Author Topic: MH's ideal coil and voltage question (Read 490409 times)

MileHigh · « **Reply #945 on:** June 07, 2016, 11:12:53 PM »

Quote from: tinman on June 07, 2016, 02:52:21 PM

I only hope that people here,that want to learn fact from fiction,do not listen to what you have to say. The fact that you cannot put all your !claimed! knowledge into a practical build,and take me on in a small JT build off,just go's to show how little you actually know when it comes to putting your self acclaimed brilliance into action-->i think they call that !being full of hot air!.

Brad

Like I have mentioned many times in the past, I threw away all my power supplies, 4000 series CMOS chips, TTL chips, LEDs, switches, capacitors, 555 timers and breadboards many years ago, before you even knew what a transistor was.

I couldn't even build and test anything if I wanted to. Even if I was fully equipped and had a nice bench, I still wouldn't build anything useless like you are suggesting. Rewiring a motor to get back spikes or whatever it is you want to do is a useless endeavour.

Beyond all of this, there is another comment for you to ponder. You are very frustrated because you couldn't answer the wine glass questions and you couldn't answer the first question about a power supply and one single component. Note that these are two pretty generic subjects that can be discussed on a forum and it is pretty much a level playing field, the only thing you need to know is some pretty basic physics and electronics knowledge.

To "get back at me" you are challenging me to do something that you have been doing for years and are very familiar with, hacking into motors and watching them spin. You want to "funnel" me into doing something that is in your comfort zone that you have lots of experience with. To make it a fair "build challenge" it would have had to be to build something that neither of us had built before, and see what happens in that case.

You are just trying to make a transparent attempt to stack the dice in your favour, that's what is behind all of your whining to get me to build some useless motor contraption. It's something you do all the time. The whole idea was a non-starter from the very beginning.

My actions are my words on this forum, and that is a level playing field for everyone.

I also found it ironic that I gave you and the other builders a great and fun build challenge - using some supercaps and a pulse motor and a pulley of your own design, see who can build the most efficient system for lifting up a weight. It encompasses real mechanical and electrical design and the output is measurable work. And you had nothing to say, just blank stares.

MileHigh

tinman · « **Reply #946 on:** June 08, 2016, 01:41:03 AM »

author=MileHigh link=topic=16589.msg485958#msg485958 date=1465333973]

MileHigh

Quote

Rewiring a motor to get back spikes or whatever it is you want to do is a useless endeavour.

I will only respond this this part of your large ramble.
If only you knew how wrong you are.
But you will never learn that,because like i said--you are to far gone to allow any further education.
The fact that you believe that a PM can do no useful work,is your biggest stumbling block,and your ultimate road to no where.

Brad

MileHigh · « **Reply #947 on:** June 08, 2016, 02:32:02 AM »

Quote from: tinman on June 08, 2016, 01:41:03 AM

author=MileHigh link=topic=16589.msg485958#msg485958 date=1465333973]

I will only respond this this part of your large ramble.
If only you knew how wrong you are.
But you will never learn that,because like i said--you are to far gone to allow any further education.
The fact that you believe that a PM can do no useful work,is your biggest stumbling block,and your ultimate road to no where.

Brad

Well it's pretty obvious that you can't cope with the fact that there are two perfectly valid definitions for "resonance." The true definition that I am stating and the second "resonant system response" definition that you falsely believe is the only definition. It's the Krazy Glue in your brain that keeps you obsessively stuck to the second definition because accepting the true definition would make your mind snap.

It's a joke that you allege that I am too far gone to allow any further education when you and others were stuck like glue to a limited definition of an ideal voltage source and you practically had to be pried away from your incorrect fixation. I am always willing to learn, and my knowledge means I also have a good functioning BS filter.

Your blind belief that magnets can do useful work results in you doing pulse motor and related experiments and leading yourself down a garden path. It has already happened many times.

The biggie is your famous "rotary transformer." The thought experiment goes like this: You send it to Poynt and within two days max he finds your mistake and then it's all over and time to move on.

