Author Topic: MH's ideal coil and voltage question (Read 484480 times)

partzman · « **Reply #1440 on:** June 30, 2016, 04:13:27 PM »

Perhaps we have a solution for the Emf = Cemf issue using some basics.

Refer to the image below. Now picture a bar magnet approaching the coil from the left with it’s north pole facing the coil. From Lenz we know an Emf will be produced in the coil that opposes the approaching PM with the polarities as shown. I think on this we can all agree. Note that the current flow is conventional.

Now the question is, does this induced Emf produced coil current produce a Cemf to itself? IMO, no as there is no evidence to support this.

IOW, the induced Emf produced across the windings of the coil produces a current in the coil to oppose the approaching PM field yet it does not produce another Cemf to oppose itself.

Notice the polarity of the Emf. It is the same as would be required by a fixed voltage source to produce the same current and magnetic flux polarity. So, logically we can remove the PM and replace the Emf with a fixed voltage supply and produce the same end results without any Cemf.

So I guess we can say that the Emf = Cemf because they are always the same, Emf is Cemf in this example so one could also simply say that Emf = dI * L/dt. No feedback required.

OK, now you can blow this all apart!

pm

minnie · « **Reply #1441 on:** June 30, 2016, 04:26:31 PM »

Who'd a thought a poxy coil of wire could cause so much controversy.
John.

tinman · « **Reply #1442 on:** June 30, 2016, 04:31:58 PM »

Quote from: partzman on June 30, 2016, 04:13:27 PM

Perhaps we have a solution for the Emf = Cemf issue using some basics.

Refer to the image below. Now picture a bar magnet approaching the coil from the left with it’s north pole facing the coil. From Lenz we know an Emf will be produced in the coil that opposes the approaching PM with the polarities as shown. I think on this we can all agree. Note that the current flow is conventional.

Now the question is, does this induced Emf produced coil current produce a Cemf to itself? IMO, no as there is no evidence to support this.

IOW, the induced Emf produced across the windings of the coil produces a current in the coil to oppose the approaching PM field yet it does not produce another Cemf to oppose itself.

Notice the polarity of the Emf. It is the same as would be required by a fixed voltage source to produce the same current and magnetic flux polarity. So, logically we can remove the PM and replace the Emf with a fixed voltage supply and produce the same end results without any Cemf.

So I guess we can say that the Emf = Cemf because they are always the same, Emf is Cemf in this example so one could also simply say that Emf = dI * L/dt. No feedback required.

OK, now you can blow this all apart!

pm

And so-- a magnet will remain floating above a superconductor motionless.
The equal and opposite remains when resistance is completely removed.
For every action,there is an equal and opposite reaction when there is no energy dissipation.

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #1443 on:** June 30, 2016, 04:34:39 PM »

Quote from: minnie on June 30, 2016, 04:26:31 PM

Who'd a thought a poxy coil of wire could cause so much controversy.
John.

Now that we can agree on John.

Enough time wasted on something that will never be tried and tested--well,not by any of us anyway

Brad

MileHigh · « **Reply #1444 on:** June 30, 2016, 07:09:28 PM »

Brad:

You are a coward. You offer up your own "theories" and then when you are asked to provide examples of your theories in action you chicken out. You chicken out because in fact you can't illustrate a simple example of CEMF being less than the EMF with a coil. You chicken out because in fact you can't draw a graph showing the mechanism for "CEMF current" in opposition to EMF current for an ideal coil and a real coil.

You talk the talk but when asked to walk the walk you are a coward.

I can suspect that if you went to try to graph the two opposing currents you would quickly realize that it doesn't work. That would mean you would have to admit that your theory that you have stated repeatedly is wrong, it's nonsense. That would mean that you are wrong. That would lead to you having a nervous breakdown so the only "escape" is you laughably saying, "I will do it but you have to do something first." It's just one big Brad sizzling brain fry.

You're the weakling, you're the fraud.

Quote

Please pay careful attention to the highlighted lol.

And that's just you being a pure jackass. I just used some numbers for illustrative purposes. Do you understand that term, "illustrative purposes?" That's just another case where something is explained to you and any normal person would just accept it and move on. But you shamelessly repeat nonsense like that over and over thinking that you are "scoring points" when what you are really doing is looking like an idiot and digging yourself into a hole.

