Brad:

I know that you don't realize this but we are in black comedy territory now.

As i said,your flywheel and angular velocity analogy was very limited,and poor at best,as there dose not have to be motion for a torque to exist.

Post 967--Quote: Here is what an ideal torque would be:  A system that applies the same torque to the spinning flywheel regardless of the angular velocity of the flywheel.
Your own words MH--not mine.

Yes indeed, and any angular velocity can mean an angular velocity of zero.  In other words, applying torque to an object that is not in motion.

Quoting myself in response to your foolish comments:  More importantly, I never said that there had to be angular momentum for there to be torque applied to an object.  You are falsely trying to put words into my mouth.  Likewise, I never stated that torque only applies to things in motion.  One more time, you are falsely trying to put words into my mouth.

My words indeed.

Let's look at the definition of an ideal voltage source:  A voltage source that will maintain the same voltage regardless of the amount of current that it sources or sinks.  Now, I would assume that you would agree with that definition, correct?  Look at the attached chart and look at the force-voltage analogy.

You can see how voltage corresponds to force, or in our case since we are talking about a rotational system, torque.  You can see how current corresponds to velocity, or in our case since we are talking about a rotational system, angular velocity. ---->  Voltage = torque,  current = angular velocity.

Now Brad, let's summarize:

Definition of an ideal voltage source:  A voltage source that will maintain the same voltage regardless of the amount of current that it sources or sinks.

My definition for an ideal torque source:  A system that applies the same torque to the spinning flywheel regardless of the angular velocity of the flywheel.

Your first definition for an ideal torque source:  An ideal torque is an ideal twisting force,or the application of an ideal energy source-the very same as your ideal voltage source MH.

Your second definition for an ideal torque source:  I have provided the definition of an ideal torque,where torque is the application of energy to a system or object,and where that energy is ideal-->an ideal torque is an ideal energy source. An ideal torque will maintain it's chosen value,regardless of the opposition force placed upon this torque.

Sorry, but when it came to defining an ideal torque source, you were lost and clueless.  Hence the black comedy in your previous posting.

MileHigh

It was a bloody turkey shoot Brad, a black comedy at the end as shown in the quote above.  You can have a good brain fry thinking about how you stuck to a bunch of untenable and totally incorrect positions like an automaton with the wrong programming wheel.  What's worse is when you finally come to the realization of how ridiculous your incorrect position about this resonance business is, you are going to have a super brain fry.

 

MileHigh

Just take my example of deconstructing your inane definition of an ideal torque source as an example.  You entered into territory that I know quite well, and all you got out of it was a brain fry instead of trying to learn some good and practical stuff.

Well lets just have a look at each of our definitions of an ideal torque-shall we.

Your idea of an ideal torque
Quote: Here is what an ideal torque would be:  A system that applies the same torque to the spinning flywheel regardless of the angular velocity of the flywheel.

My idea of an ideal torque
Quote: An ideal torque will maintain it's chosen value,regardless of the opposition force placed upon this torque.

Now-who's model  covers all situations MH,and who's model covers only one example.
Did you even bother to read my definition MH?
You say it is absolute rubbish,but it is saying the very same thing as your definition MH-only mine covers all situation's,while your definition is very limited.

Lets look at each part of our examples.
Quote your definition-->A system that applies the same torque to the spinning flywheel
Quote me:                -->An ideal torque will maintain it's chosen value.
I know your English is not so good MH,but they mean the very same thing.

Now the second part
Quote your definition--> regardless of the angular velocity of the flywheel
Quote me:                --> regardless of the opposition force placed upon this torque
Once again,my definition covers your limited definition exactly,but where as my definition covers all situations an ideal torque could be place in,while yours only covers that of your flywheel example.

 

You entered into territory that I know quite well

Well,if you knew this territory quite well,you would have given a more accurate definition of an ideal torque,and not limit it to just angular momentum.
You would have also noticed that my definition is exactly the same as yours,only it covers the whole spectrum of situations an ideal torque could be placed in.

