MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[poynt99]

Webby1,

I would encourage you to do some reading on Faraday Induction, or watch Lewin's lecture on YT.

That is after all what it seems you are asking about.

[MileHigh]

You are no saint pal,and that much has been proven many times now.


1--MH learns what resonance means
2--MH learns how ICEs function
3--MH learns what a J/FET is.
4--MH learns that he is not perfect.
5--MH understands what good could be had by using a VR on a JT

So how about you take a long walk off a short plank MH,and on your way down,take a good hard look at how !good! you really are.
When you come back with results of a test using an !ideal! voltage source,and an !ideal! inductor,just remember that your answer is just that--a theory-a best guess based around !non ideal! equipment and components.

I had no problem at all answering your question,using non ideal generic equations.
But you will have all sorts of trouble putting together the actual circuit in your question,and backing up your !generic! answer--thats a fact.

1-Brad will bow to no mans Theories.
2-Brad will most certainly not be taking MHs word for anything.

Brad

The truth Brad is you're so weak that you wouldn't even have reported your latest test results and if Poynt didn't ask you would never have said anything at all.

1.  You need to learn what resonance means because you are just BSing and you failed to answer the two wine glass questions.  Your claim that a wine glass resonating after it has been struck is not actually resonating is a joke.
2.  The good old ICE again.  Would you like to see some selective quotes of yours from the first 10 pages of this thread?
3.  Kiss my ass with the stupid JFET nonsense.  Where is your circuit that uses a JFET to start up your Joule Thief oscillations at low voltages?  Oh, you don't have one, do you?
4. I am not perfect and I have no problem with that.  You are not perfect and this thread was a showcase for your serious imperfections that stunt your ability to learn.
5. The variable resistor for the Joule Thief was another insane argument put forth by you where you outright refused to try to understand what I was trying to tell you.  Just like in this thread you outright refused to learn and understand until you caved in an the end.  It didn't have to be like this at all and you have some serious problems to work on.

I had no problem at all answering your question,using non ideal generic equations.

Oops, you never answered it using non-ideal generic equations even though the offer for you to answer it that way was was made to you several times.  Of course you had "no problem at all."  Anything can be true when your brain is frying in a hot skillet.

The big question beyond the technical question that you failed to answer is this:  Have you learned anything about yourself and where you could make improvements and corrective actions?

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Im not sure if you read everything i write or post,but you seem to keep missing the fact that i do not agree with the results of your formula,and believe the values are wrong.

I told you right from the start,that using your generic formula would be an easy way out,but the results would not be that that your formula would show.

Brad

Well you are flat-out WRONG, and the results of the formula are 100% correct.

I told you right from the start,that using your generic formula would be an easy way out

Yes, we are going to talk about the integral form of the formula for an inductor and the double-standard you showed with your jackass behaviour.

I posted the formula for an inductor and the image is attached to this posting.

That is a generic formula that anybody that is familiar with an inductor will recognize right away and you can find it in 1000 textbooks.  The formula has nothing to do with me at all.

And what did you do?

You went nuts and made a complete ass of yourself over multiple postings.   You said stuff like this:

You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster.
Your (sic) a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.

If Poynt or Verpies or someone else had posted that standard formula would you have reacted like that?  The answer is no, you would not have done that.

It shows a double-standard and how you shamelessly compromised your behaviour and made a fool of yourself.

I have no problem with debating, but double-standards like that are unacceptable.

And as far as this thread goes you can eat your own words.  You are the epic failure that could not make progress and get up the learning curve and answer this simple question that consists of a power source and one single component.  You are the laughing stock of the forum, just go read the first 10 pages of this thread and look at what you are saying.

I really doubt that I will debate much with you in the future, but if we do, do not try to pull off another idiotic stunt like you tried to pull off when I posted a standard formula used in electronics all the time.  Pull yourself together and act like a responsible adult.

MileHigh

[poynt99]

Poynt99,

Let me explain a little further.

My assumption is that at t=3 and V=0 then all differentials are also 0 meaning that there is no current flow and no voltage and all the energy is stored within the flux field as a pure pressure.

I am trying to prove my assumption wrong.

In my opinion, your first assumption should be that the equation, the books and the simulation are all correct. If you feel they are not correct, you need to come up with a theory that proves them wrong.

Therefore, the assumption is that at t=3 the voltage goes to zero, but the current remains at +2.4A.

[verpies]

At t=3 and I=2.4 because of L=5 then the 2.4 represents the flux potential equivalency.

Namely the flux (Φ) equals 12 Webers, because Φ=L*I