MileHigh

tinman · « **Reply #948 on:** June 08, 2016, 07:12:50 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on June 08, 2016, 02:32:02 AM

Well it's pretty obvious that you can't cope with the fact that there are two perfectly valid definitions for "resonance." The true definition that I am stating and the second "resonant system response" definition that you falsely believe is the only definition. It's the Krazy Glue in your brain that keeps you obsessively stuck to the second definition because accepting the true definition would make your mind snap.

It's a joke that you allege that I am too far gone to allow any further education when you and others were stuck like glue to a limited definition of an ideal voltage source and you practically had to be pried away from your incorrect fixation. I am always willing to learn, and my knowledge means I also have a good functioning BS filter.

Your blind belief that magnets can do useful work results in you doing pulse motor and related experiments and leading yourself down a garden path. It has already happened many times.

The biggie is your famous "rotary transformer." The thought experiment goes like this: You send it to Poynt and within two days max he finds your mistake and then it's all over and time to move on.

MileHigh

The fact that you base your conclusion that magnets cannot do useful work on what has been seen so far,is proof that you have a closed mind,and simply follow like a sheep.
The second fact is,you do not know what the magnetic force is,and there for cannot make any accurate claims about any sort of potential a magnet has. It is like your trying to claim you know the top speed of a car,without knowing what kind of car it is. You base your assumption on what others have mannaged so far,but they are in the same boat as you-they too have no idea as to what the magnetic force is,and there for-like you,cannot make any accurate conclusion as to what that magnetic force can do.

My offer still stands MH-if you wish to challenge me to a rotoverter build,and see who actually has the better understanding of magnetic fields working in conjunction with inductors, then i will be more than happy to send my device-along with yours,for poynt to judge who's device is more efficient.
You have this in writiing right here.
But we know you will use any excuse under the sun,to avoid going up against me--to scared to take on the man you continuously put down.

Brad

minnie · « **Reply #949 on:** June 08, 2016, 11:50:37 AM »

I reckon I can shift crap faster that MH. and tinman combined can
come up with it.
John.

MileHigh · « **Reply #950 on:** June 08, 2016, 11:51:44 AM »

I am no sheep and there is going to be no rotorverter showdown at the O.K. Corral. I am not making up an excuse, I am telling you fact. What you learned in this and the other thread is that you have a long way to go up the learning curve with respect to electronics. You can act on that fact or not, it's up to you.

minnie · « **Reply #951 on:** June 08, 2016, 11:55:26 AM »

I have a long way to go with my picture skills too!
John.

MileHigh · « **Reply #952 on:** June 08, 2016, 11:56:09 AM »

Yep, I am all spent on dishing out crap. However, I have seen 500 times more crap than I dished out.

tinman · « **Reply #953 on:** June 08, 2016, 11:57:19 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on June 08, 2016, 11:51:44 AM

I am no sheep and there is going to be no rotorverter showdown at the O.K. Corral. I am not making up an excuse, I am telling you fact.

Quote

What you learned in this and the other thread is that you have a long way to go up the learning curve with respect to electronics. You can act on that fact or not, it's up to you.

The best and only way to know who knows what,is by presenting your knowledge in way of an actual real world device. Words mean absolutely nothing at all--actions speak louder than words MH.
Your words will power nothing.

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #954 on:** June 08, 2016, 12:00:02 PM »

Hey milesy
Keep an eye on this thread--you might learn something

http://overunity.com/4612/david-bowlings-continuous-charging-device/msg485976/#new

Brad

MileHigh · « **Reply #955 on:** June 08, 2016, 12:19:10 PM »

<<< Two batteries in series,and one in parallel,with the inverter in series with the two series batteries,to the parallel battery.The inverter will be run on the potential difference-see schematic below. >>>

I will put on my ring for you: You are driving a 12-volt inverter with three batteries in series, one of them reverse-polarity for net 12 volts to the inverter.