Believe me, many people reading also know the truth and they are aghast at reading some of the stuff that you have been posting.

Well if they didnt before-they do now.
They will see that your chicken dance is all for nothing,and that my definition of an ideal torque is exactly the same as yours,only where mine is not limited as your is.

Face the music MH,you provided a !limited! definition of an ideal torque,while i gave the complete definition of an ideal torque,where my definition is not limited to motion.

Lets look at the definitions again
Yours-->A system that applies the same torque to the spinning flywheel
Mine--->An ideal torque will maintain it's chosen value-->applies the same torque

Yours-->regardless of the angular velocity of the flywheel
Mine--->regardless of the opposition force placed upon this torque-->your spinning flywheel in this case.

I mean MH,it's preatty funny you should mock my definition,when it is the same as your--only without your limitations

Im not sure about you MH,but when i torque up flywheel bolts on a motor,the flywheel is not spinning


Perhaps you have learned another lesson here today?


Brad

 



MileHigh

No, we haven't learned anything new today.  We all know that you will defend any junk you say and try to twist it to make yourself appear to be "right."  You are never enough of a man to admit you are wrong because you have a psychological block.

You are delusional MH,as you have just described your self.

You do not state that the ideal torque source will maintain the torque regardless of the rotational speed of the object that the torque is being applied to.  That is the critical piece of information that is missing and you cannot spin or backpedal out of that.  You are wrong - face it like a man.

Quote: An ideal torque will maintain it's chosen value
Like i said--your delusional,and you need help.

You are simply not even putting sentences together that give a simple straightforward explanation

.

Quote: An ideal torque will maintain it's chosen value,regardless of the opposition force placed upon this torque.

Seems you really do need some English lessons MH.

As we have seen many times before, when you don't know what you are talking about you wander all over the map and offer up an awkward disjoint explanation that doesn't really make sense.  Sorry, there are no secret decoder rings allowed, you either get it or your don't.  And you didn't get it, nor could you offer up any appreciation for the true definition of the term that was clearly explained to you.You just end up doing your usual BS song and dance when you are in a jam.

MH
When posting on a forum,try not to look in the mirror,as you get things all mixed up.
My definition of an ideal torque was the same as your,only not limited to motion such as yours.

Your goose was cooked once again--perhaps some time off from the forum would do you good.


Brad

My definition of an ideal torque was the same as your,only not limited to motion such as yours.

Brad

This is the second time that you have mentioned this nonsense, even though I dealt with it directly the first time you brought it up.

As i said,your flywheel and angular velocity analogy was very limited,and poor at best,as there dose not have to be motion for a torque to exist.

My response:  <<< Yes indeed, and any angular velocity can mean an angular velocity of zero.  In other words, applying torque to an object that is not in motion.

Quoting myself in response to your foolish comments:  More importantly, I never said that there had to be angular momentum for there to be torque applied to an object.  You are falsely trying to put words into my mouth.  Likewise, I never stated that torque only applies to things in motion.  One more time, you are falsely trying to put words into my mouth. >>>

So where were you Brad?  Cloud Nine?  In space cadet summer (or winter) school?  My response passed right through you like you weren't even there?  This has happened dozens and dozens of times before.

Your attempt to define an ideal torque source is a bloody train wreck, plain and simple.  You use illogical terms like "ideal energy source."  You talk about force when it's a discussion about torque.  When you are going to define something it has to be right, and all that you can do is backpedal and spin instead of being a man and admitting that you were wrong.

Probably the biggest recent fiasco of yours is this illogical and totally irrational insistence that resonating wine glasses and tuning forks aren't actually resonating.  You are from the bloody Salvador Dali School of Infinite Improbability Loco Physics for Dummies.

