Author Topic: MH's ideal coil and voltage question (Read 485111 times)

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #480 on:** May 17, 2016, 03:07:32 AM »

So, just to be clear here...

I can have an ideal voltage source that puts out 4 volts @ 1 amp but then, after 2 seconds, puts out 10 volts at .5 amps
and later, after 20 seconds puts out 2,000 volts @ 500 amps?

Do we need ideal circuit breakers that do not blow when working with this ideal voltage source?

Honestly, this just completely blows my mind that you (meaning anyone) can just make up some hypothetical device and then assign it ANY operational parameters that you want and then, do an "experiment" with this made up device and then claim that something real was learned?

This sounds like the same crap that Mythbusters might use. I just listened to an audio book that mentioned the Mythbuster's show where they "proved" that Archimedes did not have a death ray. They tried it, it did not work so this was PROOF!

Well, some boys over at MIT did a replication and....boom! It worked as it was supposed to. Those idiots at Mythbusters were ALWAYS changing parameters and then claiming devices to be "impossible". So, they could not find a mirror large enough so, they substituted a bar of soap instead...didn't work...see? Impossible! (Of course I exaggerate here a bit, but not too much)

I apologize...I just can not get my head around making crap up to fit your theory, and when your theory works claiming a victory.

I must be getting old.

Bill

MileHigh · « **Reply #481 on:** May 17, 2016, 03:12:17 AM »

Quote from: verpies on May 16, 2016, 08:57:37 PM

I don't know what an "ideal voltage" is and I think that MH does not know either.
Perhaps you had an "ideal voltage source" in mind.

If "yes, then consider these questions:
Does an "ideal voltage source" need to output a constant voltage all the time?
Can a voltage source still be ideal if it outputs an alternating voltage ?

I think that I can solve the mystery for this one. It took me a few hours to get it.

Verpies is splitting hairs on semantics. What does "ideal voltage" mean vs. "ideal voltage source?" i.e.; How do you define an "ideal beauty?" Is there an "ideal voltage?"

So Verpies was not suggesting that I did not know what an ideal voltage source is, even though I myself thought the same at first. His posting is driven by looking at Wattsup's prose.

Does an "ideal voltage source" need to output a constant voltage all the time?
Can a voltage source still be ideal if it outputs an alternating voltage ?

NO and YES. But how many ideal voltage sources can dance on the head of a pin?

Coles Notes on this subject will be available in six weeks. I looked them up and if you are not Canadian you may have to look them up too. The Americanized version is now called CliffsNotes.

MileHigh · « **Reply #482 on:** May 17, 2016, 03:31:08 AM »

Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 17, 2016, 03:07:32 AM

Honestly, this just completely blows my mind that you (meaning anyone) can just make up some hypothetical device and then assign it ANY operational parameters that you want and then, do an "experiment" with this made up device and then claim that something real was learned?

But how did they get to the moon? Answer: Lunar orbit rendezvous.

There is a great documentary, I think it's a Nova. I did a quick check but I don't think I saw it on YouTube. It's all about how the NASA scientists in the late 1950s and early 1960s were struggling to design a system that would get men to the moon and back. Typically, the solutions relied on massive rockets that would go to the moon, land, and then blast off and then go back to Earth for a standard reentry. The launch system to do that had to be humongous, say five times the size of a Saturn V rocket.

There was a lower-level scientist that had the idea for lunar orbit rendezvous. He could not get anybody's attention and was ignored for a few years, nobody took his ideas seriously. Out of frustration he sent off a letter and bypassed three levels of management to make his case and get the attention his idea deserved. That's how they ended up choosing the system for getting to the moon.

What's the point? The point is the scientist conceived of the lunar orbit rendezvous plan all by himself, in his own head. He did an entire successful moon mission in his head based on hardware and software that didn't even exist. Then he took out his napkin and started doing some basic number crunching to confirm that what he had conceptualized all by himself was doable. It's a great story about a true unsung hero.

What is the escape velocity for Earth? You can figure that out on a blackboard by writing down a few equations. You don't have to build a rocket and find out by trial and error.

MileHigh

verpies · « **Reply #483 on:** May 17, 2016, 03:32:03 AM »

Quote from: poynt99 on May 17, 2016, 02:52:15 AM

C'mon yourself. Your question about whether MH knows what an ideal voltage source is, is absolute bunk.

I never posed a question whether MH knows "what an ideal voltage source is".

Quote from: poynt99 on May 17, 2016, 02:52:15 AM

After that it seemed you were the one that was lost.

Just go back and read exactly what I wrote. Read every word, understand it and come back to me with an apology.

I still don't think that MH knows what an "ideal voltage" is. Do you?

