Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: MH's ideal coil and voltage question  (Read 477581 times)

Magneticitist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #210 on: May 11, 2016, 05:36:35 PM »
Because the current produced by the inductor is equal and opposite to that being provided by the ideal voltage source,and so no current flows,but it dose rise to an infinite amount.



I have asked this question before--what happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object?.


Brad


right, in that scenario it could be said there was never any current at all. infinite is the same thing as none at all in practice.

however, if we were to assume this infinitely rising current without any curvature continues to infinity, that in itself is a current change, therefore how can it be function as an ideal coil? In the very nature of how its operation is described it seems as if it should be infinitely resting with 0 current flow or infinite current flow.. which as I say is the same thing so we might as well just say none at all.

allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #211 on: May 11, 2016, 05:48:08 PM »
@Magneticitist
Quote
I don't see why we should have to take it further than "perfectly and absolutely resists current change".  This automatically means no EMF or counter EMF doesn't it?


An Electro-Motive Force relates to electric fields and a Magneto-Motive Force relates to the Magnetic fields. The Electric field is the cause or the source of the force which initially acts on the charges causing them to move... a current. If a charge tries to move it instantly produces a magnetic field which opposes it's motion which we call a Cemf. We call it a Cemf because the conductor contains billions of (+) and (-) charges and the moment one tries to move the rest oppose it because they are linked by electric fields.


So yes the Emf is present as an electric field of force... before... anything moves such as a current. The Emf is the cause of the current not vice versa.


@Picowatt
Quote
This would more so describe an ideal inductor that also has an infinite amount of inductance.  As such, when connected across a voltage source, no current would ever flow as the time constant would also be infinite.  An ideal inductor with infinite inductance would appear to be a continuous open circuit when connected in parallel with a voltage source.


First we should ask what is inductance?, Inductance: the property of an electrical conductor by which a change in current through it induces an electromotive force in both the conductor itself and in any nearby conductors. Inductance is not something but a property of something which is actually self-inductance which relates to a Cemf. So when we say Inductance what we really mean is self-inductance or the generation of a Cemf which opposes the source Emf.


In this case we are speaking of an Ideal Inductor, a perfect inductor with no losses of any kind hence the term "ideal". Now if a charge tries to move it must instantaneously invoke an equal and opposite Cemf because we have defined action and reaction occurring under ideal conditions, no losses. Thus any inductance (self-inductance) of any kind in an ideal inductor qualifies as infinite (however not an infinitely large field) because the term inductance relates solely to the Cemf which must oppose the source Emf. An ideal closed loop superconductor produces a continuous current at zero voltage and an ideal closed loop super-inductor should produce a continuous electric field opposition or Emf/Cemf at zero current. Can you see the symmetry here?.


I know this seems difficult to understand because this leads to questions which many find deeply disturbing. What is an Electric Field, what is a Magnetic Field fundamentally?. You see it's like trying to describe a bike without knowing what a wheel is. This is why everyone tends to throw about terminology never knowing what the terms actually mean or what they are supposed to describe in reality.


AC

Magneticitist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #212 on: May 11, 2016, 06:16:47 PM »
@Magneticitist

An Electro-Motive Force relates to electric fields and a Magneto-Motive Force relates to the Magnetic fields. The Electric field is the cause or the source of the force which initially acts on the charges causing them to move... a current. If a charge tries to move it instantly produces a magnetic field which opposes it's motion which we call a Cemf. We call it a Cemf because the conductor contains billions of (+) and (-) charges and the moment one tries to move the rest oppose it because they are linked by electric fields.


So yes the Emf is present as an electric field of force... before... anything moves such as a current. The Emf is the cause of the current not vice versa.


@Picowatt

First we should ask what is inductance?, Inductance: the property of an electrical conductor by which a change in current through it induces an electromotive force in both the conductor itself and in any nearby conductors. Inductance is not something but a property of something which is actually self-inductance which relates to a Cemf. So when we say Inductance what we really mean is self-inductance or the generation of a Cemf which opposes the source Emf.