And let's not forget Brad, that the well of your mistakes and gaffes and misunderstandings is so deep and so plentiful and so full of material, that it's a bloody Saudi Arabia of idiocy. If I milked the well like you will repeat nonsense about me over and over, we would need a separate thread just for that. Repeat every mistake and gaffe and misunderstanding you made back to you 20 times and we would end up with a thread that is 500 pages long.

Quote

You up for that JT build off challenge yet?

Another vain idiotic feign at misdirection. You know that I am not interested and you know I have no equipment. Every time you say something stupid a bell rings somewhere.

Quote

Enough time wasted on something that will never be tried and tested--well,not by any of us anyway

Sure, your sizzling brain learned more in the past three months than you learned in six years worth of staring at spinning pulse motors spin. Why don't you just smash your oscilloscope, it's a waste of time.

You are a coward.

MileHigh

poynt99 · « **Reply #1445 on:** June 30, 2016, 07:10:10 PM »

Quote from: partzman on June 30, 2016, 04:13:27 PM

Perhaps we have a solution for the Emf = Cemf issue using some basics.

Refer to the image below. Now picture a bar magnet approaching the coil from the left with it’s north pole facing the coil. From Lenz we know an Emf will be produced in the coil that opposes the approaching PM with the polarities as shown. I think on this we can all agree. Note that the current flow is conventional.

Now the question is, does this induced Emf produced coil current produce a Cemf to itself? IMO, no as there is no evidence to support this.

As long as the induced emf results in a current flow, wouldn't there will be an associated cemf? I think yes.

poynt99 · « **Reply #1446 on:** June 30, 2016, 07:11:13 PM »

Awaiting your responses Brad.

minnie · « **Reply #1447 on:** June 30, 2016, 07:56:15 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on June 30, 2016, 07:10:10 PM

As long as the induced emf results in a current flow, wouldn't there will be an associated cemf? I think yes.

That's what I'm a thinkin'
John.

partzman · « **Reply #1448 on:** June 30, 2016, 08:56:32 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on June 30, 2016, 07:10:10 PM

As long as the induced emf results in a current flow, wouldn't there will be an associated cemf? I think yes.

So we have another Cemf (Cemf2) produced by the current in the coil that is generated by the original Cemf from the approaching PM? If we have two Cemfs produced by the approaching PM, what is the phase of Cemf2 in relation to the original Cemf? IMO, either phase of Cemf2 is problematic in that either attraction or repulsion is increased in regards to the PM.

This is the crux of the issue IMO.

pm

poynt99 · « **Reply #1449 on:** June 30, 2016, 10:19:12 PM »

Quote from: partzman on June 30, 2016, 08:56:32 PM

So we have another Cemf (Cemf2) produced by the current in the coil that is generated by the original Cemf from the approaching PM? If we have two Cemfs produced by the approaching PM, what is the phase of Cemf2 in relation to the original Cemf? IMO, either phase of Cemf2 is problematic in that either attraction or repulsion is increased in regards to the PM.

This is the crux of the issue IMO.

pm

Do you not agree that a changing inductor current results in a changing B field around the inductor? If so, then would self-induction not be present?

It seems to me that regardless how the emf is produced (either by applied voltage or induced magnetically), there would be a corresponding self-induced cemf.

partzman · « **Reply #1450 on:** July 01, 2016, 12:20:43 AM »

Quote from: poynt99 on June 30, 2016, 10:19:12 PM

Do you not agree that a changing inductor current results in a changing B field around the inductor?

Yes I agree.

Quote

If so, then would self-induction not be present?

Yes.

Quote

It seems to me that regardless how the emf is produced (either by applied voltage or induced magnetically), there would be a corresponding self-induced cemf.

It would seem so and I have no problem with magnetically induced Emf or Cemf. I fail to see a justified Cemf with applied Emf for reasons I've covered in my example in the previous post and because of this view, I also do not hold to an Emf/Cemf feedback control loop with an applied Emf.

In order to support my opinion, I plan to attempt to define the self inductance of a single loop utilizing current and flux but my math skills being what they are, it is going to take some time if in fact I can do it at all.

