Brad:

No surprise, you would not account for your double-standard and your outrageous behaviour.

One more time, you are not playing the thread, the thread is playing you.  All that you are doing is showing that you are incapable of understanding the secondary issues related to an ideal voltage source.  Your imagination is not capable of going there and fully understanding this abstraction, it's beyond your powers of conception.  Even though I made several attempts to explain this to you, it didn't register, it was like talking to a blank wall.  I can assure you that many people feel dismay in seeing this limitation that you have.  The only thing you can do is comical, and pretend that it is wrong.  You are exposing your severe limitations.

I made mistakes in the JT thread, but you easily made 10X the number of mistakes.  I just didn't parade them around the block 40 times them like you did.  I could spin circles around you on a bench.

I did not go after Poynt because I knew that he just temporarily tripped up.  I knew that he knew the true answer just like he knew that I knew the true answer.  There was no double-standard.

If you say that I suffer from memory loss, then you suffer way more memory loss.  What about all of those technical points that just pass right through you like you aren't even there?  Did you forget my multiple attempts to explain the secondary issues related to an ideal voltage source to you?

Yes, and it's a shame that your brain is so stuck and so limited.  Unfortunately, there is nothing to laugh about there.

The above is just shameless bluffing in an attempt to save face but all that "bluffing" does is make you look even worse.

MileHigh

The facts are MH,you cannot back up your theory with a working modle--this is a truth that your words cannot deviate from.
As far as the JT thread go's,saying that i made 10 times the mistakes you did,is just an outright lie,and the proof of that is in the thread.

Another truth is that i accurately  described an ideal voltage source long before you did-another fact that is on this thread. The fact that you think that energy is not stored in the ideal voltage source,is a clear indication that you  are not full bottles on the meaning of an ideal source. Poynt and verpies agree with my description,so perhaps take it up with them,but i will tell you now ,the energy returned by the coil dose not just disappear as you stated.

I made you an offer to put your smarts to the test,in way of a friendly pulse motor challenge,but as usual,you declined the offer. Perhaps a JT challenge?,surely  you could throw one of them togeter?,and back up your claimed knowledge there?.

Words are just that MH,and mean nothing until they are backed up with actions.


Brad

Brad:

I don't have to back up my theory with a working "modle," you are supposed to understand and appreciate this stuff in your head.  The simulations are often better than real life.  And I actually explained how to make a working model in quite a bit of detail unless you forgot that.

At the heart of every real coil you work with is an ideal inductor.  The resistance of the real coil is just window dressing draped over the ideal inductor.  And you have been playing with coils on the bench for six years without understanding how they actually work.  You are still stuck.

Go onto a real science forum and start a new thread with the title "After you strike a bell it is not resonating," and watch yourself get eaten alive.  You are still stuck there too.

A serious attempt was made to unstick you on these two important subjects and it failed and the reason is failed is mostly because you failed yourself.

Right now if I posted the nice graphic of the full solution that Poynt made and asked you to explain it in detail without using the formulas that you were given my assumption is that you would not be able to do that.  Likewise, I doubt that you would be able to explain why the second example I gave the answer for is correct.  So you did not get to the level that I was hoping for.  It's a bloody shame.  There are three more variations on the question that would also be very educational but it feels like it would be pointless since you are still stuck on the first one.  Could you answer Partzman's mini question with the voltage ramp?  I don't think you can.

I described an ideal voltage source about 40 years ago.  You are lost on the subtleties of an ideal voltage source and my sense is that Poynt was just being nice to you to avoid any hassle.

I am not going to be building anything, period.

MileHigh

Go foof Sea Monkey.  I am not claiming I am perfect, and what I said is valid.  Yes, getting into an argument with Brad can be very frustrating.  Why don't you try it sometimes?  After all, we all know that you are reasonably astute when it comes to electronics and you could have been raising objections to what Brad has been saying until you were blue in the face.  But, no surprise, you said nothing at all.  Backing me up technically would be unthinkable, right?  You just couldn't do that because I have openly discussed my opinion of your little pet "issues" and you don't like what I have to say.

I take no pleasure in fighting, that's a lie.  Brad took pleasure in attempting to do a farce of a technical setup on me where he fell flat on his face.  Why don't you go after him for that?  Why don't you go after Magluvin, because he takes pleasure in harassing me?  He did it recently and he also did for a full year non-stop and you had nothing to say about that.  Cat got your tongue?

