Second--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.
You not understanding this,is also another fail on your behalf.

And you fall flat on your ass for the 10,000th time.  For starters, there is no such thing as an "ideal energy source."  Plus your bloody definition doesn't even make sense.  Like I said, it just never ends.

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.

If you understood what has been discussed ad infinitum already, you would realize this right away, it would be a no-brainer.  And you would never in a million years use the term "ideal energy source."

But no!  But no!

Mags,

You do agree however that if we measure the energy burned up in the total circuit resistance involved in cap to cap transfers, it will indicate half of the total energy?

Do you not also agree that the value of the total circuit resistance makes no difference in the energy and that it does indeed always dissipate half the starting energy and that it determines the tau of the transfer?

The 0 Ohms case seems to be a special case, and one that we can not achieve.

"
You do agree however that if we measure the energy burned up in the total circuit resistance involved in cap to cap transfers, it will indicate half of the total energy?"

I agree agree in the real world.


"Do you not also agree that the value of the total circuit resistance makes no difference in the energy and that it does indeed always dissipate half the starting energy and that it determines the tau of the transfer?"

I also agree, in the real world.


"The 0 Ohms case seems to be a special case, and one that we can not achieve."

Darn tootin it is.    Here is my issue with it.

When we bring up the cap to cap loss, like back when we were talking about it when Woopy did his video and was very surprised by the 50% loss, the argument from you guys was that it was the resistance, no matter what value above 0ohm, is the cause for the loss. And you used the Ideal cap to cap, zero resistance transfer as an example of how we could get 7.07v in each cap from 10v. Well that cannot be used any longer as a proper explanation of how the energy was lost, because now we all know that we cannot get 7.07v in each cap from 10v in the ideal world.  I think people reading should know this 'now'.

So it is 'seemingly' a special case.  It can no longer be used in these arguments to prove the point that resistance is the loss. And as you say, "seems to be a special case, and one that we can not achieve", then maybe arguments using Ideal caps, ideal coils, and Ideal voltage sources that can not be achieved should not be used as examples either, because if we can not achieve them, we can not be certain of the outcome, just as we have found this kink in the cap to cap situation. Is it possible that we may find other kinks in these ideal world components as to how we thought they were by just thinking a little deeper? If we say not, then we have learned nothing in this cap to cap argument and we are just writing it off.

Or, we could put our thoughts together an try to figure out if it is more than just a special case by thinking it through further than just settling on the idea that it is a special case without explanation.  Why would we stop there?

Mags

You have not provided one example where an object will resonate by it's self,and your bell,and wine glass examples have been proven to be wrong.

Proven to be wrong in your head only.  You are your own best enemy.

Your answer is based around a circuit that cannot exist--and the proof of this,is by way of you not being able to draw such a circuit for the ideal voltage source.

And I see we have gone full-circle here and we are starting the discussion over right from the beginning.  We are back to the "problem child" at school that can't cope with using simple abstractions to better understand how circuits work.  It's information overload.

And you fall flat on your ass for the 10,000th time.    Plus your bloody definition doesn't even make sense.  Like I said, it just never ends.





But no!  But no!

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.

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.

Gee it's hard with you MH.
Im sorry to say MH,but in engineering,torque is not only related to flywheels,and so your answer is very limited(like your self),where as mine covers the whole spectrum.
Nice try,but you missed the boat again.

For starters, there is no such thing as an "ideal energy source."

And yet your question is based around such a device lol.
So it's much like asking--how fast could a flying pink pig go ?.

If you understood what has been discussed ad infinitum already, you would realize this right away, it would be a no-brainer.  And you would never in a million years use the term "ideal energy source."

Your ideal voltage source !is! an ideal source of energy.
For a voltage to be placed across an inductor,and a current to flow through that inductor,requires a source of energy. Since your question only has two components,1-the inductor,and 2-the ideal voltage source,then the ideal voltage source must be providing the energy.
You never managed to provide an example of a voltage source that dose not contain energy -but no surprise there

It is funny to watch you try and squirm your way out of mistakes you know you have made lol.
You never like answering questions asked of you either-->like,when is an inductor resonating?,and when is it just ringing down at it's resonant frequency?.
I mean,we have all discussed this on many occasions,and TK has shown a coil ringing down,and a coil resonating many times. But you will not answer those two question's,as you know that means that your self resonating wine glass and bell theory will fall in a big heap.