MileHigh · « **Reply #484 on:** May 17, 2016, 03:34:30 AM »

Quote from: verpies on May 17, 2016, 03:32:03 AM

I never posed a question whether MH knows "what an ideal voltage source is".
Just go back and read exactly what I wrote. Read every word, understand it and come back to me with an apology.

I still don't think that MH knows what an "ideal voltage" is. Do you?

I certainly don't. But I do know why Mona Lisa is smiling.

wattsup · « **Reply #485 on:** May 17, 2016, 03:41:05 AM »

@MH

You know what. Your only fall back is to attack me with something that is totally irrelevant to the discussion. You want to discuss constructs then open a new thread and i will be there in my corner of the boxing ring. No problem. If you want we can play knowledge court where you will defend EE and I will accuse it of fraud. That would make a good weekly. Hmmmmm

You had a chance to teach something and you failed. Not me. For me a teacher is like a brain farmer. The farmer knows exactly how to treat the crop, feed it at proper intervals, make sure its thirst is quenched and then if the crop is harvested, he gets paid. Teachers should follow the same modus. No crop no pay. You failed not me. The onus is always on the teacher to read the possible misunderstandings and quench them before they grow into weeds. You failed because you were to busy with your big mouth and fast action posts, not really thinking things through, never judging where and how to properly help the crop grow. You failed not me.

You presented a problem, gave it some parameters and "assumed" that your students will not take it literally. That is your fault and not ours. So you know what. You learned something today. You learned that you can be one hell of a jackass always relying on your hing legs to protect yourself should things go bad. So defer the real question on who's responsibility it is to make sure a question is asked in its proper context. Surely not mine. I only found the fault. I only had to read endless pages of crap to then realize the fault, point it out so you can then chastise me instead of congratulating me for seeing it. Man, just great. So no need to thank me man. Maybe excuse yourself to @tinman for stringing him along while you whipped him good.

I even tried to make your bumble up work but no, not even one comment on that. Not even a "nice try wattsup, interesting way of analyzing the problem". Just your usual self-centered boy worrying about how the world will see him. Tell me what take more guts, pointing out the problem or following the pack. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. One stupid little question that could have been answered in one page and none of you saw the flaw. Oh, but I did, didn't I and I am the sureal. hahaha

I'll put my logic against anything you want to throw at me boy. You muster up any EE concept you wish, throw it at me and I will cut it down to flea grass. That's because now that I know how and why electricity conveys in our wires and coils, I know which questions to ask you that will prove it to yourself. That's what I am now good at. And actually I have you to that thank for being the typical pompous ass scientist that needs no more outlook on nature then a worm needs more earth. I asked you guys a question a few pages back and no answer, not even a remark because I now know the EE modus. Ignore whatever can eat away at your present comfort zone. Funny thing is it is not out-of-the-box. It is just normal logic taking its logical course like water eventually taming the stone.

wattsup

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #486 on:** May 17, 2016, 04:01:49 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2016, 03:31:08 AM

But how did they get to the moon? Answer: Lunar orbit rendezvous.

There is a great documentary, I think it's a Nova. I did a quick check but I don't think I saw it on YouTube. It's all about how the NASA scientists in the late 1950s and early 1960s were struggling to design a system that would get men to the moon and back. Typically, the solutions relied on massive rockets that would go to the moon, land, and then blast off and then go back to Earth for a standard reentry. The launch system to do that had to be humongous, say five times the size of a Saturn V rocket.

There was a lower-level scientist that had the idea for lunar orbit rendezvous. He could not get anybody's attention and was ignored for a few years, nobody took his ideas seriously. Out of frustration he sent off a letter and bypassed three levels of management to make his case and get the attention his idea deserved. That's how they ended up choosing the system for getting to the moon.

What's the point? The point is the scientist conceived of the lunar orbit rendezvous plan all by himself, in his own head. He did an entire successful moon mission in his head based on hardware and software that didn't even exist. Then he took out his napkin and started doing some basic number crunching to confirm that what he had conceptualized all by himself was doable. It's a great story about a true unsung hero.

What is the escape velocity for Earth? You can figure that out on a blackboard by writing down a few equations. You don't have to build a rocket and find out by trial and error.

MileHigh

I believe you are speaking of Max Fagat...he is the guy that favored not only lunar orbit rendezvous, but came up with the ridiculous idea of throwing away the used portions of the spacecraft. Main booster tanks empty? Throw it away. 2nd stage burned out? Throw it away. Landed on the moon with the lander? Throw away the base. Back in the command module? throw away the lander...and etc., etc. He was a true genius.

Von Braun favored earth orbit rendezvous. He said that if we did not do that, the moon would be the last place we went...and he was right.

