Author Topic: MH's ideal coil and voltage question (Read 487919 times)

forest · « **Reply #1110 on:** June 21, 2016, 02:19:51 PM »

Any positive conclusions or I must wait till the page 3505 (or later) will be here ? I want to learn something but don't know what is the truth about coil :-( Too many opinions

tinman · « **Reply #1111 on:** June 21, 2016, 02:40:09 PM »

author=MileHigh link=topic=16589.msg486779#msg486779 date=1466511392]

Quote

Get lost Brad. You have been on one continuous stressed out bender ever since you were just treated normally and to your great shock and surprise you discovered just how little you know, how little you have progressed, and just how far you have to go. And due to that "stress of being normal" we have all seen some pretty ugly extremes in your behaviour that leave a lot to be desired.

Bullshit.
Thats all i have to say to that paragraph.

Quote

Chet is acting like a crazy person and he deserved that comment and it's bloody well true. For all your crazy allegations about me you know that I speak the truth. I don't care how many times you have accused me of lying, that is just a symptom of your continuous stressed out bender where you have
Quote
completely compromised yourself and your credibility
.

I think you have shot your self in the foot this time MH--you went just to far--even for you--even to the point where PW had to tell you that it was bad form.

Quote

I understand perfectly well why resonant systems and things that are mistakenly called resonant systems work in internal combustion engines. So you stop playing your straw man BS about that too.

It is painfully obvious you do not.

Quote

I do my best to be civil but I am not perfect. Saying someone is a "contamination" is extremely uncivil. Saying that you have "crusty drool" is extremely uncivil. Being willfully ignorant is just plain stupid.

Sometimes the truth hurts MH,and now you drag a good mans name down in the mud with you.

Quote

How sad you are that you can't conceptualize something as basic as an ideal voltage source.

Quote post 1147-->It's like Santa Claus Brad, and his magic sack of presents that is bottomless and holds the presents for everyone in the world. The ideal voltage source has an invisible magic energy sack that the returned energy goes into.

Well,it's great to see you have a good understanding of an ideal voltage source MH

Quote

You got to the end of this thread and you were so burnt out and emotionally exhausted that you didn't even try following up on the answer to Partzman's linear ramp question or to the second question that was already answered for you.

Burnt out you say

lol.
MH,i could run rings around you in regards to sustainability. I drove truck for 17 hours a day,for two years straight,and still managed some bench time,video's,family time,and some fishing to boot.I now take my 1 year break from trucks,and do a normal 42 hour week job. In 6 months time,i go back to the trucks for another two years at 17 hours a day.
You manage what?-a 6 hour shift on the computer in your rocking chair at best.
I can assure you that it will not be you that wears me down lol.

Quote

Look where you are, "What is the mechanism behind the gradual buildup/ramp up of the current?" After all this time and effort, the weeks and weeks of going over the ideal voltage source question and answering hundreds of questions that came up in the discussion and explaining it over and over, and you ask that question. It's like you're back at square one and this thread didn't even happen.

Go ahead--what is the root cause of the currents slow ramp up in an inductor?,and by slow,i mean not instant like that of the voltage placed across that inductor.

Brad

MileHigh · « **Reply #1112 on:** June 21, 2016, 02:50:42 PM »

There is no point in even trying to answer a question that has already been answered multiple times in multiple ways. The expectation is the answer would just pass right through you like you weren't even there and chances are in two days you will post something that makes that readily apparent.

ramset · « **Reply #1113 on:** June 21, 2016, 02:52:01 PM »

Forest
yes there is a conclusion [for myself]
Miles is bound and determined to force his will on all that believe resonance a means to an end in the quest for OU.

his goal is to "teach" you away from this resonant OU madness !

and there seems to be no limits to his Stoop..

a very Shameful use of a legacy , just to make a point in a very weak argument [resonance and OU]which holds no true
value to members here.

and is mostly to polish his own EGO...

it truly turns my stomach and I will leave you alone in your "karma" Miles...

poynt99 · « **Reply #1114 on:** June 21, 2016, 02:54:36 PM »

Quote from: Magluvin on June 21, 2016, 07:32:59 AM

Hmm. And the pre-existing circuit current, circuit being an inductor with a wire(ideal source at 0v) shorting its leads, continues to carry current at a constant level indefinately due to?? Like what are the specific mechanisms that make this happen?

