Joule Thief 101

[MileHigh]

One other thing MH

Did you read this quote from me?

How can you know that that superconductive wire is not going to store all of the induced magnetic field within it,instead of it protruding the outer perimeter of the wire. If that one thing happens--if the produced magnetic field is contained within that superconducting wire,then bye bye inductor--you do not have one.

I guessed you laughed at that as well.
Well maybe you might enjoy this bit of information about superconductivity.

Quote:
Superconductivity is a phenomenon of exactly zero electrical resistance and expulsion of magnetic flux fields occurring in certain materials when cooled below a characteristic critical temperature.

I wonder what would be the outcome of that,as far as your ideal coil wound with superconductive wire would be?.


Brad

Yeah Brad, I think this one sums up many of your issues including your serious language problems.  I even inserted the missing text in the quote above.

Let's call this the "poster" post from you.  I am using "poster" in the sense of "He is the poster boy for ...."

What you are saying is the exact opposite of what the reality is for a superconductor.

You are saying that in a superconducting wire all of the magnetic field is contained inside the wire.

The reference you cite clearly states that all of the magnetic field is contained outside the wire.

So you fall flat on your face and got it completely wrong.  You could not understand what you read.  Do you not understand what the word "expulsion" means?  This has being going on since the beginning.  It's enough to drive a person nuts that is trying to deal with you.

I am glad that I am through with this nonsense.

MileHigh

[minnie]

   I seem to have an idea that super conduction fails at high current levels and that
the vortexes seen in hts become what's known as vortex glass when the temperature
is lowered further.
      When vortices are present they are using a tiny bit of energy.
             John.
             

[Magluvin]

MH, Mags, tinman,

Why are you guys badgering each other like this?

All three of you know very well what an ideal voltage source is (and you know each other does as well), and mags/Brad, you know full well what MH means in his question and/or his posts when he says the voltage source varies.

To be clear, he does not mean that it varies from its set value over time, he means it is one value for time x, and another value for time y.

So please stop this pages and pages of nonsense, and get on with some productive discussions.

Here is my problem with how MH conducts himself.......


He claims that brad and I need to go back to electronic school 101. But he himself should be on his list......

"When this first came up I clearly told you that last time I discussed a JFET was 35 years ago sitting in an electronics class and I forgot the the definition.  But like a sleaze you are going to repeat that until you are blue in the face."

I have a list of things that I can reference of what MH says that I like to keep on reference.  Can you Poynt not say that you have seen this sort of statement from him before? If not I will post them with links.

He consistently puts himself on the highest horse above us, and lays claim to learning all he knows back 30 odd years ago. Well it used to be 30, and now its 35. Has he been saying that for that long? But when it comes down to when he is lacking, he reverses that stance and blames it on the time period and he forgot.  So which is true? In one stance he knows it all. But when defending a mistake or lack of certain knowledge, he blames it on "It was so long ago" 

So here is my problem with that. many times before he admits to being corrected, his stance is this.......

"You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster.
Your (sic) a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum."

That is what really makes me sign off my posts as Magluvin, instead of easy going Mags, so to speak.  But I have some doubt that you can feel me on that as you guys seem more buddy buddy. Which brings me to another point.....

The other day I posted my views on the issues at hand on the Ideal subject. I didnt badger him. I didnt criticize him. I didnt tell him he needs to go back to school. I didnt call him names. I was in no way looking to get into a nasty argument. I just happily posted my view. And what did I get?....... Well you apparently have been reading it or you would not have a complaint. here is the link where I jumped in on the subject..
http://overunity.com/16589/mhs-ideal-coil-and-voltage-question/msg483678/#msg483678 
It was in the other thread on the same discussion.

Anyway, I can go on and on. but I wont here. I get tired of typing at times.