I have attached an older Bureau of Standards document on the self inductance of single loop turns for the reading pleasure of anyone interested.

pm

Edit

tinman · « **Reply #1451 on:** July 01, 2016, 01:35:45 AM »

Quote from: poynt99 on June 30, 2016, 07:11:13 PM

Awaiting your responses Brad.

It is ironic that you are using the sim to try and prove what some believe !may! happen,when that sim has been programmed to show exactly what it has been told to show

Did you expect the sim to have a mind of it's own?,or will it simply follow the rules it has be given?.
Did the people that wrote the program for the sim have an ideal inductor to test,so as they could write the program and parameters of that sim to suit the inductors reaction's,or was it written based around the very same !laws! that are being discussed here on this thread?.

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #1452 on:** July 01, 2016, 01:50:24 AM »

author=MileHigh link=topic=16589.msg487498#msg487498 date=1467306568]

Quote

You are a coward. You offer up your own "theories" and then when you are asked to provide examples of your theories in action you chicken out. You chicken out because in fact you can't illustrate a simple example of CEMF being less than the EMF with a coil. You chicken out because in fact you can't draw a graph showing the mechanism for "CEMF current" in opposition to EMF current for an ideal coil and a real coil.

You mean like--if at the end of the first time constant,the EMF induced current is 25 amp's,then the CEMF current will be 75 amp's,and we can charge a battery for free?

Quote

You talk the talk but when asked to walk the walk you are a coward.

You mean somethink like the most efficient JT circuit?
Are you taking me up on my challenge then MH--so as your not seen to just talk the talk

Quote

I can suspect that if you went to try to graph the two opposing currents you would quickly realize that it doesn't work. That would mean you would have to admit that your theory that you have stated repeatedly is wrong, it's nonsense. That would mean that you are wrong. That would lead to you having a nervous breakdown so the only "escape" is you laughably saying, "I will do it but you have to do something first." It's just one big Brad sizzling brain fry.

Like i said MH,send me the ideal 5H coil,and we'll get started--or do i have to use an imaginary one?.

Quote

You're the weakling, you're the fraud

.

JT,pulse motor,or rotoverter MH?--your choice

Quote

And that's just you being a pure jackass. I just used some numbers for illustrative purposes. Do you understand that term, "illustrative purposes?" That's just another case where something is explained to you and any normal person would just accept it and move on. But you shamelessly repeat nonsense like that over and over thinking that you are "scoring points" when what you are really doing is looking like an idiot and digging yourself into a hole.

You used those numbers to try and make my statement look stupid,and you continued to use those numbers to try and tell PW that i think there would be current flowing back into the battery---i can go and get those posts if you like,but you know you said that.
You also know that if you had of used correct ratio's,then my statement makes perfect sense,and that would have made you look like the jackass--as you do now.

Quote

And let's not forget Brad, that the well of your mistakes and gaffes and misunderstandings is so deep and so plentiful and so full of material, that it's a bloody Saudi Arabia of idiocy. If I milked the well like you will repeat nonsense about me over and over, we would need a separate thread just for that. Repeat every mistake and gaffe and misunderstanding you made back to you 20 times and we would end up with a thread that is 500 pages long.

I think you would find,that most of the thread would be full of your mistakes,as i keep proving you wrong with many of your idiotic comments and claims--like the most efficient JT circuit.

Quote

Another vain idiotic feign at misdirection. You know that I am not interested and you know I have no equipment. Every time you say something stupid a bell rings somewhere.

So says the book worm

Quote

Sure, your sizzling brain learned more in the past three months than you learned in six years worth of staring at spinning pulse motors spin. Why don't you just smash your oscilloscope, it's a waste of time.
You are a coward.

Why do that ?. Do you think it is producing it's own CEMF,and screwing up the measurements?.

Brad

MileHigh · « **Reply #1453 on:** July 01, 2016, 02:34:33 AM »

Brad:

So you are still a coward. You are afraid to illustrate your "theories" with concrete examples. Instead, we get some mindless diversionary trash talk revolving around the usual "you don't do experiments" nonsense.

Quote

You mean like--if at the end of the first time constant,the EMF induced current is 25 amp's,then the CEMF current will be 75 amp's,and we can charge a battery for free?

Make a graph of current vs. time for the alleged "CEMF current" and the EMF induced current and show the world what you mean.