That is just a tired and worn out Houdini "trick" that never made sense in the first place.

Think of it like this:

You have one battery that is doing the work to run the inverter.

Then you have two batteries that cancel each other out. So the first battery charges the second battery. There are internal losses in the first battery to heat as it discharges, which is normal. There are internal losses to heat in the second battery while it charges, which is also normal.

What are the implications?

One battery is running the inverter like normal and the other two batteries do nothing except produce waste heat for no reason whatsoever.

For some reason people think that this is somehow going to give them "Houdini magic" when all it does is uselessly exercise two batteries that would be better off just sitting on a shelf waiting for their turn to drive the 12-volt inverter.

It's fool's gold that makes no sense thanks to the Cult of Houdini. But I know that you like doing this stuff and you have a new project to play with. It will never outperform three separate batteries attached to the inverter, one after the other.

tinman · « **Reply #956 on:** June 08, 2016, 12:36:53 PM »

author=MileHigh link=topic=16589.msg485984#msg485984 date=1465381150]
<<< Two batteries in series,and one in parallel,with the inverter in series with the two series batteries,to the parallel battery.The inverter will be run on the potential difference-see schematic below. >>>

I will put on my ring for you: You are driving a 12-volt inverter with three batteries in series, one of them reverse-polarity for net 12 volts to the inverter.

Think of it like this:

Quote

That is just a tired and worn out Houdini "trick" that never made sense in the first place.

I agree.

Quote

You have one battery that is doing the work to run the inverter.
Then you have two batteries that cancel each other out. So the first battery charges the second battery. There are internal losses in the first battery to heat as it discharges, which is normal. There are internal losses to heat in the second battery while it charges, which is also normal.

I agree

Quote

What are the implications?

One battery is running the inverter like normal and the other two batteries do nothing except produce waste heat for no reason whatsoever.

I agree.

Quote

For some reason people think that this is somehow going to give them "Houdini magic" when all it does is uselessly exercise two batteries that would be better off just sitting on a shelf waiting for their turn to drive the 12-volt inverter.

I agree.

Quote

It's fool's gold that makes no sense thanks to the Cult of Houdini. But I know that you like doing this stuff and you have a new project to play with. It will never outperform three separate batteries attached to the inverter, one after the other.

I agree.

Brad

MileHigh · « **Reply #957 on:** June 09, 2016, 04:33:31 AM »

Brad:

A final thought popped into my head about this resonance definition nonsense.

You go on and on about how the definition of "resonance" is only when an external driving force at the resonant frequency produces an increased amplitude response from the object that is resonating. According to you that is the "only" definition of resonance. You have probably insisted that this is the only definition for resonance about 30 times now.

Well, what about your ICE business that you have repeated about 75(?) times now?

The air intake resonance is simply a one-shot Helmholtz resonator that is repeatedly "primed" by the moving piston sucking in air. It has nothing at all to do with your "increased amplitude resonant system response" definition of resonance.

The extra resonant cavity in the piston cavity is there to set up a pressure shock wave that is opposite to the pressure shock wave that occurs when the fuel explodes. This causes wave cancellation which ensures a better and smoother compression cycle on the piston. This is another from of resonant response to a one-shot impulse that is repeated over and over. One more time this has absolutely nothing to do with your "increased amplitude resonant system response" definition of resonance.

So here you are pushing "MileHigh you were ignorant and knew nothing about resonance improving the efficiency of an ICE" and it doesn't even meet your definition of resonance.

MileHigh

tinman · « **Reply #958 on:** June 09, 2016, 05:39:37 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on June 09, 2016, 04:33:31 AM

Brad:

A final thought popped into my head about this resonance definition nonsense.

You go on and on about how the definition of "resonance" is only when an external driving force at the resonant frequency produces an increased amplitude response from the object that is resonating. According to you that is the "only" definition of resonance. You have probably insisted that this is the only definition for resonance about 30 times now.

Well, what about your ICE business that you have repeated about 75(?) times now?

