MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[MileHigh]

I'll pick method number #2 of you want me to pick something.

I don't know what you really mean by "falls on its own" in method #1.  You seem to be suggesting that it is a passive action by the voltage source.  How could that be?  How could the voltage source "know" to fall to -3 volts?

I don't why you focus on things like this.  If you have a basic understanding of electronics then the question as originally posed is straightforward, self-evident, and not ambiguous.  You are reading into something that is not there.

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.

No, there is no problem at all.

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

You are in "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" territory.  People that understand basic electronics don't see any rhyme or reason in what you are saying.

[minnie]

   wattsup,tinman and me, what I've learned is if you want to do electronics
   you've got to go to college and start from DAY ONE and really pay attention.
    I'm managing to get a bit but only by constantly referring to very basic
   tutorials.
           John.
    We must thank the likes of MH. poynt etc. for their patience in inching us along.

[ramset]

Language...

A big part of this problem here is language ,The "taught ", hear and read things thru their learned Language ,which are indeed self evident to _Them_.

that is why one "Taught Man" can send a PDF to build a 747 to another "Taught man" on the other side of the world .
and a 747 can be built with no further contact.

here we try to talk outside the "taught Box" and not only outside of _that _ box but also with many here trying to contribute in tongues and cultures which they are not familiar with.

its a big mish mosh ,and I'm surprised there are not more fights.

And then we throw in Ego's insults and personal "agendas" [never good to do]

and.... Boom

Do we keep rinsing and repeating ??

we can self loop this in perpetuity .....

OR

we have a lot of very good men here , dedicated Men !

and plenty of Napkins...

[verpies]

I read every word. How was that post helpful to anyone?

It helped Wattsup to notice that he needs to be more careful with his words.
These are technical posts and every word matters. Making mental shortcuts is sometimes funny but most often it requires "secret decoder rings" from the reader.  Those are not good habits for technical communication.

So now we have established that an ideal voltage source merely needs to have:
- zero internal resistance
- zero internal reactance
- an output voltage that is not affected by the load

...but it does not need to output a constant output voltage all the time, and it can be even an ideal alternating voltage source.

We can consider the direction of the current flowing through this ideal voltage source.

Brad will like this:
The current can flow in two directions through the voltage source and the voltage presented by this voltage source can have two polarities, too.  So we have 2 variables and each one can have 2 states.  This gives us 4 combinations.

Of course this is again the 4-quadrant operation, where:
- 2 combinations result in energy flowing from the voltage source to the load
- 2 other combinations result in energy flowing from the load to the voltage source

Can you enumerate which ones?

[tinman]

If the question in this thread is ever answered properly or not, I strongly advise anybody interested to go back and read it again from the beginning.  You can decide for yourselves.

As an example, I somehow doubt we are going to get any more challenges about the concept of a time-variable ideal voltage source.  Nor will we get any admissions that this was all just silliness and a useless and nonsensical waste of time and energy from the main players.

I will also repeat the main goals for this thread:

1.  Brad gets up the learning curve and understands the original question and then answers it correctly all by himself and clearly demonstrates that he understands the concepts and understands what he is doing.
2.  Brad admits that he was wrong when he stated that my response to the harder question was wrong.

I would really hope that Brad successfully achieves those two goals.

MH-you are a true idiot.
Do not come to this thread i started,and belittle me like you have above.
You are no wizz kid,and that much was proven in the JT thread.
To come here nad have the arrogance to think i am the one that needs to climb the ladder,is you just grasping for air,and trying to make me look bad
Well bad new's MH--your question has not yet been answered correctly,and those that think they have,and it's game,set,and match ,are free to post there real world results using the two components of your question -an ideal inductor(no resistance),and an ideal voltage source(no internal resistance)--and no means none at all.

How good are you MH,well i now know that (as i suspected) you would not have answered your own question correctly. What i should have done,was to get you to post your answer to Poynt before this thread started,as Poynt (even though we disagree some times)would have posted your answer as you presented it at the end of this discussion.

But there is no need for that,as i have the proof i need--saved and screen shot-just in case you decide to go change things on said post when you realize your mistake.


So take your idiotic remark's,and place them in the waste bin.


Brad