MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[MileHigh]

Brad:

Yes, I used the term "formulas given to you" because in the beginning of this thread you were completely and utterly lost and the formulas had to be given to you.

So you are completely avoiding my challenge to you to show your knowledge and demonstrate that you understand the circuit and can explain it in your own words.  That says it all right there.  It means that you can't do it.

It's no surprise, look at a very recent quote from you from just three days ago:

The CEMF is no different to that induced by an electric motor,only it is ass about,where the CEMF will increase with motor speed,resulting in a drop in current draw,and with the coil,the CEMF will decrease over time,resulting in a higher current draw. So an increase in CEMF is seen as an impedance to the current flow,by way of reducing the potential voltage difference between the applied EMF,and the CEMF. In the case of the inductor,the CEMF reduces over time,meaning a larger potential difference between applied EMF and CEMF,resulting in a higher current flow value.

The CEMF does not reduce over time and there is no such thing as a difference between the applied EMF and the CEMF.  I posted that the EMF and the CEMF are always equal and you either missed it, forgot about it, or simply did not understand it, or you "choose to go your own way" and you make up things in your mind that you believe "fit."

So, most unfortunately, you have backed yourself into a corner and you are feigning that you understand what is taking place in the circuit when clearly you still don't understand and you still have a long way to go.  You started this thread with confidence and you were going to "show me."  I didn't even want to get into this discussion.  You simply can't be honest right now and that's a real shame.

If you study this thread carefully and do your own supplementary research then one day you will be able to explain how this simple circuit works.  Then you need to try to answer Partzman's mini question.  Then you need to try to explain how the second already answered question is correct. 

Then, using the identical format for the question, replace the ideal 5 Henry inductor with an ideal 5 Farad capacitor and try to answer the same question again and fully explain it.

Then, take the original question and replace the ideal voltage source with an ideal current source and answer two more questions, one question where there is an ideal 5 Henry coil, and another where there is an ideal 5 Farad capacitor.   Substitute when the voltage is four volts for a current of four amps, etc.

So, you take my first question, and you add the three questions described above, and you have a total of four questions that teach basic concepts related to an ideal voltage source, an ideal current source, an ideal inductor, and an ideal capacitor.  Any person that plays with electronics and wants to be serious must be able to answer those four questions and fully understand all of the nuances associated with those questions.  It is an absolute must.

If you can answer those four questions with a full understanding of what is going on and demonstrate complete competence with respect to these very basic electronics concepts, then you will have advanced your knowledge by a big jump.  It's all up to you.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Yes,that is MH.
The one thing that stands out most,is that he is here-on overunity.com
A forum dedicated to a subject his books do not allow for. He refutes every claim of any claimed OU device before he even takes the time to look and see if it has any merritt--the big''rubbish'' button is hit automatically.
One has to wonder why he is actually here-on a forum that researches something he dose not believe in.

Brad

I don't even argue that stuff anymore.  I am just waiting for the next Naima Feagin of QEG infamy to come along.  I am only interested in the big fish that want to steal money from people.  Discussing circuits with you is just an attempt to get you to help yourself, and it has been a nightmare.

Yes Brad, it's time to eat your own words or have a good old fashioned brain fry.

http://overunity.com/16550/mechanical-resonance-projects-unlike-forums-hacks-tinman-and-magluvin/msg482002/#msg482002

You need to get this !!overunity!! bullshit out of your head-there is no such thing as !overunity! period.
As i said,those that may one day see an overunity device,are those that are blind to the source of energy.

Says a man that exists in a universe that is expanding at an increasing speed.

Overunity is only confusion,and misunderstanding--there is no such thing as !overunity!.

Brad

[tinman]

 author=MileHigh link=topic=16589.msg485082#msg485082 date=1464097150]



MileHigh

Yes, I used the term "formulas given to you" because in the beginning of this thread you were completely and utterly lost and the formulas had to be given to you.

Ah,so you must have taught me well MH. I am following your lead,where one makes bold rejections against those who know better--like !there is no resonance or resonant systems what so ever in or around an ICE. The proof had to be given to you,as you were completely and utterly lost.
If the shoe fit's MH

So you are completely avoiding my challenge to you to show your knowledge and demonstrate that you understand the circuit and can explain it in your own words.  That says it all right there.  It means that you can't do it.

