Is it because the backspikes are adding to the stored energy?
artv

Dear MH
What kind of a load is an LED?

Oop's.

Brad

There is no "oops" at all.  The fact remains that using a resistor will result in half the energy being lost for two equal sized capacitors, period.  I don't think you acknowledged that switching to a motor is false and meaningless and can't be compared to a resistor.  Your rebuttal to my statement about using a resistor was nonsense.

Big deal you used a LED.  You are doing energy measurements now.  That calls for an attempt at precision.  What is the tolerance on your capacitors?  Since you are doing energy measurements don't you think it is incumbent upon you to actually do serious measurements on the size of each capacitor first, including your own error tolerance?  Perhaps try two or three different ways of measuring them and see if they all agree?  Because they are supercapacitors, perhaps there are some special considerations when trying to measure their value?  Once you have established their actual value, then you can make much more accurate energy measurements.

    Your rebuttal to my statement about using a resistor was nonsense.

   

There is no "oops" at all.  The fact remains that using a resistor will result in half the energy being lost for two equal sized capacitors, period.

An LED is a resistive load,and i guess you missed my post to Poynt.
When the LED is in play,then the energy lost is less than half-->and remember,there is a 5k resistor across that LED,so as C1 keeps draining after the LED stops conducting.
But dont get your knickers in a twist yet.
If i use just a resistor alone(without the LED),then yes,your are correct,and exactly half the energy is lost. As the LED is also a resistive load,and should not make a difference to the test,i can only conclude that the LED is putting some energy back into the system,by way of the ambient light--as we know,they act like a small solar panel as well.

So i do have the ability to correct my own mistakes MH,and yes,this time i spoke to soon.
This hinges on the fact that the LED is able to return energy to the system by way of acting as a solar panel.

I don't think you acknowledged that switching to a motor is false and meaningless and can't be compared to a resistor.

Of course i do,as a brushed DC motor is not just a resistive load,but also with a small inductive content as well.

What is the tolerance on your capacitors?

We dont need to know what the tolerance of the caps are(but they are +/-2%),as long as there the same cap's. We eliminate the tolerance issue by swapping the cap's around,and carrying out the same test. As long as they are the same cap's,we should get the same results--and we did.

Since you are doing energy measurements don't you think it is incumbent upon you to actually do serious measurements on the size of each capacitor first, including your own error tolerance?

Yes,and that is why we swap the caps around,and carry out the same test. If the caps are equal in there energy storage capacity,then the results should also be equal when the caps are swapped around,so as cap A becomes cap B,and cap B become cap A.

Perhaps try two or three different ways of measuring them and see if they all agree?  Because they are supercapacitors,

OK. To clear this up,the caps used in the LED tests were 10 000uF high current caps,and the ones used in the motor tests are the 55F super caps.

perhaps there are some special considerations when trying to measure their value?  Once you have established their actual value, then you can make much more accurate energy measurements.

As i said,we swap the caps around,and carry out the same tests. If the results are different,then we look for the issue. If the results end up being the same,then no need to look for issue's regarding the caps actual value.

So the conclusion is-in the LED tests,using the 10 000uF cap's,we can conclude that you are correct,based on the fact (maybe) that the LED it self was adding energy into the system,by way of acting as a solar panel.


Brad

An LED is a resistive load,and i guess you missed my post to Poynt.
When the LED is in play,then the energy lost is less than half-->and remember,there is a 5k resistor across that LED,so as C1 keeps draining after the LED stops conducting.
But dont get your knickers in a twist yet.
If i use just a resistor alone(without the LED),then yes,your are correct,and exactly half the energy is lost. As the LED is also a resistive load,and should not make a difference to the test,i can only conclude that the LED is putting some energy back into the system,by way of the ambient light--as we know,they act like a small solar panel as well.

So i do have the ability to correct my own mistakes MH,and yes,this time i spoke to soon.
This hinges on the fact that the LED is able to return energy to the system by way of acting as a solar panel.