In this case we are speaking of an Ideal Inductor, a perfect inductor with no losses of any kind hence the term "ideal". Now if a charge tries to move it must instantaneously invoke an equal and opposite Cemf because we have defined action and reaction occurring under ideal conditions, no losses. Thus any inductance (self-inductance) of any kind in an ideal inductor qualifies as infinite (however not an infinitely large field) because the term inductance relates solely to the Cemf which must oppose the source Emf. An ideal closed loop superconductor produces a continuous current at zero voltage and an ideal closed loop super-inductor should produce a continuous electric field opposition or Emf/Cemf at zero current. Can you see the symmetry here?.


I know this seems difficult to understand because this leads to questions which many find deeply disturbing. What is an Electric Field, what is a Magnetic Field fundamentally?. You see it's like trying to describe a bike without knowing what a wheel is. This is why everyone tends to throw about terminology never knowing what the terms actually mean or what they are supposed to describe in reality.


AC

thanks for the explanation.. but I'm not in disagreement that EMF is the cause of the current. I'm saying I don't see how there would be any current, EMF, CEMF, or any kind of interaction I would consider a Lenz Law interaction that would require more current to overpower an equal opposition.
That would be the scenario I see played out were current actually flowing into this inductor with infinite rise time and no curvature.

but I personally can't get past the sheer logical aspect of the argument. I don't see the need to have to get into the complex details of charges and opposing forces when the ideal coil is said to no dissipate energy and perfectly resist change in current. I don't see how that doesn't imply no current at all, unless we are approaching this imaginary scenario adding the parameter that this ideal inductor is already partially charged and just accept that as imaginary scientific parameters.

verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #213 on: May 11, 2016, 07:00:20 PM »
There's a lot about inductors and it's very basic and even I've been able  to inch forward, albeit very slowly.
Did you discover yet, that inductance is the amount of magnetic flux that is generated by a given electric current ?
In other words, Henry = Weber / Ampere.

picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #214 on: May 11, 2016, 07:15:16 PM »
Thanks for joining PW.
I have to say that i dont agree with the ideal inductor needing to have an infinite inductance value.

An ideal inductor does not have to have an infinite inductance.

What I said was your description of an inductor whose EMF and CEMF are in perfect balance would be descriptive of an inductor with infinite inductance.  An inductor with infinite inductance, when connected across a V source, would forever appear as an open circuit.

Quote
It is hard for some to understand what !ideal! mean's,but think about it long enough,and you begin to put all the pieces together.


A straight length of ideal conductor, such as a straight wire with no resistance or capacitance, would be an ideal inductor.  Just like its less ideal real world counterpart, a finite amount of time is required for current to flow thru the wire because of the wire's inductance.

Wrapping that same straight length of ideal (or normal) wire into a helix increases the coupling between sections (turns) of the wire and increases its inductance.

I do not understand why you believe that an ideal inductor would cause an instantaneous and infinite amount of current to flow when connected across a voltage source.  As I said, that would be more descriptive of an ideal capacitance.

Gotta' go...

PW

verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #215 on: May 11, 2016, 07:20:19 PM »
Because the current produced by the inductor is equal and opposite to that being provided by the ideal voltage source, and so no current flows, but it dose rise to an infinite amount.
It is true only for an ideal inductor that has an infinite inductance.
In an ideal inductor having a finite inductance, in series with an ideal voltage source, the current will be able to flow and it will increase linearly in time without a limit.

Anyway, that statement above is so awkwardly worded.
First you write about two currents flowing and at the end you write about currents not flowing - that sounds contradictory.

I think you wanted to write about two currents, that would flow if they were not opposing each other.
Specifically, one current, that would flow due to the nature of a shorted voltage source and a second current, that would flow in a shorted ideal inductor (shorted by the voltage source). 
That's all, that I was able to decode, so far.



verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #216 on: May 11, 2016, 07:22:46 PM »
An ideal inductor does not have to have an infinite inductance.
True. An infinite ideal inductor is a special case of an ideal inductor.

What I said was your description of an inductor whose EMF and CEMF are in perfect balance would be descriptive of an inductor with infinite inductance.  An inductor with infinite inductance, when connected across a V source, would forever appear as an open circuit.
I agree and I think Tinman was stating the same thing but in terms of opposing hypothetical currents instead of opposing EMFs.