Read again what I said:

<<<  What is the etymology for the word "resonance?"  It comes from French, meaning to "re-sound."  In other words, sound coming back, or sound bouncing back and forth.  Where is this "bounce" in resonance?  In the case of the tuning fork, the moving arms translate their motion and energy into the spring of the tuning fork and compress it.  Then the energy that is in the spring "re-sounds" or "bounces back" and the arms are moving again.  This process repeats over and over.  That is fundamentally what resonance is.

As such, an LC circuit, a tuning fork, a wine glass, and a bell are all LC resonators that resonate at their resonant frequency and manifest the phenomenon of resonance.  They don't have to be externally driven by an excitation that is at the resonant frequency, they are perfectly fine to resonate all by themselves and ring down if energy is put into the system.  i.e.; striking a tuning fork.  >>>

Is any of this going to sink in or are you just going to remain in the Dali loco school?

MileHigh

This is the second time that you have mentioned this nonsense, even though I dealt with it directly the first time you brought it up.

My response:  <<< Yes indeed, and any angular velocity can mean an angular velocity of zero.  In other words, applying torque to an object that is not in motion.



So where were you Brad?  Cloud Nine?  In space cadet summer (or winter) school?  My response passed right through you like you weren't even there?  This has happened dozens and dozens of times before.





Read again what I said:

<<<  What is the etymology for the word "resonance?"  It comes from French, meaning to "re-sound."  In other words, sound coming back, or sound bouncing back and forth.  Where is this "bounce" in resonance?  In the case of the tuning fork, the moving arms translate their motion and energy into the spring of the tuning fork and compress it.  Then the energy that is in the spring "re-sounds" or "bounces back" and the arms are moving again.  This process repeats over and over.  That is fundamentally what resonance is.

As such, an LC circuit, a tuning fork, a wine glass, and a bell are all LC resonators that resonate at their resonant frequency and manifest the phenomenon of resonance.  They don't have to be externally driven by an excitation that is at the resonant frequency, they are perfectly fine to resonate all by themselves and ring down if energy is put into the system.  i.e.; striking a tuning fork.  >>>

Is any of this going to sink in or are you just going to remain in the Dali loco school?

MileHigh

Your attempt to define an ideal torque source is a bloody train wreck, plain and simple.  You use illogical terms like "ideal energy source."  You talk about force when it's a discussion about torque.  When you are going to define something it has to be right, and all that you can do is backpedal and spin instead of being a man and admitting that you were wrong.

Here we go--the old MH pick and choose as it suits my needs combo.

The question was-->define an ideal torque--nothing about source.
Please refer to your own question this thread is about,where you have only provided an ideal voltage source,and nothing about where the energy is stored--voltage is nothing without an energy source.
So my answer is fine,and you simply do not get to pick and choose when there dose and dose not have to be a need to provide every detail to suit your needs.

Quoting myself in response to your foolish comments:[/b]  More importantly, I never said that there had to be angular momentum for there to be torque applied to an object.  You are falsely trying to put words into my mouth.  Likewise, I never stated that torque only applies to things in motion.  One more time, you are falsely trying to put words into my mouth. >>>

I never put any words into your mouth at all--your definition was quoted word for word,and it was limited to motion.
My answer was the same as your,but not limited as your was---you asked to define an ideal torque,and i did so more accurately than your self--that is fact.

Probably the biggest recent fiasco of yours is this illogical and totally irrational insistence that resonating wine glasses and tuning forks aren't actually resonating.  You are from the bloody Salvador Dali School of Infinite Improbability Loco Physics for Dummies.

They are not resonating unless being acted upon by an outside force.
 Once again-please read the Physics behind resonance,and the 3 things required to achieve resonance.
You are confused between acoustic oscillation and resonance.

http://www.intuitor.com/resonance/abcRes.html


Brad

snip...
 Once again-please read the Physics behind resonance,and the 3 things required to achieve resonance.
You are confused between acoustic oscillation and resonance.
http://www.intuitor.com/resonance/abcRes.html
Brad

ABC may be too hard for some to understand or perhaps clicking on the link and reading is too hard.?
Saving the trouble: Extract from http://www.intuitor.com/resonance/abcRes.html

" Resonance requires 3 basic conditions:
A) An Object With a Natural Frequency: The object can be a mechanical device or an electronic circuit. An object's natural frequency is the frequency it tends to oscillate at when disturbed. The oscillation can be a mechanical vibration as is the case when the string of a guitar is strummed. In an electronic circuit the oscillation is a variable voltage or current. An object can have more than one natural frequency. These are called harmonics. A guitar string sounds musical because it vibrates with several harmonics when it is strummed.