Of course i do,as a brushed DC motor is not just a resistive load,but also with a small inductive content as well.

We dont need to know what the tolerance of the caps are(but they are +/-2%),as long as there the same cap's. We eliminate the tolerance issue by swapping the cap's around,and carrying out the same test. As long as they are the same cap's,we should get the same results--and we did.

Yes,and that is why we swap the caps around,and carry out the same test. If the caps are equal in there energy storage capacity,then the results should also be equal when the caps are swapped around,so as cap A becomes cap B,and cap B become cap A.

OK. To clear this up,the caps used in the LED tests were 10 000uF high current caps,and the ones used in the motor tests are the 55F super caps.

As i said,we swap the caps around,and carry out the same tests. If the results are different,then we look for the issue. If the results end up being the same,then no need to look for issue's regarding the caps actual value.

So the conclusion is-in the LED tests,using the 10 000uF cap's,we can conclude that you are correct,based on the fact (maybe) that the LED it self was adding energy into the system,by way of acting as a solar panel.


Brad

Well the LED looks like a dynamically changing resistor and it does not have the IV properties of a resistor so perhaps there is a clue in there somewhere.

But saying this: -

<<< Once again--very wrong.
You do not loose half of the energy--you loose less than that. >>>

- is 100% bullshit.  And I see on the other thread you tried to pull off another little stunt.  You need to put your head on straight because it's not your nickers, it's your brain that's in a twist.

Then afterwards I say this:

<<< I don't think you acknowledged that switching to a motor is false and meaningless and can't be compared to a resistor. >>?

And you say this:

<<< Of course i do,as a brushed DC motor is not just a resistive load,but also with a small inductive content as well.  >>>

You can't have it both ways and contradict yourself so stop it.  You should never have said I was wrong about the resistor causing a 50% energy loss in the first place.

With respect to the LED producing power, and considering that you are using 10,000 F supercaps for the LED test, any notion that the LED is putting measurable power into the supercaps makes no sense at all.  Here is where you seemingly have no sense of proportion at all.  The amount of power produced by the LED would be minuscule.  You can just cover the LED completely with black tape as a test and you will not notice any change at all.

You mean like the benefit of doubt that he gave me regarding the ICE having resonant systems?. Guessed you missed all that. This is the very same situation. He told me i had no idea what i was talking about,when Internal combustion engines are my forte--my area of expertise.
The difference is,i backed up my knowledge with provided fact's,and this is something no one here can do with an actual test,as we are talking about ideals we do not have. What we are doing is placing a theory based around !best guesses!.

So i have given MH no more than he has given me,and in fact,i have never used the foul language he has toward me.
Not once did i see you,or any other EE guy here tell MH to calm it down when the roll was reversed,but i see you are quick to jump on me when i do the same that has been done to me.

I have seen this very same thing with other members that disagree with MHs analogy.
It's an !agree with me! or your wrong attitude MH has--plane and simple.
As i said in the other thread,i will now treat him as he treats me.

As i said,there is a pattern that is followed on this forum,and that is the EE guys stick together--bar one,that being (as i have always said) verpies. I would also put vortex1 in there with verpies,but he dosnt frequent this forum much-sadly.
As verpies said in reply to this question,Quote : The equivalent circuit model for an ideal inductor is not an inductor with a wire shorting across its ends.
verpies-Just because most of the world does it wrong does not mean that we have to.

Brad

So you are admitting that you knew all the time that I was not incapable of answering my own question about the ideal coil and the ideal voltage source.  It was just you maliciously faking an allegation that I did not know what I was talking about.  It was just a cynical stunt and that's pathetic.

For the ICE business ad nausaem, you had to try quite hard to "back up your knowledge with provided fact's (sic)."  You can have tuned air input ports on two-stroke engines, that's fine.  But you then scrambled to find something beyond that and your first reference was about resonance in the combustion chamber actually decreasing performance.  You posted a linlk without even reading it properly.  So then you had to scramble again and you finally found a reference to a special resonant cavity in a cylinder that works to counteract the negative effects of combustion chamber resonance.