You talk about losing marbles.  Tell us, when is the new projected date for The End of the World?  When are all the Dark Forces going to be revealed?  What are you going to do?  Do you have a remote cottage and three tons of spam in your cellar?

I am solid and not perfect and not nearly the hypocrite that you are.

Gadzooks!

Could this be the Pot calling the Kettle Black?

You are aware of the character trait which applies to the
Nom de Guerre who sanctimoniously accuses others of
the odd behaviors which he himself takes pleasure in?

Miles!  Are you losing your marbles?

H _ p _ c _ i _ y

Yes,that is MH.
The one thing that stands out most,is that he is here-on overunity.com
A forum dedicated to a subject his books do not allow for. He refutes every claim of any claimed OU device before he even takes the time to look and see if it has any merritt--the big''rubbish'' button is hit automatically.
One has to wonder why he is actually here-on a forum that researches something he dose not believe in.
It has become apparent that he strives on arguments,and he has found many here on this forum--and boy dose he have a tanty when he looses,and is proven wrong--all sorts of fowl language starts coming out then.

He will tell you straight up,that magnets can do no useful  work,but has no idea as to what a magnetic field even is. Thank god there is one around the earth,keeping those nasty radiations away from us--I'd  call that pretty useful.

Mh got quite the shock when i plotted his circuits current trace correctly-well as far as he is concerned. Guess he under estimated my skills again. But do you see how he comes after you-and keeps coming at you until you agree with him. Well he will be quite busy if he thinks i am going to say i agree with him ,just because he has an urge  to be correct,and have everyone agree with him--not going to happen.

Anyway-he is best ignored,and dont take his insults to heart SeaMonkey.
He's just like a bad headache,and will go away soon enough.

Brad

I bookmarked it a while ago

Unfortunately that posts refers to real coils (with series resistance) - not to ideal coils, where R=0  and  i(t)=t*V/L in which Tau does not appear at all.

Reading the other post reminded me of Franken Motor,, unlike the air core solenoid I used a soft iron core solenoid and allowed the core\coil to move through a virtual magnetic pole,

To do that motor well, the duty cycle of the energizing and recovery pulses has to be very low in order to keep the working pulse widths well below 1 Tau where the efficiency is high.  See the graph below:

Did you ever consider a force vs. displacement curve on a piece of a soft ferromagnetic material (not a magnet) attracted into an energized shorted air-core ideal inductor ?   ... and how that curve differs when the same is attracted by a permanent magnet?

Brad:

Yes, I used the term "formulas given to you" because in the beginning of this thread you were completely and utterly lost and the formulas had to be given to you.

So you are completely avoiding my challenge to you to show your knowledge and demonstrate that you understand the circuit and can explain it in your own words.  That says it all right there.  It means that you can't do it.

It's no surprise, look at a very recent quote from you from just three days ago:

The CEMF is no different to that induced by an electric motor,only it is ass about,where the CEMF will increase with motor speed,resulting in a drop in current draw,and with the coil,the CEMF will decrease over time,resulting in a higher current draw. So an increase in CEMF is seen as an impedance to the current flow,by way of reducing the potential voltage difference between the applied EMF,and the CEMF. In the case of the inductor,the CEMF reduces over time,meaning a larger potential difference between applied EMF and CEMF,resulting in a higher current flow value.

The CEMF does not reduce over time and there is no such thing as a difference between the applied EMF and the CEMF.  I posted that the EMF and the CEMF are always equal and you either missed it, forgot about it, or simply did not understand it, or you "choose to go your own way" and you make up things in your mind that you believe "fit."

So, most unfortunately, you have backed yourself into a corner and you are feigning that you understand what is taking place in the circuit when clearly you still don't understand and you still have a long way to go.  You started this thread with confidence and you were going to "show me."  I didn't even want to get into this discussion.  You simply can't be honest right now and that's a real shame.

If you study this thread carefully and do your own supplementary research then one day you will be able to explain how this simple circuit works.  Then you need to try to answer Partzman's mini question.  Then you need to try to explain how the second already answered question is correct. 

Then, using the identical format for the question, replace the ideal 5 Henry inductor with an ideal 5 Farad capacitor and try to answer the same question again and fully explain it.

Then, take the original question and replace the ideal voltage source with an ideal current source and answer two more questions, one question where there is an ideal 5 Henry coil, and another where there is an ideal 5 Farad capacitor.   Substitute when the voltage is four volts for a current of four amps, etc.