But, MH, I am not talking about criticizing brainstorming or creative thinking and analysis here. What if old Max used an ideal booster in his thinking? One that required no fuel and weighed nothing? How far would his thought experiments have gone then? Reality must overrule in any thought experiment with any components of any kind in my opinion. What if Max considered a rocket that would accelerate to 1.5 lightspeed? He would have then designed a spacecraft needing only 3 minutes of oxygen for the crew to get to the moon. Yes, he could have pictured a booster doing this but what good would it do?

I know were are on different wavelengths here and I mean no animosity by it. I have said this before, and I will say it again...you, and the other trained EE guys here have forgotten more about electronics than I will ever learn. But, this is not my field, but a hobby I have picked up in order to learn. I appreciate everyone's input...I just am missing something here with the made up "ideal" component business.

Bill

poynt99 · « **Reply #487 on:** May 17, 2016, 04:14:51 AM »

Quote from: verpies on May 17, 2016, 03:32:03 AM

I never posed a question whether MH knows "what an ideal voltage source is".
Just go back and read exactly what I wrote. Read every word, understand it and come back to me with an apology.

I still don't think that MH knows what an "ideal voltage" is. Do you?

I read every word. How was that post helpful to anyone?

I encourage you to avoid the so-called rhetorical questions, and instead try to help Brad understand why his thinking on this affair is a little off the tracks.

poynt99 · « **Reply #488 on:** May 17, 2016, 04:26:15 AM »

Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 17, 2016, 03:07:32 AM

So, just to be clear here...

I can have an ideal voltage source that puts out 4 volts @ 1 amp but then, after 2 seconds, puts out 10 volts at .5 amps
and later, after 20 seconds puts out 2,000 volts @ 500 amps?

You almost got it Bill.

The problem with your guess is that the currents probably aren't going to track that way. The assumption is and always has been that the ideal voltage source is always connected to the same load, regardless of what it is.

Did you see my post on arbitrary wave form generators? Did you see my post of the wave form MH prescribed for the experiment? I don't get what is so difficult to understand about this. Think of it as a special function generator that has zero output impedance and can be programmed to produce any imaginable wave form. Make sense? These aren't imaginary, at least the wave form generator part. The "ideal" part is of course not achievable, but we can get so close that it makes not a bit of difference in the final analysis. This is a hurdle that Brad also seems to be having trouble getting over.

Now I'm beginning to feel like I'm in an episode of the Twilight Zone

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #489 on:** May 17, 2016, 04:38:46 AM »

Quote from: poynt99 on May 17, 2016, 04:26:15 AM

You almost got it Bill.

The problem with your guess is that the currents probably aren't going to track that way. The assumption is and always has been that the ideal voltage source is always connected to the same load, regardless of what it is.

Did you see my post on arbitrary wave form generators? Did you see my post of the wave form MH prescribed for the experiment? I don't get what is so difficult to understand about this. Think of it as a special function generator that has zero output impedance and can be programmed to produce any imaginable wave form. Make sense? These aren't imaginary, at least the wave form generator part. The "ideal" part is of course not achievable, but we can get so close that it makes not a bit of difference in the final analysis. This is a hurdle that Brad also seems to be having trouble getting over.

Now I'm beginning to feel like I'm in an episode of the Twilight Zone

Thanks Darren.

So, is it OK to have more than one "ideal" component in an exercise? Or is it? Or, is it more to have an imaginary component (ideal) replace something you already know in the circuit and are wanting to find out about something else in the circuit? Is this it? Like solving for X when you already know Y?

Picture a place and time when you go to a roadside dinner at 3:00 a.m. and all of the waitresses have one large eye in the center of their head. You have entered...the Twilight Zone.

Bill

MileHigh · « **Reply #490 on:** May 17, 2016, 04:39:59 AM »

Quote from: wattsup on May 17, 2016, 03:41:05 AM

@MH

You know what. Your only fall back is to attack me with something that is totally irrelevant to the discussion. You want to discuss constructs then open a new thread and i will be there in my corner of the boxing ring. No problem. If you want we can play knowledge court where you will defend EE and I will accuse it of fraud. That would make a good weekly. Hmmmmm

wattsup

I am not attacking you. In fact the "you" in my posting refers to all those that "don't believe" that an ideal voltage source can vary with respect to time. Like it or not, many people would find just arguing the issue to be strange. It's kind of a mom and apple pie issue and you are of the group saying that you are not allowed to put ice cream on your apple pie. It just makes no sense.

I am not going to address all of the drama in your posting about me nor all of the drama you raise about the question itself. There is no need for all of this, truly. Brad and others are supposed to be trying to answer a simple question and understand all of concepts and the related issues. As far as I am concerned this whole thing should have happened six years ago.