Mags

Since we are talking about an ideal inductor and voltage source, the mechanism that allows the current to maintain infinitely in time is that there are no losses in the circuit. There is no mechanism to burn away the energy as heat.

poynt99 · « **Reply #1115 on:** June 21, 2016, 03:06:13 PM »

Quote from: tinman on June 21, 2016, 06:43:10 AM

First up-thanks for taking the time for such an in depth answer,but most of that i already know.
I am after a more in depth answer-what is the mechanism behind the gradual buildup/ramp up of the current. I am thinking that it is the building of the magnetic field that is the root cause of the current building or ramping up over time. This magnetic field that changes over time,cuts the conducting windings,and we get our CEMF. This is what impedes on the current flow. As this magnetic fields change over time starts to slow in a linear fasion,we also see the current ramp up in the same linear fasion. The current reaches its maximum value when there is no change over time of the magnetic field.

Am i on the right track here?

Thanks

Brad

I would tend to agree that the sluggishness is caused by its own self-induction and cemf. Although I would say it is the electric field which induces the cemf, but in the end it makes no difference as to which perspective is used.

This page does a nice job of explaining it all.

Quote

The reduction of current flow in a circuit due to induction is called inductive reactance. By taking a closer look at a coil of wire and applying Lenz's law, it can be seen how inductance reduces the flow of current in the circuit.

tinman · « **Reply #1116 on:** June 21, 2016, 03:17:05 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on June 21, 2016, 02:50:42 PM

There is no point in even trying to answer a question that has already been answered multiple times in multiple ways. The expectation is the answer would just pass right through you like you weren't even there and chances are in two days you will post something that makes that readily apparent.

Lol-a side step MH

I am well aware of self inductance in an inductor or coil MH,and what it means.
The question is to see that we are all on the same page here,although i am not really to worried if your reading the wrong book in this point in time.

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #1117 on:** June 21, 2016, 03:24:20 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on June 21, 2016, 03:06:13 PM

I would tend to agree that the sluggishness is caused by its own self-induction and cemf. Although I would say it is the electric field which induces the cemf, but in the end it makes no difference as to which perspective is used.

This page does a nice job of explaining it all.

Good,so we agree on that,and the electric field/magnetic field thing-well thats for another day,and im sure we can rig up a device to test that theory--one day.

But anyway,now we know that the CEMF is what reduces the rise time of the current flow from being instant-as in,as soon as we place a voltage across the inductor,the CEMF stop's the current rising to it's peak value instantly.

1-Would it there for be correct to say that--if there was no CEMF,the current would rise to it's peak value as soon as a voltage was placed across the inductor-or coil?.
2-What is the cause of the self induced EMF(CEMF) to be of a lesser value than the applied EMF?.

Brad

poynt99 · « **Reply #1118 on:** June 21, 2016, 03:38:11 PM »

Quote from: tinman on June 21, 2016, 03:24:20 PM

1-Would it there for be correct to say that--if there was no CEMF,the current would rise to it's peak value as soon as a voltage was placed across the inductor-or coil?.

I would agree.

Quote

2-What is the cause of the self induced EMF(CEMF) to be of a lesser value than the applied EMF?.

Good question. If you read that web page it tells you that the induced cemf is proportional to the number of turns in the coil. (you should read the link provided, it does explain everything).

MileHigh · « **Reply #1119 on:** June 21, 2016, 03:42:59 PM »

Quote from: tinman on June 21, 2016, 03:24:20 PM

2-What is the cause of the self induced EMF(CEMF) to be of a lesser value than the applied EMF?.

Brad

And you are still stuck. Surprise surprise. The CEMF is identical to the applied EMF. This was also covered in the thread multiple times.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

MileHigh · « **Reply #1120 on:** June 21, 2016, 03:58:29 PM »

Quote from: ramset on June 21, 2016, 02:52:01 PM

Forest
yes there is a conclusion [for myself]
Miles is bound and determined to force his will on all that believe resonance a means to an end in the quest for OU.

his goal is to "teach" you away from this resonant OU madness !

and there seems to be no limits to his Stoop..

a very Shameful use of a legacy , just to make a point in a very weak argument [resonance and OU]which holds no true
value to members here.

and is mostly to polish his own EGO...

it truly turns my stomach and I will leave you alone in your "karma" Miles...