All that being said, I admitted my mistake and said that you were right.  But honestly, I find the argument rather weak.  I seriously doubt that in mainstream car engines in modern cars there are resonant cavities in the cylinders because presumably they don't have that problem.  I am going to assume that there is nothing in a car engine that makes use of resonance for the main crankshaft turning frequency.

And here you are repeating this stuff for probably the 40th time now which is just bogan behaviour because I owned up to my mistake.  If you were normal you would have moved on after I acknowledged what you said and admitted my mistake.

And your playing of the foul language card is pretty phony, look at what you recently said to me when I gave you the short answer to the ideal voltage source and ideal inductor question:

You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster.
Your (sic) a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.

You don't think that those are foul statements, especially when you are 100% wrong?  Magluvin even made a posting citing the comments above mistakenly attributing them to me and complaining about them.

Then you claim that you are "researching superconductivity" and several times you made the claim that "the magnetic field stays inside the wire" and say something like "so that must mean that a coil with superconducting wire will not work."   Well you fell flat on your face because in a superconducting wire, it's just the opposite, and the magnetic field is restricted to being outside the wire.  So much for your bloody "research," how many times do you want to be reminded of that?

Then on the other thread, you make one of the most blatant bald-faced bait-and-switch lies that everybody clearly saw was a lie and they must have been scratching their heads about you:

Poynt says:

<<< When you place an ideal voltage source across an ideal short, who wins? The voltage source or the ideal wire? verpies seems to indicate that the voltage source wins, as the voltage holds and the inductor still gets some current.  >>>

You say:

<<< 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  >>>

I say:

<<<  An ideal voltage source does not "contain energy" and likewise an ideal short does not "contain energy."  You still need to work on that angle. >>>

You then say:

<<< When we are talking about your circuit MH,then while your voltage value from your ideal voltage source is 0v,then yes,the ideal inductor dose contain/store energy,and that energy can be recovered when the shorted(looped) ideal inductor becomes open.  >>>

That is a blatant bait-and-switch LIE.  We were not talking about "my circuit" we were talking about a hypothetical dead ideal short across an ideal voltage source.

Then there is the beyond-insane attempt by you to "bait me" in a set up with the nonsensical DC current vs. changing DC current and whether or not voltage is observed across an ideal inductor.

Now, do you want me to prepare a text file that makes this stuff into a series of bullet points that I can copy and paste until kingdom come every time you do the stupid "ICE and resonance" play?  I have no intention of constantly repeating your blatant lies and beyond-belief ridiculous technical blunders.  But if you keep on acting like this uncouth bogan and you try to pull off another similar type of cynical stunt about me with respect to my knowledge about my own question like you just did on the other thread were Poynt backed me up I just might be tempted to.

So I strongly suggest you don't try to pull off a lying cynical stunt like you just did again, and stop the madness with the ICE resonance business.  Are we on a bloody forum that is about electronics or gasoline engines?  It's time for this nonsense to stop.

MileHigh

So I strongly suggest you don't do a lying cynical stunt like you just did any more, and stop the madness with the ICE resonance business.  Are we on a bloody forum that is about electronics or gasoline engines?  It's time for this nonsense to stop.

MileHigh

So you are admitting that you knew all the time that I was not incapable of answering my own question about the ideal coil and the ideal voltage source.  It was just you maliciously faking an allegation that I did not know what I was talking about.  It was just a cynical stunt and that's pathetic.

Whats pathetic is you never backing up what you say,where as i do.
You present yourself as the !all knowing!,even when you dont know--example ,ICEs. But still,you post damnations against what i say-even when you have no clue your self.
I go and do the same,and you have a panic attack--lay on the floor ,and have a childish tantrum.