So, you take my first question, and you add the three questions described above, and you have a total of four questions that teach basic concepts related to an ideal voltage source, an ideal current source, an ideal inductor, and an ideal capacitor.  Any person that plays with electronics and wants to be serious must be able to answer those four questions and fully understand all of the nuances associated with those questions.  It is an absolute must.

If you can answer those four questions with a full understanding of what is going on and demonstrate complete competence with respect to these very basic electronics concepts, then you will have advanced your knowledge by a big jump.  It's all up to you.

MileHigh

 author=MileHigh link=topic=16589.msg485082#msg485082 date=1464097150]



MileHigh

Yes, I used the term "formulas given to you" because in the beginning of this thread you were completely and utterly lost and the formulas had to be given to you.

Ah,so you must have taught me well MH. I am following your lead,where one makes bold rejections against those who know better--like !there is no resonance or resonant systems what so ever in or around an ICE. The proof had to be given to you,as you were completely and utterly lost.
If the shoe fit's MH

So you are completely avoiding my challenge to you to show your knowledge and demonstrate that you understand the circuit and can explain it in your own words.  That says it all right there.  It means that you can't do it.

As you are avoiding mine
But the truth is MH,worst case scenario,i could spend 20 minutes on the net,and find the answers you require,where as you could not build a simple pulse motor or JT,because your attitude will not allow it.

So, most unfortunately, you have backed yourself into a corner and you are feigning that you understand what is taking place in the circuit when clearly you still don't understand and you still have a long way to go.  You started this thread with confidence and you were going to "show me." I didn't even want to get into this discussion.  You simply can't be honest right now and that's a real shame.

Oh please MH-->you were the very first to comment on the thread.
You were itching for this to happen.Taking into account the difference in times around the world,it only took you 2 hours,18 minutes to make your first comment--the first reply on the thread.

If you study this thread carefully and do your own supplementary research then one day you will be able to explain how this simple circuit works.  Then you need to try to answer Partzman's mini question.  Then you need to try to explain how the second already answered question is correct.

Sure,right after you take me up on my challenge.
Ever notice that it is always everyone else that answers the questions,while you avoid everything.
All those here have to do everything for you. Others have to build and test,others have to put up sim scope shot's,others have to do all the research,while you do nothing but talk.

Then, using the identical format for the question, replace the ideal 5 Henry inductor with an ideal 5 Farad capacitor and try to answer the same question again and fully explain it.

Oh,so now we have an ideal voltage source being fed from an ideal voltage source.
Imagine that connection,and ideal voltage source hooked across an ideal capacitor--that has no internal series resistance
Would this ideal capacitor,being an ideal voltage source,store the energy that is provided by the ideal voltage source that has no stored energy?
Maybe it just disappears MH? lol.

Maybe it is time for you to answer a question

Then, take the original question and replace the ideal voltage source with an ideal current source and answer two more questions, one question where there is an ideal 5 Henry coil, and another where there is an ideal 5 Farad capacitor.   Substitute when the voltage is four volts for a current of four amps, etc.
So, you take my first question, and you add the three questions described above, and you have a total of four questions that teach basic concepts related to an ideal voltage source, an ideal current source, an ideal inductor, and an ideal capacitor.  Any person that plays with electronics and wants to be serious must be able to answer those four questions and fully understand all of the nuances associated with those questions.  It is an absolute must.

Anyone that plays with electronics will know there is no such thing as an ideal voltage source,or an ideal capacitor.

If you can answer those four questions with a full understanding of what is going on and demonstrate complete competence with respect to these very basic electronics concepts, then you will have advanced your knowledge by a big jump.  It's all up to you.

If you can build an actual device,say a pulse motor,or JT,that is more efficient at converting electrical energy into wanted energies than what i can,then you will know that your !!vast!! knowledge in electronics has some bases behind it. If not,then your word's of wisdom are just that--word's.


Brad

much like you saying that using a J/FET in a low voltage JT makes no sense

Brad

Well, isn't that special Brad.  I explained to you that the last time I thought about JFETs I was sitting in a class 35 years ago.  I did not Google a JFET to check my statement before I posted, I was hedging my bets and I lost.  Instead of accepting my explanation and moving on, here you are like some pimp, still pushing this nonsense.

You want to see some real incoherent and idiotic nonsense from someone that probably plays with electronics a few times a week and he does this right now in May 2016, and not in the early 1980s?