I will try one last time to try and show you what resonance is,and when something is resonating,and what oscillating at a natural resonant frequency is.
It dose not come much more simple that this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzFvhQgsS-Y

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.

Gee it's hard with you MH.
Im sorry to say MH,but in engineering,torque is not only related to flywheels,and so your answer is very limited(like your self),where as mine covers the whole spectrum.
Nice try,but you missed the boat again.

And yet your question is based around such a device lol.
So it's much like asking--how fast could a flying pink pig go ?.

Your ideal voltage source !is! an ideal source of energy.
For a voltage to be placed across an inductor,and a current to flow through that inductor,requires a source of energy. Since your question only has two components,1-the inductor,and 2-the ideal voltage source,then the ideal voltage source must be providing the energy.
You never managed to provide an example of a voltage source that dose not contain energy -but no surprise there

It is funny to watch you try and squirm your way out of mistakes you know you have made lol.
You never like answering questions asked of you either-->like,when is an inductor resonating?,and when is it just ringing down at it's resonant frequency?.
I mean,we have all discussed this on many occasions,and TK has shown a coil ringing down,and a coil resonating many times. But you will not answer those two question's,as you know that means that your self resonating wine glass and bell theory will fall in a big heap.

Since I tried to give you the real definition of an ideal torque and you rejected it, then I will say your comments about torque are completely idiotic.  Not using the proper mechanical variables of torque and angular velocity for your "explanation" is completely idiotic.  Making reference to an "ideal energy source" is also completely idiotic.

Im sorry to say MH,but in engineering,torque is not only related to flywheels,and so your answer is very limited(like your self),where as mine covers the whole spectrum.

That's another completely idiotic statement because I use a flywheel as a convenient example, that's all, and I am expecting your brain to be able to process that and understand it.  Obviously, I was expecting too much from you.

And yet your question is based around such a device lol.

No, it is not based around an "ideal energy source."  That is a meaningless term and if you are going to talk about this stuff then you have to use the proper terminology whether you like it or not.  Failing to use the proper terminology and demonstrate a mastery over basic energy concepts makes you look like a fool.

Yes, there is no such thing as an "ideal energy source" and if you stated that in a physics or engineering class everybody would look at you like you were from Mars.  Failure to think one more time Brad.

In the realm of what we are discussing you have the following:

Ideal voltage source
Ideal current source
Ideal torque source
Ideal angular velocity source
Ideal force source
Ideal linear velocity source

That is the deck of cards laid out for you.  If in the future you continue to use the term "ideal energy source" you will look like a complete idiot.

You never managed to provide an example of a voltage source that dose not contain energy -but no surprise there

Failure to think again Brad.

You never like answering questions asked of you either-->like,when is an inductor resonating?,and when is it just ringing down at it's resonant frequency?.
I mean,we have all discussed this on many occasions,and TK has shown a coil ringing down,and a coil resonating many times. But you will not answer those two question's,as you know that means that your self resonating wine glass and bell theory will fall in a big heap.

I don't know what profound points or questions you have to make about an LC resonator.  NOT an "inductor resonating" Brad, you have to use the proper terminology whether you like it or not.

Brad:

And since we have been talking about this stuff for a while where we use analogies, you should know that there are two separate systems for analogies.  There is the "force-current" analogy and the "force-voltage" analogy.

When I talk about using the analogy of the flywheel and say that putting 4 volts across the 5 Henry inductor is like putting torque on a flywheel, I am using the force-voltage analogy.  My shopping cart example was also using the force-voltage analogy.

So, there are two "analogy systems" and here is a very informative link about the two systems:

http://lpsa.swarthmore.edu/Analogs/ElectricalMechanicalAnalogs.html

That's just the way it is and people can choose whichever analogy system they want to use to discuss a given example.  If you are a real keener, you will be able to automatically pick up which system the person you are conversing with is using.

MileHigh