For the ICE business ad nausaem, you had to try quite hard to "back up your knowledge with provided fact's (sic)."  You can have tuned air input ports on two-stroke engines, that's fine.  But you then scrambled to find something beyond that and your first reference was about resonance in the combustion chamber actually decreasing performance.  You posted a linlk without even reading it properly.  So then you had to scramble again and you finally found a reference to a special resonant cavity in a cylinder that works to counteract the negative effects of combustion chamber resonance.

Once again,trying to turn the tables on your shitmixer. You stated that there was in no way,shape,or form,any resonant systems what so ever associated with an ICE.
So it dose not matter whether that resonant feature was good or bad for the engine--it did indeed exist--and you were once again !wrong!.

All that being said, I admitted my mistake and said that you were right.  But honestly, I find the argument rather weak.  I seriously doubt that in mainstream car engines in modern cars there are resonant cavities in the cylinders because presumably they don't have that problem.  I am going to assume that there is nothing in a car engine that makes use of resonance for the main crankshaft turning frequency.

As did i with the cap to cap energy transfer with a resistor.
Of course you would consider it a weak argument MH,because you lost the argument.
The fact remains that resonant systems have been used for many years in and around high performance engines.

You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.
You don't think that those are foul statements, especially when you are 100% wrong?  Magluvin even made a posting citing the comments above mistakenly attributing them to me and complaining about them.

Not at all. Not even close to what you posted many times over.
The fact that you are even trying to associate those comments i made,with the filth you posted,just shows what kind of a mindset you have.

And here you are repeating this stuff for probably the 40th time now which is just bogan behaviour because I owned up to my mistake.  If you were normal you would have moved on after I acknowledged what you said and admitted my mistake.

You really are a hypocrite MH. How many threads,post after post have we had to endure you ramblings on how EMJ and Wattsup couldnt answer your !ideal! coil question?.
And !highlighted! once again a hypocrite. Go back not even one page MH,where i clearly stated that i was wrong about the cap to cap transfer,and then read your next post.

And your playing of the foul language card is pretty phony, look at what you recently said to me when I gave you the short answer to the ideal voltage source and ideal inductor question:
You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster.
Your (sic) a fraud.

I see no profanities in those comments MH,but only what you have dished out to me.
I will not lower myself to your standards,and use profanities such as you did.

Then you claim that you are "researching superconductivity" and several times you made the claim that "the magnetic field stays inside the wire" and say something like "so that must mean that a coil with superconducting wire will not work."   Well you fell flat on your face because in a superconducting wire,  it's just the opposite, and the magnetic field is restricted to being outside the wire. So much for your bloody "research," how many times do you want to be reminded of that?

You have a superconductor that was cooled with liquid nitrogen with a magnet floating above it confused with a superconducting wire with current flowing through it MH--but nothing unusual there. Perhaps you should go and do some research of your own.
All you need for some bench tests,is some superconducting wire. Once you have proven you are right by way of actual experiment's,then come back and show me how you went.

Then on the other thread, you make one of the most blatant bald-faced bait-and-switch lies that everybody clearly saw was a lie and they must have been scratching their heads about you:

Poynt says:

<<< When you place an ideal voltage source across an ideal short, who wins? The voltage source or the ideal wire? verpies seems to indicate that the voltage source wins, as the voltage holds and the inductor still gets some current.  >>>

You say:
<<< 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  >>>
I say:
<<<  An ideal voltage source does not "contain energy" and likewise an ideal short does not "contain energy."  You still need to work on that angle. >>>

And i say i am right,and you are wrong.

You dont even pay attention to the things you say MH,and in this very post you contradict your self.
Example-- Well you fell flat on your face because in a superconducting wire,  it's just the opposite, and the magnetic field is restricted to being outside the wire
Then you say just above-->and likewise an ideal short does not "contain energy.
The ideal short will have a magnetic field around it,if there is current flowing through it.
The magnetic field contains the energy MH.
And no bullshit this time MH--no adding one of your paradoxes. You know dam well that this discussion was in relation to verpies posted ideal shorted ideal inductor.