This is just more straw man junk from you.

The intention was to discuss what resonance really is and use the example of a wine glass. And as you saw, many people had no clue whatsoever about what resonance actually is. Then an offshoot of that was that some people suggested that some things were manifestations of resonance, but on closer examination it became apparent that that was not the case.

And that's pretty much the extent of it. And you have the nerve to construct this false narrative out of some kind of pro-resonance backlash from a "believer."

You can have as many bloody over unity fantasies about resonance as you want, I don't give a damn. Have your own pulsations in sync with the pulsations of your favourite Pistol shrimp if that makes you feel better.

What was done was good and informative and you are not going to take way from that with your ridiculous "hurt resonance boy" nonsense. Pull yourself together and get over it. What true resonance actually is has been made clear and the next time some flim-flam Joe Blow comes along with a fake resonance pitch and a crowd funding web page then some people will know better. And if you hate that then go wallow in your miserable well of self-imposed pity, ignorance and stupidity.

tinman · « **Reply #1121 on:** June 21, 2016, 04:13:08 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on June 21, 2016, 03:42:59 PM

And you are still stuck. Surprise surprise. The CEMF is identical to the applied EMF. This was also covered in the thread multiple times.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Really

We shall use this as a reference then-shall we?.

Brad

MileHigh · « **Reply #1122 on:** June 21, 2016, 04:17:29 PM »

Quote from: tinman on June 21, 2016, 03:24:20 PM

2-What is the cause of the self induced EMF(CEMF) to be of a lesser value than the applied EMF?.

Brad

Here Brad, let's use the differential equation for a coil that relates the voltage and the current to solve for the question:

v(t) = L di/dt

Let's just look at the first three seconds.

We know that the voltage is 4 volts and it is unchanging. We know that the inductance is 5 Henrys. So let's just punch in the numbers then.

4 = 5 * di/dt

Let's rearrange.

di/dt = 4/5

Now, what are the units for di/dt? The answer is amperes per second.

Amperes/second = 4/5

Let's rearrange.

Amperes = 4/5 * second

Let's just rename the variables to make them more familiar.

i = 4/5 * t

i = 0.8t

For t = 3 seconds we get i = 2.4 amperes.

So you see, all of the weeks and weeks of agony could have been answered in 90 seconds flat if you just got up the bloody learning curve and threw away your ridiculous obstinate attitude and your ridiculous preconceptions.

Why am I saying this? It's because the "v" in v = L di/dt is the bloody applied EMF and the opposite CEMF at the same bloody time. You are supposed to know this by now but obviously you don't.

picowatt · « **Reply #1123 on:** June 21, 2016, 04:30:16 PM »

Quote from: tinman on June 21, 2016, 03:24:20 PM

2-What is the cause of the self induced EMF(CEMF) to be of a lesser value than the applied EMF?.

My short answer would be "geometry", with regard to flux cutting/coupling...

Consider a given length of conductor (wire). Stretched out straight it has a certain, lowest value of inductance. Coiled up it has more inductance. Change the diameter and/or spacing of the coiled turns and the inductance changes. In any configuration, changing the size and shape of the conductor's cross section also changes the inductance.

PW

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #1124 on:** June 21, 2016, 04:40:22 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on June 20, 2016, 10:01:29 PM

I went over the concept with Grum but you won't listen. Just zone out and think about the Pistol shrimp.

In email the late MarkE said that you were a nutter. I was a little surprised and taken aback, but I can see now that he was spot on.

That's why I asked you to delete my coordinates and I hope you have done so. I seriously regret giving them to you.

Keep fighting for ignorance and stupidity. Have you hugged a Pistol shrimp lately?

This has to be the lowest, most ignorant, vile and despicable posting I have ever read here on O.U.com, and believe me, that is really saying something. You have set a new low. I used to have some respect for your knowledge Sir, but no longer.

You have just singlehandedly redefined the word scumbag.

Nice going.

Judging from all of the emails, and postings, I am not alone in my assessment.

Bill

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: MH's ideal coil and voltage question (Read 487919 times)

forest

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

ramset

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

tinman

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

tinman

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

poynt99

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

tinman

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

picowatt

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

Pirate88179

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question