't a loss mechanism.  I have found this to be a complete waste of time.  As justification I offer that the system as I see it is an oscillator, a tank. The tank would oscillate between series and parallel resonance, however, owing to the fact that the system is structured in accordance with (a), series resonance which is possible only in a system structured as (b) cannot happen.  The important point i'm trying to make here is the flux should be allowed to move back to the inducer, unimpeded, effectively placing the stator and the rotor magnets in series.  Please understand that I use the term "resonance" loosely here, and it has no relation to the term as it is applied to electromagnetic phenomena. 


Careful analysis of the behavior of the circuit as we presently view it reveals (requires a stretch of the imagination of some) that the laws operating in said circuit describe the characteristics of a parallel resonant tank.   The mechanism of opposition to change governs the rate at flux is cycled between the inducer and the induced.  This holds true for both systems (a) and (b). 


Inducing flux entering the stator in (a) decreases with increasing induced current.    Inducing flux entering the stator in (b) increase with increasing induced current.


These are my observations, I am not a EE, I therefore cannot adhere to laws I am not qualified to comprehend, besides, there are too many to know and keep track of.  Playing it by ear has worked for some of the great musicians in the past, I take inspiration from them.  I cannot prove anything that I suggest.  I only offer what I offer as food for thought.




Regards

Heir Heir!!!

An intelligent and well worded post. Sensible and logical!

A pleasure to read!

Erfinder is completely correct, without Lenz's Law, Gains of COP > 1 would not be possible, but at the same time, Lenz's Law is the Big Stick to Keep Monkeys in their Cages!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[tinman]

Is part of the answer in the parts underlined in red....emphasis on "part"?

The proper relations need to be made, and there are parts missing.......my opinion...

Wanted to add one thing.....


Consumption decrease is the indication that the circuit is governed by the negative effects associated with opposition to change in flux and or current.  This is not something I look for, as it limits system effectiveness.  It seems like a good thing, consumption dropping and the output going up, however, in reality (as I interpret it), the input is working against the self induced (standard), and the boost in the output of the secondary, could be summed up to there being at least two augmenting induced currents operating in the secondary.





Regards

Well,i will wait and see if any others care to comment first--maybe PW,or verpies?.

But lets look at what happens when the oscillating magnet is introduced into the system.

The primary coil must now do extra work in order to give rise to the oscillating PM at the resonant frequency of the PM and fixture of the PM. We know energy is being dissipated from this oscillating system by way of vibration and noise. We also see a vast increase in the energy being dissipated over the 5 ohm load resistor that is across the secondary coil. But at the very same time,we see a decrease in power input to the primary coil that is now driving the second system(the oscillating magnet)

The oscillating magnet supplied more energy to the secondary coil than  the primary coil did,and yet it is the primary coil that is providing the energy to keep the magnet and stand in it's resonant oscillating state. then there is also the 90* phase shift between the primaries current,and secondaries voltage across the dissipation resistor when the oscillating magnet is bought into play-something to think about . Then there is the magnetic fields to consider-both the PMs field,and the primary coils field. The PMs field remains the same polarity,but varies in time- where the primary coil is the view point. The primaries magnetic field however,alternates in polarity over each cycle. We now have an effect where the two fields will be in bucking mode through 1/2 of each cycle,and in attraction mode during the other half of the cycle,and yet we see no such distortion in the secondaries wave form,where one half of he secondaries wave form should increase due to the bucking fields strength increase,and the other half of the secondaries wave form should decrease,due to the two attracting fields of the other half of the cycle. But in stead,we see an increase on both 1/2 cycles on the secondary,but a decrease in the primaries current draw-even though the primary coil is now doing more work.

Anyway,we will see if any others have some thoughts toward this.

I now have a small 13 watt amplifier,so i will be building a bigger unit soon.


Brad

[MileHigh]

Of course, the two that i asked the question in relation to induction,where either late for lunch,or did not show up at all--until all the dishes were done.

Brad

No way, not on this thread.  You stop your shameless sleazy low-life lying.

That is correct,and the yellow trace in the scope shot is measuring the columb's of charge by way of showing us a voltage trace.

Whoops Brad, you made a mistake because you gobbled up EMJ's nonsense about "'Columbs of Charge' measured in Volts" without bothering to go through the hassle of trying to correct him.  And now you find yourself trying to correct him in the role of "teacher of the deluded and misled" and it's not really that much fun, is it?  Try doing that for five years.

What do you think is a contributor to the melting knowledge glacier?  It's doing what you just did above with EMJ's statement.  If you can't try to talk sense among yourselves and correct each other's mistakes then you all end up hurting each other by restating nonsense like it's the truth.

MileHigh