You made reference to a question of yours that was ignored. I don't see a question in post #454. That posting is really hard to digest, BTW. I went back a few more pages and did not see anything so I suppose you are taking about your post #454. If you can tell me what the question is I will try to answer it.

MileHigh

poynt99 · « **Reply #491 on:** May 17, 2016, 04:52:21 AM »

Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 17, 2016, 04:38:46 AM

Thanks Darren.

So, is it OK to have more than one "ideal" component in an exercise? Or is it? Or, is it more to have an imaginary component (ideal) replace something you already know in the circuit and are wanting to find out about something else in the circuit? Is this it? Like solving for X when you already know Y?

It is ok to have more than one ideal component in a circuit, yes.

In the sim we can get real close to ideal components (voltage sources are), in real life that is more of a challenge. MH keeps mentioning big audio power amplifiers, well that is to get the output impedance down. Use lots of negative feedback and big hefty transistor outputs, and you will have a nice low Z buffer for your arbitrary wave form generator (assuming it is DC coupled). The inductor is a far greater challenge, but still not insurmountable to get reasonably close, i.e. L/R=50.

Quote

Picture a place and time when you go to a roadside dinner at 3:00 a.m. and all of the waitresses have one large eye in the center of their head. You have entered...the Twilight Zone.

Bill

wattsup · « **Reply #492 on:** May 17, 2016, 05:20:26 AM »

@MH

Maybe you need to understand how an OUer sees the question or anyone else that reads a question and responds to it literally. So just to clarify this without any chance of further misunderstandings, you need to clarify this yourself and I am spelling it out clearly for you to make it easy.

Method #1
1) the voltage stays at 4 volts for 3 seconds
2) then is falls on its own to 0 volts for 2 seconds
3) then it falls on its own to -3 volts for 2 seconds
4) then is rises on its own to 0.5 volts for 7 seconds
5) then it falls on its own to 0 seconds for infinity.

All these events are occurring in succession on their own with only that first 4V setting on a 5H inductor resulting from the actions occurring in the inductor itself. For us, that's how your question was asked and never was there any mention of time-variable anything.

Now with your sudden inclusion of those two words that I knew in advance would generate a hurricane you are saying this.

Method #2
1) the voltage is set manually or programmed to automatically go to 4 volts for 3 seconds
2) the voltage is set manually or programmed to automatically go to 0 volts for 2 seconds
3) the voltage is set manually or programmed to automatically go to -3 volts for 2 seconds
4) the voltage is set manually or programmed to automatically go to 0.5 volts for 7 seconds
5) the voltage is set manually or programmed to automatically go to 0 seconds for infinity.

Are you saying your question was as per Method #2, hence each is a separate event?

Or is there something different besides these two choices that you need to add.

wattsup

MileHigh · « **Reply #493 on:** May 17, 2016, 05:46:55 AM »

Wattsup:

Is there really any difference between the two ways of wording it and the way I worded it? I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people to know what a voltage source is, or what an ideal voltage source is.

How about we go back to TK's metaphor? You are turning a dial to change the voltage on an ideal power supply. You can turn the dial very fast and the resultant voltage output looks like the plot that Poynt posted. The voltage source is active, it's driving the show.

Quote

All these events are occurring in succession on their own with only that first 4V setting on a 5H inductor resulting from the actions occurring in the inductor itself.

In my example, the inductor simply is a slave to the actions of the voltage source. That's it, the inductor has no say whatsoever in what voltage exists across its two terminals.

Does this make sense now?

MileHigh

wattsup · « **Reply #494 on:** May 17, 2016, 06:07:47 AM »

@MH

No. I just need an answer.
I thought spelling it out clearly is better then reading between the lines.
I thrive on precision and not on suppositions. I investigate things until they become clear.

Method #1 or Method #2
And the difference is enormous. 200 pages enormous.
Now do you understand why all this crap has been going on.

I know now just by your sidetracking that your answer is Method #2 and it should not have been asked as it was. It should have been 6 different questions each starting at t0 for their set duration and each starting at their identified voltage setting and each produces one effect.

Instead you led the question to be understood as one voltage setting "transmuting" to the others on their own direct from that one first 4V input. So do you realize the problem. Or now maybe I should ask you to respond to Method #1 and see how you like it while I badger you ever step of the way, telling you, "no no it's a perfectly sound question that I can answer in a jiffy".

Our total argumentation was based on Method #1 and you cannot say they are the same. They are not.

wattsup

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: MH's ideal coil and voltage question (Read 485111 times)

Pirate88179

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

verpies

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

wattsup

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

Pirate88179

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

poynt99

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

poynt99

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

Pirate88179

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

poynt99

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

wattsup

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

wattsup

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question