As you are avoiding mine
But the truth is MH,worst case scenario,i could spend 20 minutes on the net,and find the answers you require,where as you could not build a simple pulse motor or JT,because your attitude will not allow it.

So, most unfortunately, you have backed yourself into a corner and you are feigning that you understand what is taking place in the circuit when clearly you still don't understand and you still have a long way to go.  You started this thread with confidence and you were going to "show me."  I didn't even want to get into this discussion.  You simply can't be honest right now and that's a real shame.

Oh please MH-->you were the very first to comment on the thread.
You were itching for this to happen.Taking into account the difference in times around the world,it only took you 2 hours,18 minutes to make your first comment--the first reply on the thread.

If you study this thread carefully and do your own supplementary research then one day you will be able to explain how this simple circuit works.  Then you need to try to answer Partzman's mini question.  Then you need to try to explain how the second already answered question is correct.

Sure,right after you take me up on my challenge.
Ever notice that it is always everyone else that answers the questions,while you avoid everything.
All those here have to do everything for you. Others have to build and test,others have to put up sim scope shot's,others have to do all the research,while you do nothing but talk.

Then, using the identical format for the question, replace the ideal 5 Henry inductor with an ideal 5 Farad capacitor and try to answer the same question again and fully explain it.

Oh,so now we have an ideal voltage source being fed from an ideal voltage source.
Imagine that connection,and ideal voltage source hooked across an ideal capacitor--that has no internal series resistance
Would this ideal capacitor,being an ideal voltage source,store the energy that is provided by the ideal voltage source that has no stored energy?
Maybe it just disappears MH? lol.

Maybe it is time for you to answer a question

Then, take the original question and replace the ideal voltage source with an ideal current source and answer two more questions, one question where there is an ideal 5 Henry coil, and another where there is an ideal 5 Farad capacitor.   Substitute when the voltage is four volts for a current of four amps, etc.
So, you take my first question, and you add the three questions described above, and you have a total of four questions that teach basic concepts related to an ideal voltage source, an ideal current source, an ideal inductor, and an ideal capacitor.  Any person that plays with electronics and wants to be serious must be able to answer those four questions and fully understand all of the nuances associated with those questions.  It is an absolute must.

Anyone that plays with electronics will know there is no such thing as an ideal voltage source,or an ideal capacitor.

If you can answer those four questions with a full understanding of what is going on and demonstrate complete competence with respect to these very basic electronics concepts, then you will have advanced your knowledge by a big jump.  It's all up to you.

If you can build an actual device,say a pulse motor,or JT,that is more efficient at converting electrical energy into wanted energies than what i can,then you will know that your !!vast!! knowledge in electronics has some bases behind it. If not,then your word's of wisdom are just that--word's.


Brad

[tinman]

I don't even argue that stuff anymore.  I am just waiting for the next Naima Feagin of QEG infamy to come along.  I am only interested in the big fish that want to steal money from people.  Discussing circuits with you is just an attempt to get you to help yourself, and it has been a nightmare.



http://overunity.com/16550/mechanical-resonance-projects-unlike-forums-hacks-tinman-and-magluvin/msg482002/#msg482002

Ah,so you are here only to debunk peoples devices,while im here to find unknown ,untapped energy sources.

Yes Brad, it's time to eat your own words or have a good old fashioned brain fry.

The brain fry is actually on you MH,as some here call it OU,while i call it an unknown energy supply-->which of the two would be correct using your very own book's?
I bet you wont answer that one,as that would make your attempt to !once again! belittle me,look very foolish-->much like you saying that using a J/FET in a low voltage JT makes no sense


Brad

[MileHigh]

much like you saying that using a J/FET in a low voltage JT makes no sense

Brad

Well, isn't that special Brad.  I explained to you that the last time I thought about JFETs I was sitting in a class 35 years ago.  I did not Google a JFET to check my statement before I posted, I was hedging my bets and I lost.  Instead of accepting my explanation and moving on, here you are like some pimp, still pushing this nonsense.

You want to see some real incoherent and idiotic nonsense from someone that probably plays with electronics a few times a week and he does this right now in May 2016, and not in the early 1980s?