An ideal voltage source does not "contain energy"

Bullshit MH.
If it dose not contain energy,then were exactly dose your! ideal!  circuit get the energy to create this current flow you calculated. Lets take a battery,and make it ideal by removing the internal resistance,so as it's an ideal voltage source. Are you saying that battery contains no energy?.

You then say:

<<< When we are talking about your circuit MH,then while your voltage value from your ideal voltage source is 0v,then yes,the ideal inductor dose contain/store energy,and that energy can be recovered when the shorted(looped) ideal inductor becomes open.  >>>

That is a blatant bait-and-switch LIE.  We were not talking about "my circuit" we were talking about a hypothetical dead ideal short across an ideal voltage source.

What is a lie MH,is that crap you just posted above,as both of what i said is true.
If a current is flowing through an ideal inductor-such as it dose in your circuit ,even when the voltage from the ideal voltage source is 0v,if the circuit becomes open,then we can recover the stored energy from that inductor.
Second-if there is a dead short across an ideal voltage supply,then i stand by what i say. Both the short(being an ideal wire across the ideal voltage supplies terminals),and the ideal voltage supply will contain the rising energy until one of them give out/explodes/fails--what ever you wish to call it.
So i have no idea what you are harping on about,but you have screwed something up in your head some where.

Now, do you want me to prepare a text file that makes this stuff into a series of bullet points that I can copy and paste until kingdom come every time you do the stupid "ICE and resonance" play?  I have no intention of constantly repeating your blatant lies and beyond-belief ridiculous technical blunders.  But if you keep on acting like this uncouth bogan and you try to pull off another similar type of cynical stunt about me with respect to my knowledge about my own question like you just did on the other thread were Poynt backed me up I just might be tempted to.

Are you threatening me MH. If you are,i would strongly recommend you do not do that,as i do not take well to threats MH.
I have not lied MH,it is you that is the king of lies.
You just took a mirrid of different discussions ,and posted some scrambled crap,trying to once again,make your self look good,and me look bad.
Poynt backed you up on what?--a leap of faith?,your stupid statement that the ideal voltage source dose not contain energy (that one being the most ridiculous statement i have ever seen you make).
It is apparent in this thread alone,that it is you that has made most of the ridiculous technical blunders here,from the ICE saga,to the variable resister on a JT not being needed,as reducing the resistance value would not make the LED brighter--which i once again proved you wrong on--along with others on this thread also proving you wrong.

So I strongly suggest you don't try to pull off a lying cynical stunt like you just did again, and stop the madness with the ICE resonance business.  Are we on a bloody forum that is about electronics or gasoline engines? It's time for this nonsense to stop.

I did not pull off any stunt you disillusioned imbecile--just another lie from your box of warped party tricks.
And for you to think that this is an electronics forum,and nothing to do with ICE's,just go's to show how far your disillusions go. This is not a forum for electronics only MH,and to think that it is,is just more of your arrogance shining through.
This is a forum about overunity devices,and there are just as many mechanical devices as there are electrical devices. So if you think the EE guys here have the run of the show,and there word is law around here,then you are very much mistaken.

What are you MH--why are you here?
You dont build,you dont experiment,you have no vision what so ever,nore have i ever seen you give any encouragement to anyone trying something new. All you do is badmouth those that dont agree with you.
From the attitude you have,i can clearly see why people like Mag's,EMJ-ETC would give you what you deserve,as have i.
You think you are some almighty book of knowledge,but the fact is,(electronics)i could build a much more efficient pulse motor than you ever could--and thats a fact.(mechanical) I could modify and tune an ICE to a much higher standard than you ever could--and thats a fact. (chemical)I could build a much more efficient HHO system than you ever could--and thats a fact.

So tell me Mr threatening man--what can you do better than me?--sit there and quote text book physics?

So lets do it MH
I formally challenge you to a simple pulse motor build off.

