MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[MileHigh]

Brad:

Partzmans answer dose not represent your original question.
If partzman runs the same simulation with the resistance value removed,so as the circuit represents your ideal inductor,he will derive the same answer as myself and Poynt.

I will repeat this a second and last time.  The addition of the resistance to the simulation is to solve a constraint in the way the software works.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with what you are referring to.

You are in for an unpleasant surprise when Poynt comes back.  You think that both of you are on the same page but you are not.  Like I said, I can't explain his quote but in due time we will find out.

You literally have been given a partial correct answer from partzman in two forms.  Someone else earlier in the thread described an ideal inductor behaviour perfectly.  It looks like it's going to take a few more days before you come round and it may have to end up being a forced spoon feeding session from a guru.

MileHigh

[Magneticitist]

MH ask this question to a couple of members of this forum,and he has been ranting on ever since how they could not answer his question correctly.

I decided to have a go at answering the question,which is posted in the first post of this thread.
I opened this thread to discuss this original question,and not MHs modified version that now has a non ideal inductor.

I told MH that his question is more complicated than he believes it is.
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. This opens cans of worms all over the place,as you can see in my previous 4 to 5 posts.


Brad

one thing that majorly confused me, and apparently you as well, was the 'ideal voltage' source also being a variable supply. so not only does this magic power supply provide infinite current with 0 vdrop it can change voltage at any time. I was under the impression an ideal vsource was a fixed source for all intents and purposes, though apparently not. this is why I was saying that kind of question is more what you would expect from your EE professor, in class. without being primed with the basics of that class, it's quite hard to know where one is supposed to start answering, or how.
IMO that does not mean a person is completely void of electronics knowledge of circuit building capability.

people still make fun of Ed Leedskalnin but could he not manipulate magnetic current to do his bidding? sure, maybe he could have done so much more had he earned a degree, but his lack of degree by no means made him a clueless idiot.

[MileHigh]

Magneticitist:

The question defines a voltage source connected to an inductor.  It defines the voltage waveform.

The only unknown in the setup is the current.  You have to solve for the current.

MileHigh

[tinman]

Brad:

Re: Poynt's comment:

I am not sure of the context for that or he may simply have been sarcastic.

What I can say to you is this:

The question was posed to you with an ideal inductor and you objected to that.  So I then reposed the question to you and added a resistor that gives you a time constant of 158,440 years and you agreed in principle that that variant of the question can be answered.  On top of that, you have already been given a partial correct answer.

So what you (or anyone else) need to do is try to answer either question, the original or the variant.  Both answers will essentially be the same.

So there is only one real answer, even if you use the variant question.  And the answer is still not forthcoming from you or from anyone else.  That means you have an opportunity to shine and demonstrate that you understand what is going on, you understand inductance, and you understand how an inductor works.

So forget about your long and complicated answer in post #91.  A simple question can be answered with a simple answer, and then also demonstrate your competence on the subject matter.  Give it your best shot.

MileHigh

As i have now stated 3 times MH,we will first answer your original question,and then we will look at your modified question,which now includes a resistance,and so is no longer related to the original question,as the inductor is no non ideal. The two answers and outcomes will be infinitely different--that you can be assured.

I do not believe Poynt is being sarcastic,as this is a very important subject as far as im concerned.

I am no longer interested in proving you wrong,as your original question has me fired up like i have not been in a long time. My brain has gone into overdrive on this one,and it has been a long time since i have had so much interest in a subject. It is now 2.15 am,and i cant sleep. I just lye in been thinking about this subject--going over and over my thoughts on it. I have to start a 9 hour shift in 4 hours,but i cant sleep.

The ramifications of my theories being correct,change everything as far as what is believed to be an ideal inductor. If Poynt was being sincere with his answer about there being no current flow through an ideal inductor,which as you know,was also !one! of my answers,then we have started to travel down a road no one has traveled yet.

I have to wait for Poynts view on my answers i provided.
Maybe even PW,Vortex1,verpies would like to join in on the discussion?.


Brad

[poynt99]

Brad:

Re: Poynt's comment:

I am not sure of the context for that or he may simply have been sarcastic.

I'm not being sarcastic at all.

Unless I'm overlooking something, or don't correctly understand the question, there will be no current, and the voltage across the inductor will be whatever the voltage source is at any one time, from t=0 to the end of time.

Given that tau=infinity, there can be no change in either I or V. Indeed if R is non-zero, there will be a current and the voltage change over time.