Try this:

My answer to this question is--you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor.
when the ideal voltage is placed across the ideal inductor,the current would rise instantly to a value of infinity.
My skills are fine thank you MH.
So i stand by my answer-->you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor.
If you did(theoretically),the current would rise instantly to an infinite value.
This results in an instant current rise to an infinite value.
I dont think MH gave much thought to his question,or the outcome of installing the !ideal! parts to this !so called! simple circuit.
If the time constant is infinite for maximum current through the ideal inductor,then that means that no current flows through the inductor--ever
The ideal inductor has no resistance,and so now our ideal voltage is placed across a dead short,and that means an infinite amount of current will flow instantly
I can claim my answer to be correct,and no one can disprove it,as the ideal inductor and ideal voltage source do not exist.
So an ideal inductor dose not exist for that very reason,and there for your question cannot be answered
As you ,nor anyone else has proven that i have made a mistake,then my answer stands-you cannot connect an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor.
No MH. You are making claims you cannot back up,as you do not have access to an ideal inductor.
These two values are far from your 99.99% close enough is near enough coil,as it is not even close.
Like i said,you should have thought about your question a little better.
No-the difference is !infinite!--you just dont get this,do you ?.
This is the very reason that MHs question cannot be answered,as i have stated before.
If R = 0,which id dose,as the inductor is ideal,then no current flows through the ideal inductor.
This means that it will also take an infinite amount of time before current start to flow
But there is also no resistance in an ideal coil,and so the ideal voltage is now across a dead short.
So,the current either rises instantly,or the current rise time is infinite,which means there is no current flowing through the ideal coil.
If we are going to be accurate and true to our selves in this discussion,then i think you are going to find that there is an infinite gap between real and ideal.
Your question cannot be answered,as it is a contradiction to it self.
At this point in time,i am sticking to my answers given-both the real world answer-->you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor,and also my theoretical answer,being the current would rise instantly,to an infinite value.
And so my answer of an instant current rise of an infinite value.
Unfortunately partzman,it is no where near an ideal inductors outcome,as an ideal inductor never has any current passing through it.
My other answer is because there is no resistance with an ideal inductor,and there for it is a dead short.
My real world answer is(and has been throughout this thread)that you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor,as an ideal inductor dose not -and never will exist.
If the voltage increases,then it is not an ideal voltage,as an ideal voltage dose not change in time.
The rest of us are hoping that MH learns that when you add ideals into questions,it changes everything drastically,and the situation in no way represents real worl outcomes.
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.
I am no longer interested in proving you wrong
The ramifications of my theories being correct,change everything as far as what is believed to be an ideal inductor.
So unless you know some sort of math that allows a division of 5/0,and provides a value we can work with,then i will stick with my claim.
Regardless of whether it is L/0 or R/0,Tau is always infinite,meaning that the current will not rise in the case of an ideal inductor.
It is like my answer says it is--you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor,as an ideal inductor dose not exist.
I have also shown that regardless of how little the resistance value may be,it will lead to a value that is infinitely different to that of an ideal inductor that has no R value.
The fact that you have dismissed the L/R time constant to answer your original question is troubling.
This method (Tau=L/R) is the correct method to use in regards to your question.
The only reason you do not wish to use this method of Tau=L/R,is because that then puts you in a position of being incorrect.
I am standing firm on my answers,and i hope Poynt(and others) takes the time to have another look at this,and not just accept your example as a reality.
Unfortunately MH is just not getting it,and he is trying to use a math function that dose not account for the voltage and inductor on being ideal.
As i said,and have all along--you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor,because as you see,you are left with a paradox.
If an ideal voltage is placed across an ideal inductor(that has no resistance to control the flow of current),then the current would take an infinite amount of time to reach it's peak level.
So that is the paradox,but it is also correct,and once again backs up all my answers i have given in regards to the original question.
This all sounds crazy i know,and hence the reason i included the word conundrum and/or paradox with my answers.
This also shows that MHs question cannot be answered,as it cannot exist.
Changing values around,and changing from an ideal to a non ideal,and using math that is based around non ideal situations,is not going to make the original question answerable.