We start a thread for the challenge to post our progress.
We set the parameters of the P/in P/out to be measured-be it just electrical,or all three-electrical,heat,and mechanical outputs.
We post our results.
We then send both of our pulse motors to an agreed member for verification of the calculated efficiency of each motor.
Time to put those textbooks to work MH.
Let the other members here see that all your knowledge is correct when put to a practical/real world device.
Show everyone here that you can beat this guy you just said makes--> beyond-belief ridiculous technical blunders
You put all your precision text book stuff to work,and i will put all my ridiculous technical blunders to work.

There is my challenge MH,and dont give not crap about--oh i dont build stuff

And dont ever threaten me again through your lies.

Brad

Brad:

  The same thing has been going on for months for many issues and it's enough to drive any sane person nuts.  For the superconductor, you posted saying that the field was contained within the wire and the reference you quoted in the same posting said that the field was all external to the wire.  That's a Bradism if there ever was one.  An ideal short does NOT have a magnetic field around it, it's a hypothetical entity with no inductance.  You are trying to claim an ideal short has characteristics similar to an ideal inductor.  That's par for the course.  An ideal voltage source is a source of power, period.  It does not "contain energy," it's not something that you would ever say.  You were not discussing my circuit and you bringing it up again in your reply is another bait and switch.  Beyond that, there is no such thing as an ideal voltage source "exploding."  It's just another thing that would get you sliced to pieces on a real electronics forum.  Get lost with your thug/yob/bogan comments about being threatened.  Go find a "super trash talking" forum for that.  You did indeed make a vain attempt to pull off a silly stunt.  Sure the forum discusses mechanical attempts to achieve OU, but it doesn't really discuss gasoline engines that much at all, does it?  I am not going to build a bloody pulse motor and one of the applications related to the question is to give you better skills so you can build a better pulse motor.

MileHigh

As i said MH,you just do not remember what you say some times. You make no sense in most of what you say,and you contradict your self more times than no.

You never answer questions asked of you,but get your knickers in a twist when some one dosnt answer yours--childish indeed.

I don't present myself as all-knowing and have deferred to people that know more than me many times.  So that statement is crap.  I an not having a tantrum and you have been freaking out for months because I decided to give you the straight goods about your technical discussions.  Calling someone the "laughing stock of the forum" after you are presented with an equation that you clearly didn't even understand is a nasty thing to say and just as bad as any "bad word."  You don't think people can get frustrated with you and maybe their language could get strong?  Here you are with a bunch of people trying desperately to get you to accept how an ideal inductor works.

And who has been named the !all knowing! here?. I will not be brainwashed into believing anything ,just because you think they know all there is to know. Your question has not been answered correctly by anybody,and to think that some one is correct just because that is what there area of work is,is nothing more than idiotic science.

Here you are with a bunch of people trying desperately to get you to accept how an ideal inductor works

You are no different than me MH,and you acted in the very same manor about the ICE issue. The ICE is my area of expertise,and yet you still disagreed with me. I had to go and find the proof you wanted,as my word was not good enough for you. As we are yet to see any proof of what or how your circuit will operate,i will continue to put forth my beliefs.

I will be bringing up a couple of core issues on the correct thread for this discussion.


Brad

partzman
>>>





MileHigh

On the other thread you are seething with anger.

Your inability to distinguish between anger and being firm MH,is your own undoing.
Please believe me when i say that you will never anger me. I can deal with the likes of you quite well.

  It's all fire and brimstone with you.  And you are clearly not beyond using some nasty words and throwing around negativity in all directions.

Just responding in kind MH--nothing more.
I only give back to you and minnie me,what you two give--nothing more.
In fact,you will not find one post where i have used the fowl language you have in the past--thats a fact. So it is easy to see who is the one that gets angry--and it aint me

John may not contribute much, but when he does say something he is quite astute and on track.  You on the other hand are indeed confused about many issues and every time an issue comes up it's a battle with you.