B) A Forcing Function at the Same Frequency as the Natural Frequency: In mechanical systems the forcing function is a variable force. In electronic circuits it arises from a variable electric field. In either case the forcing function does work on the object it is applied to. Since work is a form of energy transfer it causes energy to build up in the object.

C) A Lack of Damping or Energy Loss: For an object to resonate, mechanical or electrical energy has to build up in the object. Anything which removes these forms of energy tends to interfere with resonance. Damping is a means of  removing electrical or mechanical energy by converting it to heat. The term damping should not be confused with the term dampening which means to make something slightly wet. Friction, air resistance, and viscous drag can all provide damping in mechanical systems. Electrical resistance performs the same function in electronic circuits. Other forms of energy loss can include sound (musical instruments) or light emissions (lasers).
When the forcing function's frequency  matches the natural frequency of an object it will begin to resonate. The forcing function adds energy at just the right moment during the oscillation cycle so that the oscillation is reinforced. This makes the oscillation's amplitude grow larger and larger. These oscillations would eventually become infinitely large. However, as mentioned earlier, long before the oscillations reach infinity one of three things happens: 1) the object's dynamics change so that the resonant frequency and forcing functions no longer match, 2) the energy lost as heat, sound, or light becomes equal to the energy input. or 3) the object breaks "

Brad:

Of course it has a bloody source MH,,just like your ideal voltage has a source.

There is no "source" of anything Brad.  It's just like watching Batman on TV.  There is no Bat Cave, and there is no Batman, it's all imaginary.

Once again--angular velocity dose not have to be included to describe an ideal torque,as a torque can exist where there is no angular velocity.

You have comprehension problems.

If something is motionless(stopped),then there is no angular velocity MH,but a torque can still exist.

No kidding.

I have provided 10x's that,and all i have provided are correct. Your own little language dose not dismiss the true scientific meaning of resonance or resonating MH--like it or not.

Walk into any high school physics class where they are playing with tuning forks and say that when you strike a tuning fork that it is not resonating and the whole class and the teacher will burst out laughing.

I asked you to supply just one video,where an experimenter says that a coil is resonating when it is ringing down--just one,and you failed to do so.

In fact I did supply a video just the other day.

You can be stuck on this resonance/natural frequency problem as long as you want.  It just shows how you have serious problems and how insanely difficult it is to get through to you.

MileHigh

Brad:

Whether it be an ideal voltage source or an ideal velocity source, these things are just ideas.  You seem to be suggesting that there is a "source" that forms part of one of these abstract concepts.  There is no point in imagining anything beyond the fact that they simply exist as ideas.  Imagining that there is some kind of energy store or energy source that is "feeding" an ideal voltage source is simply ridiculous.  They are all just imaginary black boxes.

For the resonance business, there are simply two definitions.  There is energy going back and forth resonance, call that "true resonance" if you want.  Then there is the resonance that you always talk about.

Now why can't you simply accept that there are two legitimate definitions to the term and they are quite closely related to each other?  Both definitions can exist alongside each other.  Now why, why is it so hard for you to accept this?  Why to you have to refuse the fact that you can say a struck tuning fork is resonating?  What is stopping you from accepting that there are two definitions?

Seriously, if you can't simply accept that there are two related definitions for the word "resonance" then you are beyond being off the rails.

There have been countless black comedy and near-insane moments with you on both threads Brad.  I am confident that the majority of the readers will recognize who is serious and they will listen to the person that they think is bringing the most sense and value to the table.

MileHigh