You have confirmed my real world answer--an ideal voltage cannot be applied to/placed across an ideal inductor.
Being an ideal inductor,means that it dose not dissipate power,and that also means the CEMF is also ideal,--> equal to that which creates it,and thus no current flows when a voltage is placed across that ideal inductor.
A non ideal inductor dose have an R value,and this means it dose dissipate power. This also means that the CEMF value is not as high as the EMF that created it,and so current will flow through a non ideal inductor--as we know.
And hence,once again,you cannot place a voltage across an ideal inductor,when current is flowing through that closed inductor loop.
Mh is using math that applies to an inductor on the understanding that that inductor will reach a maximum current value in a finite time.
I dont think it is clear Poynt,and your original thought (current will not flow)is correct.
This means that the CEMF is also ideal,and so is equal to the EMF ,and so an equal current will flow in the opposite direction to that of the current produced by the EMF.
Remember-it is only the resistance and parasitic capacitance that allows the EMF to be greater than the CEMF,and allow the flow of current,something that an ideal inductor is void of.
So that would mean a dead short when an ideal voltage from an ideal source is placed across the ideal inductor,as as much current would be trying to flow back into the ideal voltage source,as the ideal voltage source is trying to deliver.
What it means ,is that there can be no voltage across the ideal inductor
the current would be instant,and infinite--but no current flow
The result would be an instant and infinite current build up between the ideal voltage source,and the ideal inductor,but no current would flow.
And as there is no resistance throughout the circuit,no voltage would appear anywhere across that loop.
It is hard for some to understand what !ideal! mean's,but think about it long enough,and you begin to put all the pieces together.
Because the current produced by the inductor is equal and opposite to that being provided by the ideal voltage source,and so no current flows,but it dose rise to an infinite amount.
When dealing with ideals,we deal with absolutes,and there for the CEMF is ideal,meaning that it is equal and opposite to that of the EMF.
It's really not that simple MH. And the travesty is you have not taken the time to draw out your own circuit,or realize what you have described.
It is like i said,you cannot place an ideal voltage from an ideal voltage source across an ideal inductor.
The reason you dont understand this,is because you dont understand your own two component circuit.
Your circuit is an oxymoron-a paradox,and cannot work in reality,as one cancels out the other.
If you took the time to draw out your own circuit,and write down all the values of that circuit,and applied all that you have stated in this(and the JT)thread,then you would see the error of your ways.
But as you continue to try and relate ideal coils to non ideal coils,and ideal voltage sources with non ideal sources,you havnt a hope in hell in seeing what your circuit represents.
I can debunk your circuit in just 5 lines of text,but i will give you and the other EE guys here say-4 to 8 weeks lol,--just kidding,say 4 days to think about it.
It is only those here that are trying to relate real world device with ideal devices,and the transition just dose not exist .
how can a voltage  placed across an ideal shorted inductor induce a current flow through a shorted ideal inductor?
So i stand by my answer due to MHs insistence.
You cannot place an ideal voltage from an ideal voltage source across an ideal inductor.
the fact that the ideal voltage source is now connected across that ideal inductor,means that the current flowing through it is in no way impeded
Even when a current is flowing through that looped ideal inductor,ohms law states that V=IxR,and as there is no R,then there is no voltage across that looped inductor--as we know.
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-->or they(the shorted ideal wire and ideal voltage source) would continue to store the energy for an infinite time.
At T=5 seconds,MHs device explodes.
At that instant,you have to infinite current values trying to flow in opposite directions.
Being that both the inductor and voltage source is ideal,the energy stored in the ideal loop from T=3s to T=5s cannot be dissipated in order for a current to start flowing in the opposite direction
This MH paradox is truly fantastic---it makes everything work just the way you want it to.
No matter how i try and find a way for the stored energy to be dissipated before the opposite potential of that stored energy is released into the system,there is just no where for it to go.
As it has no where to go,due to it being in a closed loop,and there is no way of dissipating it's stored energy,due to there being no resistance in the loop,then it must remain.
The -3 volts is applied,and the current being produced is trying to collapse that already built magnetic field,which cannot be collapsed due to the steady state current that is flowing that keeps it built.
In a real world situation,that energy would be dissipated as heat,but as we have an ideal inductor loop,then the energy cannot be dissipated.
So this energy that is stored cannot return to the source,as the energy from the source is flowing in the wrong direction.
I am yet to see any reason posted why the CEMF is also not ideal.

So, shall I also act like a sleazy pimp and put all my Bradisms on display on a regular basis just like you?

MileHigh