Magneticitist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #217 on: May 11, 2016, 08:09:02 PM »
until some form of 'distance' or 'length' is brought into the equation, which has a direct relation with resistance in the real world (I think?) isn't 'time' out of the window altogether because without anything to slow electron drift velocity (pardon if that makes no sense I just read some stuff and thought I made some sense of it) wouldn't the current technically travel at light speed? what about collisions? would that be meeting a resistance? if we have nothing with which to truly factor a Tau
into the equation then why can't 'current infinitely rising' be synonymous with 'no current flow at all'.

the real problem here is nobody want's to come out and say Ohm's law needs to be thrown out
of the window in this situation isn't it? and we are supposed to be trained to rely on Ohms Law.
Brad was trying to show extremely high amps calculated at extremely low resistance as a metaphor for approaching "infinite" using Ohms Law. But as we have been discussing, and maybe do not all agree on it, but infinite=0.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #218 on: May 11, 2016, 08:18:02 PM »
Ohm's Law applies to resistors, it does not apply to inductors or capacitors.  I am keeping it simple and with that in mind forget about Ohm's Law, we are discussing an inductor.

So you are correct, for this discussion we can throw out Ohm's Law.

minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #219 on: May 11, 2016, 09:07:53 PM »



   The inductor is impeding current flow but when I look up impedance it
  refers to ac circuits and reactance doesn't seem to fit the bill either.
  It's all good fun and the whole thing proves that not many of us know
  that much!
      You've got to hand it to the Henrys and Faradays and Maxwells for
  figuring it out so well in the first place.
          John.

Magneticitist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #220 on: May 11, 2016, 09:37:19 PM »
Ohm's Law applies to resistors, it does not apply to inductors or capacitors.  I am keeping it simple and with that in mind forget about Ohm's Law, we are discussing an inductor.

So you are correct, for this discussion we can throw out Ohm's Law.

I believe the twin brother to the issue of Ohms law being a factor or not, is the possibility
that an absolute 0 resistance removes the characteristics of an inductor/capacitor/conductor/resistor altogether so they might as well all be considered ideal conductors at 0 resistance. Does that sound like insane mumbo jumbo cause by freaking golly it makes a degree of sense to me.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #221 on: May 11, 2016, 09:47:33 PM »
It's mostly mumbo jumbo talk.

But here is the clue:  Even if "the resistance is zero," in other words there is no resistance in the circuit, it does not necessarily mean that something isn't impeding the current flow.

Magneticitist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #222 on: May 11, 2016, 09:59:34 PM »
It's mostly mumbo jumbo talk.

But here is the clue:  Even if "the resistance is zero," in other words there is no resistance in the circuit, it does not necessarily mean that something isn't impeding the current flow.

 :D :D :D

verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #223 on: May 11, 2016, 10:36:41 PM »
...an absolute 0 resistance removes the characteristics of an inductor/capacitor/conductor/resistor altogether so they might as well all be considered ideal conductors at 0 resistance.
"Absolute 0 resistance" removes the characteristic of resistance but it does not remove "inductive reactance" of inductors nor "capacitive reactance" of capacitors (despite all three being measured in Ohms).
Impedance = Resistance + Reactance.

Magneticitist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question
« Reply #224 on: May 11, 2016, 11:30:13 PM »
"Absolute 0 resistance" removes the characteristic of resistance but it does not remove "inductive reactance" of inductors nor "capacitive reactance" of capacitors (despite all three being measured in Ohms).
Impedance = Resistance + Reactance.

But can we say for sure that our understanding of those 2 forms of reactance is not derived from
some existing level of resistance? were we in some alternate universe where we never
even had a variable to call R in the first place, can we say all our circuit theory would be exactly
the same using the same math?  and sheesh it's like, definitely ultra confusing, when we have different variables measures in the same unit but they are somehow working entirely independent
from that unit. not trying to be difficult it just this type of thought pattern seems to be expected
when it's almost inherent in the forum name.