Joule Thief 101

[wattsup]

  I'll stump Wattsup, go ahead and prove magnetic fields DON'T EXIST.

@minnie

Sorry but the onus is on the user to prove their purported construct exists. It is not for me to prove it does not. That is how @MH likes to play the game. This one sided game where any EEer can bullshit his way through life thinking all those 5 items exist when they themselves have never seen one shred of proof except for the brainwash we get in school. @MH wants to enjoy full liberty to abuse an unproven concept while we are supposed to be chastized any time nothing meets with his approval. No more one way street. It's time you guys started talking some responsibility for the things you believe in, because it is just tearing you guys apart slowly but surely while you run in circles.

OU has no more room for maybes.  And jerk offs like @MH are just a dime a dozen in this world all around ready to jump at anything out of their box. Their little box where they have all their idols setup for worship because you need absolute faith to believe in the 5. There is nothing scientific about it.

@tinman

Wrong, you did not prove anything but you just got sucked into this B field, E field, Electric field story of EE to try and explain this. HCS exists right in your coils and your electron flow model is the one that prevents you from even considering it. This is not my fault.

You are such a great guy @tinman. I have utmost respect because I see you are trying to push against the grain but you keep falling back in without advancing because of your stuck notions of impossible things. You then get sucked in by @MH who is just playing you like a fiddle. You are basically being called a numbskull based on crap science dished out by @MH. The day you wake up to that is the day you will advance.

wattsup

[tinman]

If my post was fully understood, there would be no need to protest with this quote from MH.

There is an apparent time shift, but it is not caused by a discrete time delay, which is what MH means by "shifted in time".

The example given of two children on swings IS an example of a discrete time shift. The phase shift between current and voltage in a reactive component is due to differentiation or integration, but on the scope it appears as a discrete time shift.

What part do you not understand?

The part where an EMF will appear across the primary before an EMF will appear across the secondary. Phase relationships do not occur just between current and voltage,but between primary and secondary voltages. Being in phase will be when the two reach one point at the same time,and out of phase is when the two reach that point at a different time in that cycle. The cycle time can be the same for each potential,but a point in that cycle may be reached at a different point in time for each potential. This means that there is a phase differential between the two potential,when the word !phase! is used as its accurate meaning.

Then we can look at one cycle of a transformer that has a primary and secondary winding.
The primary winding has a voltage placed across it. The secondary winding will not see a voltage until current starts to flow through the primary winding,and where voltage leads current in an inductor. So that there is showing that the two EMFs across the primary and secondary are indeed out of phase due to a physical time difference.
So the primary see's a voltage across it before the secondary winding,but both will have dropped to the 0 volt value at the same time when the current is cut off from flowing through the primary coil.
So there is actually a physical phase difference--not just some mystical thing we see on a scope that we named phase shift for the sake of it.

Brad

[tinman]

@minnie

Sorry but the onus is on the user to prove their purported construct exists. It is not for me to prove it does not. That is how @MH likes to play the game. This one sided game where any EEer can bullshit his way through life thinking all those 5 items exist when they themselves have never seen one shred of proof except for the brainwash we get in school. @MH wants to enjoy full liberty to abuse an unproven concept while we are supposed to be chastized any time nothing meets with his approval. No more one way street. It's time you guys started talking some responsibility for the things you believe in, because it is just tearing you guys apart slowly but surely while you run in circles.

OU has no more room for maybes.  And jerk offs like @MH are just a dime a dozen in this world all around ready to jump at anything out of their box. Their little box where they have all their idols setup for worship because you need absolute faith to believe in the 5. There is nothing scientific about it.

@tinman

Wrong, you did not prove anything but you just got sucked into this B field, E field, Electric field story of EE to try and explain this. HCS exists right in your coils and your electron flow model is the one that prevents you from even considering it. This is not my fault.

You are such a great guy @tinman. I have utmost respect because I see you are trying to push against the grain but you keep falling back in without advancing because of your stuck notions of impossible things. 

wattsup

You then get sucked in by @MH who is just playing you like a fiddle.

This thread alone says that is not the case wattsup.

You are basically being called a numbskull based on crap science dished out by @MH. The day you wake up to that is the day you will advance.

Well lets see what you got then wattsup--where do i sign up--im all ready to go.

Brad.

[Grumage]

I apologize for that. The problem is that Brad's behaviour for a long time has been a complete and total sham and it's fatiguing and it's tempting to call it out sometimes.

Dear MileHigh.

Apology accepted.

Let's all make the effort to " keep it clean " !!

Kind regards, Grum.

[MileHigh]

Brad:

Go ahead and find anybody's answer to the two wine glass questions that you think are correct.  Good luck.

"And now the latest load of rubbish about phase variations being fictional"

Sigh...

"You call it what you want--i call it correcting mistakes"

Sigh again...

"you used the word !stiffness!,and i said the correct term is elasticity"

That's just a crazy debate about semantics, and go take a look at the posting I made to Webby.  The funny thing is that in most of the attempted answers to the wine glass questions, nobody mentions stiffness or elasticity and the associated storage of energy.  They are mostly blissfully unaware.  Any answer that fails to mention this is therefore wrong.  The closest you got to that was an extended copy/paste where it was mentioned.  But like I said, that was not your answer, that was just a copy/paste.  So you posted it, but where unaware of it, it just flew right by.

The wine glass questions were a good exercise and showed how people need to sit down and learn about stuff in a proper step-by-step fashion and then learn how to apply their knowledge.  The fact that nobody got it is very interesting.  And the chorus of sour grapes about that fact is just showing human nature.

So you are all upset that someone has disagreed with you or pointed out mistakes you have made.  From what I can see, it's like it's a phobia for you.

MileHigh