| ??? 04/22/10 18:48 Read: times Msg Score: +1 +1 Informative |
#175285 - It's a sound idea - but a stupid name! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
There is no "thievery" here at all - it's all perfectly straightforward.
The idea is perfectly good: it is well known that most applications don't use the full 100% of a battery's capacity simply because they can't operate below a certain minimum supply voltage. Therefore, lowering your application's minimum working voltage will increase the amount of energy that it can extract from the battery. No question. Obviously, the lower the voltage at which your application continues to operate, the more energy it can extract from the battery. That's why SiLabs are so proud of their MCUs that (they say) will work down to 0.9V: http://www.silabs.com/products/...fault.aspx If you can't lower your application's minimum voltage, then adding a booster is the obvious "next best thing" - so long as the losses in the booster don't negate the gain in energy extraction! Whether the circuit shown is actually a good booster or not is another matter... However, this bit is pure nonsense: The voltage increase with a joule thief works similar to how a nickel-cadmium rechargeable battery retains its voltage for a good bit of its run The two effects are entirely dissimilar! |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| joule thief | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you could even stick it through spice. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Better how ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It's a sound idea - but a stupid name! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a fact often overlooked by people proud of their design | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: a fact often overlooked... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Though maybe not a good implementation | 01/01/70 00:00 |