Oh, you won't do that? Then that means your proposition is a fail, your theory is junk, a mistake. You are just too afraid to admit that. You are a coward. You are weak. You are a fraud.

Quote

Are you taking me up on my challenge then MH--so as your not seen to just talk the talk
And once again we see you duck.weave,and dodge any challenge that is presented to you--you always have,since the day you joined this forum.

How about this Brad: Straight to your face, NO, the answer is NO. For the tenth time, I don't have any equipment. Pound that in to your frying brain. Does that sound like "ducking, weaving and dodging" to you?

Quote

Like i said MH,send me the ideal 5H coil,and we'll get started--or do i have to use an imaginary one?

You have to use an imaginary real coil, and you have to use an imaginary ideal coil. Draw a set of graphs showing current vs. time for the "CEMF current" and the EMF current for both types of coil to back up the statements that you have made multiple times. Illustrate your proposition using your intellect only.

Oh, you won't do that? Then that means your proposition is a fail, your theory is junk, a mistake. You are just too afraid to admit that. You are a coward. You are weak. You are a fraud.

Quote

You used those numbers to try and make my statement look stupid.
You also know that if you had of used correct ratio's,then my statement makes perfect sense,and that would have made you look like the jackass

No, I used those numbers for illustrative purposes only and it was late at night and I was very tired. You are talking paranoid delusions.

Right now your statement looks totally stupid, it doesn't make sense at all. You don't need the illustrative numbers I made up to create that impression. Correct ratios won't make any difference. Draw up two graphs to back up your own statements to prove me wrong.

One more time for good measure: Oh, you won't do that? Then that means your proposition is a fail, your theory is junk, a mistake. You are just too afraid to admit that. You are a coward. You are weak. You are a fraud.

Quote

So says the book worm

This "book worm" could whip your ass on a bench any day of the week with one arm tied behind my back and blindfolded, even though I haven't been on a bench in 25 years. You say crazy things like there is no voltage drop across a resistor, or a battery across a coil doesn't constitute a current loop. I would spin circles around you and leave you dizzy.

What's so annoying is that you are a fraud just like some YouTube free energy pitch man is a fraud. You have the same M.O. but you aren't asking for money. But you play the same game of evasion and deflection and do whatever ass-backwards-bending you have to do to save your fragile ego. There is basically no difference between you stalling and deflecting when asked to graph the current vs. time to illustrate your "theory" and asking John Rohner to measure power-out vs. power-in on his fake Papp engine. Neither will ever happen and in both cases it's a form of fraud, one is for money, and one is pure intellectual fraud to save your fragile ego.

If you admitted that you were wrong you would probably have a nervous breakdown.

MileHigh · « **Reply #1454 on:** July 01, 2016, 02:57:28 AM »

Brad:

You can hate me all you want, but what I hate is intellectual dishonesty. Look at your response to the sim that Poynt made, you just talked useless trash talk about the inner workings of the sim itself, which of course you haven't the slightest clue about at all. That way you avoid actually talking about the real subject matter - the results of the sim as it relates to Poynt's interesting question.

I get the feeling that you were the type of kid that when playing checkers with your friend, if you were losing then you just hit the board with your hand and sent the pieces flying and ruined the game. Better to ruin the game and act like a bully than actually lose and being seen as losing. That's the vibe I am getting from you.

Look what your belligerent attitude has gotten you. Endless frustration when trying to discuss things with you, and obviously your attitude hurt you as you grew up. You were too self-assured and too "smart" to learn things willingly, somehow you always "knew better." You definitely "knew better" when it came to language and now you are reaping the results of what you sewed. And here is the real kicker when it comes to that sensitive issue: The information age started 22 years ago, time flies. 22 years ago you may have come to the realization that the written word was going to be more important than ever. People would be submitting work reports online, your peers and your bosses would be reading them. Everybody started using email. One would think that you would have woken up in 1994 and said to yourself, "I need to kick myself in the butt and finally fix my spelling and diction issues because it is now going to be more important than ever." You were a fully grown man 22 years ago. But that didn't happen.

MileHigh

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: MH's ideal coil and voltage question (Read 484480 times)

partzman

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

minnie

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

MileHigh

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

minnie

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

partzman

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

poynt99

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

partzman

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

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question

MileHigh

Re: MH's ideal coil and voltage question