I pose this question for you.  What is the explanation of when we have an ideal inductor as it is defined, that the CEMF would not be ideal as MH claims? What is the limiting factor that says CEMF of an Ideal Inductor is not 100% efficient in what it does? MH wont attempt it. So I humbly ask you. I mean look, if the ideal inductor is everything it is defined to be, then there must be some 'loss' in order for the CEMF to be less than the input. I have described my view on that a few times, whether anyone agrees or not. There has been no explanation from MHs great storehouse of knowledge other than insults, name calling and basically badgering as you say. He cannot give us the answer to that question and he says CEMF is just a measurement as his closest explanation.  So maybe you can shed some light on this. By the way. Do you agree that the CEMF that is in opposition to the input is only a measurement? If you prefer not to answer against him, I understand. But that is not helping anyone.

Also.  From what I have found, when talking ideal voltage source, there is nothing out there on the voltage being variable over time. So ok. MH made up his own idea of an ideal voltage source. What is so ideal about that? If it changes its voltage it does not fit the definition.  So it is just a normal power supply.  Here is the problem I had with that....

The original question posed an Ideal Power Supply of 4v. Brad was correct. The voltage would not change over time if the ideal supply that Brad and I are understanding the definition correctly. The Ideal Inductor was directly across the supply.

So where was all that so called unlimited knowledge from MH when he posed that question? And until he changed it to a varying voltage supply, he insisted, insulted and badgered that Brad was incorrect. Where is his apology on that?  So when to we get to rebut that? When do we get to say he is playing a shell game with us about his so called super electronics abilities?  Im sorry but people can only take so much of wasting their time on his high horse attitude that he has even when he is wrong.  So we get what you see here.

So he needs to brush up on his knowledge before he poses a question like that, where he claims to know the answer to, and that we are fools, double fools, know nothings, our knowledge is nil and that we need to start from the beginning. Well he should eat some of that. We are just feeding it to him.

Nobody else is going to tell him of it. Why not us? Why should we have to be controlled by a set of rules but he has free reign? He calls what I posted in that last few days disgusting. And when we look over his posts and compare, whos are more disgusting? Ill let the readers decide.

Mags

[Magluvin]

MH, Mags, tinman,

Why are you guys badgering each other like this?

All three of you know very well what an ideal voltage source is (and you know each other does as well), and mags/Brad, you know full well what MH means in his question and/or his posts when he says the voltage source varies.

To be clear, he does not mean that it varies from its set value over time, he means it is one value for time x, and another value for time y.

So please stop this pages and pages of nonsense, and get on with some productive discussions.

"All three of you know very well what an ideal voltage source is (and you know each other does as well), and mags/Brad, you know full well what MH means in his question and/or his posts when he says the voltage source varies."

What sort of power supply would that be? If the voltage can vary, then so can the current. Are we just saying it has no resistance thus no losses?  This would have to be some very intelligent supply architecture for it to have zero internal resistance but the voltage can change as the load requires. Just interested in your explanation beyond just stating it is what it is.

Look. As Brad and I see it, these ideal world devices pose questions beyond what is described or defined. Just because we question things on those basis doesnt mean we are just ignorant or need to go back to school for the basics. It means our minds are at work and I believe the questions we have posed are legit. If not, then please enter the room and give us what you can so we can all just get along. Does that sound so bad?

Mags

Mags

[tinman]

"All three of you know very well what an ideal voltage source is (and you know each other does as well), and mags/Brad, you know full well what MH means in his question and/or his posts when he says the voltage source varies."

What sort of power supply would that be? If the voltage can vary, then so can the current. Are we just saying it has no resistance thus no losses?  This would have to be some very intelligent supply architecture for it to have zero internal resistance but the voltage can change as the load requires. Just interested in your explanation beyond just stating it is what it is.

Look. As Brad and I see it, these ideal world devices pose questions beyond what is described or defined. Just because we question things on those basis doesnt mean we are just ignorant or need to go back to school for the basics. It means our minds are at work and I believe the questions we have posed are legit. If not, then please enter the room and give us what you can so we can all just get along. Does that sound so bad?

Mags

Mags

If MH actually drew up his own circuit with the associated values that relate to ideal,then he may see the error of his ways.


Brad