MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[poynt99]

From my point of view, if he is already posting and interacting with you (and he has), and not harassing you, then that is statement enough.

For the record, I've had my own share of go-arounds with mags in the past.

[tinman]

 author=MileHigh link=topic=16589.msg485400#msg485400 date=1464593672]




MileHigh

I will just make another posting about people failing to step up and account for things or admit that they were wrong and have learned something new.

Let's take the example of the "ideal voltage source 'not being allowed' to vary in time."  That is a completely ridiculous idea that seemingly was plucked out of a hat, for lack of a better term.

Who here stuck to this false idea?

More lies from you MH,and im fed up with them.
It was told very clearly that the ideal voltage from the ideal voltage source would not vary in time!!REGARDLESS OF LOAD!!-->when will that sink into your thick head?.
The only time the voltage will vary,is when determined to do so by the user.

So enough of your bullshit.

You think Mags is harassing you?,well i think you should look at the crap you continue to post--The lies such as above.

How many of you have posted admitting that you were wrong and now acknowledge that an ideal voltage source can vary in time?

When will you admit that you got your wires crossed again?.

And some of you guys put up a big fight about that.  It was a lot of foolishness representing a lot of wasted time and wasted energy.

The only time wasted here,is on you,and trying to get you to read everything that is posted in threads.

Specifically because so much time and energy was wasted on this nonsense, you would think that some of you would at least want to acknowledge that you were wrong and now you know better.  Instead you get nothing.  Grown men that can't simply step up to the plate and acknowledge something.

I am shaking my head.

What you need to do MH,is give your head a good slap,and snap out of this !!poor me!! crap--it's getting beyond a joke.

No one ow's you anything,as you have given as good as you have gotten,and as could be seen in the JT thread,you gave to me far worse that i gave to you--did you see me asking for an apology ?--no,didnt think so,as i really dont care for your insults to much at all.

So give it a rest MH,as we can all see what your doing here,and that is !!once again!! taunting Mag's,and just itching to get him fired up--so as you can once again say--oh look,Mags is being nasty toward me again.

I am not saying that every single time you learn something new that you were previously stating incorrectly has to be acknowledged, but the ideal voltage source example is real.  There was so much time and energy wasted with that nonsensical push-back and nobody wants to even admit it.

The only time wasted on the ideal voltage saga,was your time,as we all knew what an ideal voltage is/was long before you started your rant on the subject.

Brad

[Magluvin]

Mags,

No electrons are ever added or deleted from the circuit.

It comes down to the electron imbalance as you call it. When the connection is made the source cap becomes less imbalanced, and the charge cap more imbalanced. In both the inductor and ideal wire cases, there is no voltage drop across the "transport medium", therefore no loss of voltage or energy in the transfer. Therefore the two caps settle at 7.07V. Conservation of energy also supports the end voltages to be 7.07V.

In the case when the conductor is a real resistance, there is a voltage drop due to the current through it and this is where the 2.07V is lost in each capacitor. This is also where half the energy is "burned".

Below is 3 pics.

1st depiction is of 2 caps at 0v.

2nd is of the left cap charged to 10v. So I depicted it as taking 10 electrons from the top plate and put them in the bottom plate, understanding the electron numbers are far greater in reality.

3rd pic is of the 2 caps after cap to cap connection, where I took electrons from the top plate of the right cap to the top plate of the left cap to equalize the numbers, and took electrons from the left caps bottom plate to the right caps bottom plate to equalize their numbers also.


So in the real world cap to cap, this should be what has happened once the imbalance of electron numbers in the left cap equalize with the cap on the right.

So, 10v in source cap, do the cap to cap and we get 5v per cap.   

But in the ideal example, when we charge the left cap and do the cap to cap with the right cap, the numbers of electron imbalance should balance out the same, thus still having 5v per cap.  the only way to get 7.07v in each cap would be to start out with a 14.14v in the source cap where it had a greater imbalance of electrons to be divided between the 2 caps, of which would give us 7.07v per cap.

The only other way to get the electron number balance to come out where we end up with 7.07v per cap is if we pulled more electrons(using inductor during cap to cap, cut off source at 7.07v, letting inductor charge the right cap to 7.07v) from the top plates to the bottom plates. But cap to cap this cannot happen because the electrons cannot pass from the bottom plates to the top plates due to no electrical connection. Only in the initial charge of the cap on the left did that occur.

My saying earlier of adding electrons to the system was incorrect. What I meant was the imbalance between the Pos and Neg would have to be changed, taking from the top and adding to the bottom, as in the case of this post. Sorry for the confusion there.

Mags

[poynt99]

But in the ideal example, when we charge the left cap and do the cap to cap with the right cap, the numbers of electron imbalance should balance out the same,

And they do, at 7.07V each, not 5V each.

thus still having 5v per cap.  the only way to get 7.07v in each cap would be to start out with a 14.14v in the source cap where it had a greater imbalance of electrons to be divided between the 2 caps, of which would give us 7.07v per cap.

Try stepping outside the box a little. The source cap can discharge to ANY voltage between 9.999V and 0V, depending on what it is connected to and how. The charge cap can charge to any voltage from 0V to 7.07V (max in this case). Can you not add a fig.4 to your drawing with an imbalance to create 7V on each cap?

I know you can (hint, use fig.3 and drop 4 more electrons from the top plate to the bottom plate). See, now we have 7V on each cap, and we didn't have to add any electrons.

[poynt99]

More lies from you MH,and im fed up with them.
It was told very clearly that the ideal voltage from the ideal voltage source would not vary in time!!REGARDLESS OF LOAD!!-->when will that sink into your thick head?.
The only time the voltage will vary,is when determined to do so by the user.

For Pete's sake Brad. This is simply a case of different terminologies used, by you and by MH, OK? Some folks do understand what it means, put the way MH put it, and some don't. Can we settle this now and never argue about it again? MH did not mean that the voltage would change after it was set, he meant that it can change at various times between t=0 and t=x. In other words, he meant that it would never deviate from its setting until the next setting. But the fact that it is being changed a number of times between t=0 and t=x, means it IS varying over that time period. OK? THAT is what he meant. Don't think that MH doesn't know what an ideal voltage source is, that would be ridiculous of you, and this silly argument is becoming extremely old.

I'm not going to comment on the last part of your post as it is simply not worthy of comment. Same with MH's knee-jerk reaction to Mags' last few postings. I think you both need to take a pill.