Try this:

My answer to this question is--you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor.
when the ideal voltage is placed across the ideal inductor,the current would rise instantly to a value of infinity.
My skills are fine thank you MH.
So i stand by my answer-->you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor.
If you did(theoretically),the current would rise instantly to an infinite value.
This results in an instant current rise to an infinite value.
I dont think MH gave much thought to his question,or the outcome of installing the !ideal! parts to this !so called! simple circuit.
If the time constant is infinite for maximum current through the ideal inductor,then that means that no current flows through the inductor--ever
The ideal inductor has no resistance,and so now our ideal voltage is placed across a dead short,and that means an infinite amount of current will flow instantly
I can claim my answer to be correct,and no one can disprove it,as the ideal inductor and ideal voltage source do not exist.
So an ideal inductor dose not exist for that very reason,and there for your question cannot be answered
As you ,nor anyone else has proven that i have made a mistake,then my answer stands-you cannot connect an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor.
No MH. You are making claims you cannot back up,as you do not have access to an ideal inductor.
These two values are far from your 99.99% close enough is near enough coil,as it is not even close.
Like i said,you should have thought about your question a little better.
No-the difference is !infinite!--you just dont get this,do you ?.
This is the very reason that MHs question cannot be answered,as i have stated before.
If R = 0,which id dose,as the inductor is ideal,then no current flows through the ideal inductor.
This means that it will also take an infinite amount of time before current start to flow
But there is also no resistance in an ideal coil,and so the ideal voltage is now across a dead short.
So,the current either rises instantly,or the current rise time is infinite,which means there is no current flowing through the ideal coil.
If we are going to be accurate and true to our selves in this discussion,then i think you are going to find that there is an infinite gap between real and ideal.
Your question cannot be answered,as it is a contradiction to it self.
At this point in time,i am sticking to my answers given-both the real world answer-->you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor,and also my theoretical answer,being the current would rise instantly,to an infinite value.
And so my answer of an instant current rise of an infinite value.
Unfortunately partzman,it is no where near an ideal inductors outcome,as an ideal inductor never has any current passing through it.
My other answer is because there is no resistance with an ideal inductor,and there for it is a dead short.
My real world answer is(and has been throughout this thread)that you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor,as an ideal inductor dose not -and never will exist.
If the voltage increases,then it is not an ideal voltage,as an ideal voltage dose not change in time.
The rest of us are hoping that MH learns that when you add ideals into questions,it changes everything drastically,and the situation in no way represents real worl outcomes.
It has already been established that from T=0 to T=13 seconds,nothing will happen,as current will not flow through an ideal inductor.
I am no longer interested in proving you wrong
The ramifications of my theories being correct,change everything as far as what is believed to be an ideal inductor.
So unless you know some sort of math that allows a division of 5/0,and provides a value we can work with,then i will stick with my claim.
Regardless of whether it is L/0 or R/0,Tau is always infinite,meaning that the current will not rise in the case of an ideal inductor.
It is like my answer says it is--you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor,as an ideal inductor dose not exist.
I have also shown that regardless of how little the resistance value may be,it will lead to a value that is infinitely different to that of an ideal inductor that has no R value.
The fact that you have dismissed the L/R time constant to answer your original question is troubling.
This method (Tau=L/R) is the correct method to use in regards to your question.
The only reason you do not wish to use this method of Tau=L/R,is because that then puts you in a position of being incorrect.
I am standing firm on my answers,and i hope Poynt(and others) takes the time to have another look at this,and not just accept your example as a reality.
Unfortunately MH is just not getting it,and he is trying to use a math function that dose not account for the voltage and inductor on being ideal.
As i said,and have all along--you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor,because as you see,you are left with a paradox.
If an ideal voltage is placed across an ideal inductor(that has no resistance to control the flow of current),then the current would take an infinite amount of time to reach it's peak level.
So that is the paradox,but it is also correct,and once again backs up all my answers i have given in regards to the original question.
This all sounds crazy i know,and hence the reason i included the word conundrum and/or paradox with my answers.
This also shows that MHs question cannot be answered,as it cannot exist.
Changing values around,and changing from an ideal to a non ideal,and using math that is based around non ideal situations,is not going to make the original question answerable.
