MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[MileHigh]

@MH

You know what. Your only fall back is to attack me with something that is totally irrelevant to the discussion. You want to discuss constructs then open a new thread and i will be there in my corner of the boxing ring. No problem. If you want we can play knowledge court where you will defend EE and I will accuse it of fraud. That would make a good weekly. Hmmmmm

wattsup

I am not attacking you.  In fact the "you" in my posting refers to all those that "don't believe" that an ideal voltage source can vary with respect to time.  Like it or not, many people would find just arguing the issue to be strange.  It's kind of a mom and apple pie issue and you are of the group saying that you are not allowed to put ice cream on your apple pie.  It just makes no sense.

I am not going to address all of the drama in your posting about me nor all of the drama you raise about the question itself.  There is no need for all of this, truly.  Brad and others are supposed to be trying to answer a simple question and understand all of concepts and the related issues.  As far as I am concerned this whole thing should have happened six years ago.

You made reference to a question of yours that was ignored.  I don't see a question in post #454.  That posting is really hard to digest, BTW.  I went back a few more pages and did not see anything so I suppose you are taking about your post #454.  If you can tell me what the question is I will try to answer it.

MileHigh

[poynt99]

Thanks Darren.

So, is it OK to have more than one "ideal" component in an exercise? Or is it?  Or, is it more to have an imaginary component (ideal) replace something you already know in the circuit and are wanting to find out about something else in the circuit?  Is this it?  Like solving for X when you already know Y?

It is ok to have more than one ideal component in a circuit, yes.

In the sim we can get real close to ideal components (voltage sources are), in real life that is more of a challenge. MH keeps mentioning big audio power amplifiers, well that is to get the output impedance down. Use lots of negative feedback and big hefty transistor outputs, and you will have a nice low Z buffer for your arbitrary wave form generator (assuming it is DC coupled).  The inductor is a far greater challenge, but still not insurmountable to get reasonably close, i.e. L/R=50.

Picture a place and time when you go to a roadside dinner at 3:00 a.m. and all of the waitresses have one large eye in the center of their head.  You have entered...the Twilight Zone.

Bill

[wattsup]

@MH

Maybe you need to understand how an OUer sees the question or anyone else that reads a question and responds to it literally. So just to clarify this without any chance of further misunderstandings, you need to clarify this yourself and I am spelling it out clearly for you to make it easy.

Method #1
1) the voltage stays at 4 volts for 3 seconds
2) then is falls on its own to 0 volts for 2 seconds
3) then it falls on its own to -3 volts for 2 seconds
4) then is rises on its own to 0.5 volts for 7 seconds
5) then it falls on its own to 0 seconds for infinity.

All these events are occurring in succession on their own with only that first 4V setting on a 5H inductor resulting from the actions occurring in the inductor itself. For us, that's how your question was asked and never was there any mention of time-variable anything.

Now with your sudden inclusion of those two words that I knew in advance would generate a hurricane you are saying this.

Method #2
1) the voltage is set manually or programmed to automatically go to 4 volts for 3 seconds
2) the voltage is set manually or programmed to automatically go to 0 volts for 2 seconds
3) the voltage is set manually or programmed to automatically go to -3 volts for 2 seconds
4) the voltage is set manually or programmed to automatically go to 0.5 volts for 7 seconds
5) the voltage is set manually or programmed to automatically go to 0 seconds for infinity.

Are you saying your question was as per Method #2, hence each is a separate event?

Or is there something different besides these two choices that you need to add.

wattsup

[MileHigh]

Wattsup:

Is there really any difference between the two ways of wording it and the way I worded it?  I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people to know what a voltage source is, or what an ideal voltage source is.

How about we go back to TK's metaphor?  You are turning a dial to change the voltage on an ideal power supply.  You can turn the dial very fast and the resultant voltage output looks like the plot that Poynt posted.  The voltage source is active, it's driving the show.

All these events are occurring in succession on their own with only that first 4V setting on a 5H inductor resulting from the actions occurring in the inductor itself.

In my example, the inductor simply is a slave to the actions of the voltage source.  That's it, the inductor has no say whatsoever in what voltage exists across its two terminals.

Does this make sense now?

MileHigh

[wattsup]

@MH

No. I just need an answer.
I thought spelling it out clearly is better then reading between the lines.
I thrive on precision and not on suppositions. I investigate things until they become clear.

Method #1 or Method #2
And the difference is enormous. 200 pages enormous.
Now do you understand why all this crap has been going on.

I know now just by your sidetracking that your answer is Method #2 and it should not have been asked as it was. It should have been 6 different questions each starting at t0 for their set duration and each starting at their identified voltage setting and each produces one effect.

Instead you led the question to be understood as one voltage setting "transmuting" to the others on their own direct from that one first 4V input. So do you realize the problem. Or now maybe I should ask you to respond to Method #1 and see how you like it while I badger you ever step of the way, telling you, "no no it's a perfectly sound question that I can answer in a jiffy".

Our total argumentation was based on Method #1 and you cannot say they are the same. They are not.

wattsup