You need to have a good hard look in the mirror MH,as most of the issues that have arisen on this thread,is due to your lack of knowledge--E.G,ICE engines,JTs,simple electronic components like the J/FET--->wine glasses that resonate on there own
This is when you get angry MH,when you know you are wrong,and there is no way out for you.

 

Can an ideal voltage source be variable in time?  The answer is yes, the only question is when you will understand this, or perhaps we should all give up the battle and take the strategy of ignoring it altogether and ignoring your objections.

Saying that i dont understand what an ideal voltage source is MH,is just another of your lies.
I was the first to answer that on the other thread,and verpies agreed with how i described it to the letter. So suck it up princess,as i do know exactly what an ideal voltage source is--oh ,and by the way,it dose contain energy that is fed into it-->try and let that sink in for a while.

An ideal voltage source does not "contain energy."  So do you remain confused about that, or do you understand the meaning of the abstract term "ideal voltage source" or do you battle or should we all just ignore it and move forward?

You are wrong,and you proved your self wrong on the other thread,--oh ,and that one about the energy just disappearing was a hoot lol--MHs new form of physics--energy can now be transformed from one form to another--and destroyed 

The difference between a very small resistance and no resistance is not "infinite," it is negligible.  Why do I say that?  What is not being said that is expected from all participants to be mutually understood when we are talking about an ideal inductor vs. a real inductor with a very small resistance?  What you are supposed to understand is that TIME is the big determining factor.  You are supposed to know this without it being spelt out for you.  A 5 Henry inductor with a 0.001 ohm resistance has a time constant of one hour and 23 minutes.  That means that after a measly three seconds the difference in the current flowing through the ideal inductor and the real inductor will be negligible.

You just dont get the difference between ideal and real,but no surprise there.
Do you know why the voltage can appear across the coil before the current starts to flow through it MH?,and why dose it take time for that current to reach a maximum value?
What has the value of the CEMF got to do with the rate of change to the current and the EMF.
Are you able to relate the drop in current draw of an electric motor to the EMF,CEMF and current value?. The fact that you just dismiss the time constant of the ideal inductor,because it is infinite,is your undoing,and why you cannot understand your own circuit operation.

It's time for you to move forward.  I hope Magluvin comes back to work with you.  You need to answer the question properly and understand the issues and demonstrate competence in this stuff.

Lets have a peak at some of the things you said on the other thread--and in one post too lol.

Quote:
Power just disappeared-gone-vanished-destroyed
Then the next paragraph,Quote: So now we have an ideal voltage !source!,that has power pumped into it,
And then this one--Quote:  An ideal voltage source supplies energy, it does not contain energy.
Welcome to MHs mumbo jumbo.
We have a source that contains no energy,but can deliver energy
We also know that it dose not receive energy from an outside source,because as you stated above-->Any power that is pumped into an ideal voltage source doesn't go anywhere.  It's simply gone

Who is demonstrating competence MH?

Partzman gave you a really good intermediate question that sits perfectly between the easy question and the hard question already answered:

I am interested in your question only.
I can see from your statements above,as to why you would want people to deviate from your original question MH,as it seems that you are getting your self all tied up in knots with your own !!simple!! question

This is for those who hold to the misinterpretation of an ideal voltage source as "not being allowed" to vary.  First the question, how do we solve a problem involving an ideal AC voltage source? Do we ignore such problems or do we "not allow" them to exist?

An ideal voltage source MH,is a voltage source that will hold the voltage value as selected or determined by the user,regardless of the load. This includes AC and DC values.
It also has no internal resistance,and there for cannot dissipate power.
Thats an ideal voltage source MH.

Removed the last attempt at diversion,as it is not related to the original question.

If you can answer that one, then you will be well on the road to understanding the difficult question that has already been answered.

Another lie.
The original question has not be answered--fact.

So please, lose the anger and get on with answering the first question.

I have no anger MH. In fact,your posts give me a good laugh most of the time lol---they are comical ,as the ones i have posted above.


Brad

Power just disappears--poof,gone--no longer in existence lol