MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[partzman]

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?

In an effort to help resolve this issue, I pose a new problem which is most relative to MH's original.

We have an ideal voltage source that starts at T0 with zero volts and ramps linearly to 4 volts at t1 = 1 second.  In parallel with this ideal voltage source is an ideal inductor of 5h.  What is the inductor current at T1?

partzman

edit

[minnie]

   tinman if you aren't prepared to learn and accept the basics you're a
   waste of time.
         Ideal voltage source zero internal resistance, able to supply or absorb any amount
  of current.
       Either independent or dependent as required.
   Some things aren't for debate, for example I wouldn't put milk in the fuel tank
  of my Honda or I wouldn't try to put petrol in our Tesla p85d.
         John.

[wattsup]

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.

No, there is no problem at all.

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.

@MH

Let me just clarify this for the last time.

The question, in the way it is asked implies that with one application of an ideal voltage of 4V to an ideal inductor of 5H will produce in that one action the following effects in a continuous sequence. Consider the effect is a resulting single sine wave from that one first single action of applying that one instance of 4V for a duration of 14 seconds then to infinity.

Method #1
1) the sine wave starts at 4 volts for 3 seconds
2) the same sine wave then drops to 0 volts for 2 seconds
3) the same sine wave then drops to -3 volts for 2 seconds
4) the same sine wave then rises to 0.5 volts for 7 seconds
5) the same sine wave then drops to 0 seconds for infinity.

All this happens with only that first application of 4V at t0 and from there with only that 4V applied to the inductor, the voltage measurements across the inductor would indicate those voltage values from 2 to 6 in those time intervals, but always with that first 4V applied to the inductor. No stopping, manually changing voltage levels. Those voltage levels shift down and up on their own because of the action of that first 4V introduced into that inductor.

That's how your question was asked. That's why I was against your question. But again this is your lack of precision, not mine. You should have seen that something was not understood by the way your question was asked. IT WAS YOUR QUESTION. You should have known that after 2-3 pages of heated rebuttal that you needed to ask us to first explain what the question means. PRECISELY. Instead you kept pushing this bad question and chastised us for what?

The question the way I understood it was impossible to answer or maybe you would like to take a crack at it as I have explained above. I even tried to make heads or tales of it working out a logic base. Now that I know these are 6 independent events of ideal voltages applied to a 5H inductor, this question just went from 1000% difficulty to 2% difficulty. I was actually impressed that your Method #1 could have been a real scenario and I just could not figure it out. But now I know it was a Method #2 question which is just more rudimentary EE. Basically a false flag event.

Actually I should be commended for trying to at least work some logic into Method #1. hahahahaha

So again, this does not show how a coil works. It only shows how a coil responds. There is nothing in EE that shows how a coil works. That falls into the realm of physics where my Spin Conveyance will shed the light. From there it will migrate to EE and other disciplines.

I have 35 years as a water treatment professional. I have worked with ions and ions don't lie. When you realize how your coil works you will have to start over with your EE. You will have to create new math, new formulas (hehehe), new models. Or, the present math will have new correlations to cause and effect. This is not a bad thing. It will open up a whole new Renaissance of knowledge that Faraday was to chickenshit to realize because his balls were tied tight with his bosses fields. So it was a good stoop.

So here is a question for you. Why does the current never rise above the applied voltage? Why does it always ride at a certain percentage below? Why have I been talking about Half Coil Syndrome?

Now if this has been closed maybe I can go back to the JT thread when I get back from work I can post some new effects patterns that none of you have ever seen before and we can really talk about how a coil responds (not works) instead of this water in a pipe business.

@tinman

OK, here is a close analogy to how a coil responds (not works) with water in a pipe under the DC model.

You have two pumps, one on each end of a length of pipe both pumping into the pipe. Each pump is first connected to a tee connection where the pump is one end, a valve that opens and closes on one end and the pipe length is on the third end. One pump is your positive connection, the other is your negative connection. As your coils are plugged usually one connection is always connected and the other is always pulsed. Each pump has a rheostat. The positive side pump it set at 60%, the negative side pump is set at 40% of available voltage. So if you are pulsing the negative side, only that side pump turns on and off while the other polarity pump is "always on". When the pulsed pump is on, the valve on that same side is closed. When that same pump turns off, the valve on that same side opens. The valve on the always pumping side is always closed. Both pumps draw from the same tank. Each side also has a higher cracking pressure check valve that returns to the tank plus those two valves also return to the tank. By this you will realize that pulsing a coil on the negative will always cost 60% for rebias for 40% change, while if you pulse the positive side of the coil it will cost 40% rebias for 60% change. This analogy is still wrong because we are using water that can only flow. This automatically is not the right way to see it. A close physical way would be if there was a way to introduce a colored die into the water at pulse on and then retract that die at pulse off. The water never really moves. Actually even the die analogy is not right because it is much simpler then that but for physical means they come close enough. Maybe 40% close. hahahahahaha

wattsup

[tinman]

   
       
       

tinman if you aren't prepared to learn and accept the basics you're a
   waste of time.

Dont call me a waste of time,you potty mouthed little weasel.
What have you got to show for your self?--yes,nothing.

Ideal voltage source zero internal resistance, able to supply or absorb any amount
  of current.

MHs response to that is--an ideal voltage source dose not contain energy--> so go argue with him.

Either independent or dependent as required.
   Some things aren't for debate, for example I wouldn't put milk in the fuel tank
  of my Honda or I wouldn't try to put petrol in our Tesla p85d.

And you wouldnt try to claim victory when dealing with unknowns and ideals without proof.

You fall under the same spell as MH,and that is not being able to define between a small resistance and no resistance. I have shown you on a number of occasions that the difference is infinite.

Can you accurately calculate the top speed of a Chevy Camaro by measuring the top speed of a mini moke?. No ,i did not think so. But this is what is trying to be done here,using real world applications and devices to conclude how an ideal inductor and an ideal voltage source would react in a circuit,under the conditions that MH has set out.
         

[tinman]

@ Poynt

The best i can do as far as an inductor i have in the work shop,is a 1 Henry coil with 1.6 ohms of resistance.
This is a very large inductor out of a 300 amp HF mig welder.
Nothing else comes even close to the 5 Henry coil needed,with a low resistance value.
I do have a large MOT,and that is .71 Henry,and a resistance of 1.2 ohms.

I still think we could see the desired effect i am talking about with one of these inductors.

All you need to do,is work out how to switch at the rate needed for either of these two inductors,and maintain an unimpeded current flow through the inductor during the 0 volt portion of the test.----You have to design the !ideal! voltage supply

I do have some 6 amp diodes that have only a .3 volt drop across them.
Maybe we could just use one of these as a free wheeling diode across the inductor,to allow for the continuation of the current flow--but how to remove the dead short when the voltage is applied inverted?.
I do have plenty of 20 amp double throw relays,but i think they will be too slow in switching for the job,and large arcs will be formed across the contacts.


I'll leave you i think.


Brad