The air intake resonance is simply a one-shot Helmholtz resonator that is repeatedly "primed" by the moving piston sucking in air. It has nothing at all to do with your "increased amplitude resonant system response" definition of resonance.

The extra resonant cavity in the piston cavity is there to set up a pressure shock wave that is opposite to the pressure shock wave that occurs when the fuel explodes. This causes wave cancellation which ensures a better and smoother compression cycle on the piston. This is another from of resonant response to a one-shot impulse that is repeated over and over. One more time this has absolutely nothing to do with your "increased amplitude resonant system response" definition of resonance.

So here you are pushing "MileHigh you were ignorant and knew nothing about resonance improving the efficiency of an ICE" and it doesn't even meet your definition of resonance.

MileHigh

No MH

Resonance is a maintained maximum amplitude in one object that was induced by another vibrating object at the same natural frequency. You will note that in your example,that each shot !as you call it!,of vibration in the air intake chamber,is a direct result of the stroke of the piston that caused it.
In a four stroke engine,that is every fourth stroke,and in a 2 stroke engine,that is every second stroke. So on the inlet side,every intake stroke results in 1 vibration of the resonant chamber,and this is also true for the exhaust side as well.
The expansion chamber on the exhaust will resonate at a set RPM,and it's frequency of resonation will be exactly that of the exhaust stroke frequency of the engine.
The expansion chamber will not resonate without the piston driving the exhaust gases into it at the correct frequency.

It would also seem that i may have to retract some or all of my !!i agree!! statements from my previous reply,as some early experimenting seems to indicate that what you said is not correct,and that the 3 battery system is more efficient at running the inverter,than one single battery.

Brad

MileHigh · « **Reply #959 on:** June 09, 2016, 06:22:50 AM »

Quote from: tinman on June 09, 2016, 05:39:37 AM

No MH

Resonance is a maintained maximum amplitude in one object that was induced by another vibrating object at the same natural frequency. You will note that in your example,that each shot !as you call it!,of vibration in the air intake chamber,is a direct result of the stroke of the piston that caused it.
In a four stroke engine,that is every fourth stroke,and in a 2 stroke engine,that is every second stroke. So on the inlet side,every intake stroke results in 1 vibration of the resonant chamber,and this is also true for the exhaust side as well.
The expansion chamber on the exhaust will resonate at a set RPM,and it's frequency of resonation will be exactly that of the exhaust stroke frequency of the engine.
The expansion chamber will not resonate without the piston driving the exhaust gases into it at the correct frequency.

I am assuming that you are only discussing the air intake/exhaust, but you are not discussing the combustion chamber resonance. Is that correct?

The simple fact of the matter is that the combustion chamber resonance is essentially the same thing as the striking of a tuning fork resonance. Since you refuse to accept that a struck tuning fork is resonating, then you are screwed because you have been saying the whole time that there is resonance in the combustion chamber of a cylinder.

What you say above is just a word salad in a desperate attempt to massage the meaning to fit into your definition of resonance. The air intake is a one-shot Helmholtz resonator that has a time constant associated with it. You have a fixed time constant where the engine designers find the best compromise timing to match with the variable cycle frequency of the engine.

Quote

The expansion chamber on the exhaust will resonate at a set RPM,and it's frequency of resonation will be exactly that of the exhaust stroke frequency of the engine.
The expansion chamber will not resonate without the piston driving the exhaust gases into it at the correct frequency.

Your statements are bull crap, see what I say above. The speed of the engine is variable so what you are saying does not make sense.

So that's two strikes Brad. If you are going to stick to your nonsense then you are just back in brain fry territory.

The best thing you could do is admit that you are wrong, and admit that there are two perfectly good definitions for resonance and not just one. Then all of your statements about the ICE will not be self-contradictory and they will make sense.

MileHigh

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: MH's ideal coil and voltage question (Read 490409 times)

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

tinman

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

tinman

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

minnie

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

minnie

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

tinman

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

tinman

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

tinman

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

tinman

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question