You have confirmed my real world answer--an ideal voltage cannot be applied to/placed across an ideal inductor.
Being an ideal inductor,means that it dose not dissipate power,and that also means the CEMF is also ideal,--> equal to that which creates it,and thus no current flows when a voltage is placed across that ideal inductor.
A non ideal inductor dose have an R value,and this means it dose dissipate power. This also means that the CEMF value is not as high as the EMF that created it,and so current will flow through a non ideal inductor--as we know.
And hence,once again,you cannot place a voltage across an ideal inductor,when current is flowing through that closed inductor loop.
Mh is using math that applies to an inductor on the understanding that that inductor will reach a maximum current value in a finite time.
I dont think it is clear Poynt,and your original thought (current will not flow)is correct.
This means that the CEMF is also ideal,and so is equal to the EMF ,and so an equal current will flow in the opposite direction to that of the current produced by the EMF.
Remember-it is only the resistance and parasitic capacitance that allows the EMF to be greater than the CEMF,and allow the flow of current,something that an ideal inductor is void of.
So that would mean a dead short when an ideal voltage from an ideal source is placed across the ideal inductor,as as much current would be trying to flow back into the ideal voltage source,as the ideal voltage source is trying to deliver.
What it means ,is that there can be no voltage across the ideal inductor
the current would be instant,and infinite--but no current flow
The result would be an instant and infinite current build up between the ideal voltage source,and the ideal inductor,but no current would flow.
And as there is no resistance throughout the circuit,no voltage would appear anywhere across that loop.
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.
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.
When dealing with ideals,we deal with absolutes,and there for the CEMF is ideal,meaning that it is equal and opposite to that of the EMF.
It's really not that simple MH. And the travesty is you have not taken the time to draw out your own circuit,or realize what you have described.
It is like i said,you cannot place an ideal voltage from an ideal voltage source across an ideal inductor.
The reason you dont understand this,is because you dont understand your own two component circuit.
Your circuit is an oxymoron-a paradox,and cannot work in reality,as one cancels out the other.
If you took the time to draw out your own circuit,and write down all the values of that circuit,and applied all that you have stated in this(and the JT)thread,then you would see the error of your ways.
But as you continue to try and relate ideal coils to non ideal coils,and ideal voltage sources with non ideal sources,you havnt a hope in hell in seeing what your circuit represents.
I can debunk your circuit in just 5 lines of text,but i will give you and the other EE guys here say-4 to 8 weeks lol,--just kidding,say 4 days to think about it.
It is only those here that are trying to relate real world device with ideal devices,and the transition just dose not exist .
how can a voltage  placed across an ideal shorted inductor induce a current flow through a shorted ideal inductor?
So i stand by my answer due to MHs insistence.
You cannot place an ideal voltage from an ideal voltage source across an ideal inductor.
the fact that the ideal voltage source is now connected across that ideal inductor,means that the current flowing through it is in no way impeded
Even when a current is flowing through that looped ideal inductor,ohms law states that V=IxR,and as there is no R,then there is no voltage across that looped inductor--as we know.
If there is a dead short across the ideal voltage supply,the current would simply build in the ideal voltage supply until either the short exploded,or the ideal voltage supply exploded.
This would depend on which one of the two could contain the most energy before it failed-->or they(the shorted ideal wire and ideal voltage source) would continue to store the energy for an infinite time.
At T=5 seconds,MHs device explodes.
At that instant,you have to infinite current values trying to flow in opposite directions.
Being that both the inductor and voltage source is ideal,the energy stored in the ideal loop from T=3s to T=5s cannot be dissipated in order for a current to start flowing in the opposite direction
This MH paradox is truly fantastic---it makes everything work just the way you want it to.
No matter how i try and find a way for the stored energy to be dissipated before the opposite potential of that stored energy is released into the system,there is just no where for it to go.
As it has no where to go,due to it being in a closed loop,and there is no way of dissipating it's stored energy,due to there being no resistance in the loop,then it must remain.
The -3 volts is applied,and the current being produced is trying to collapse that already built magnetic field,which cannot be collapsed due to the steady state current that is flowing that keeps it built.
In a real world situation,that energy would be dissipated as heat,but as we have an ideal inductor loop,then the energy cannot be dissipated.
So this energy that is stored cannot return to the source,as the energy from the source is flowing in the wrong direction.
I am yet to see any reason posted why the CEMF is also not ideal.

So, shall I also act like a sleazy pimp and put all my Bradisms on display on a regular basis just like you?

MileHigh