MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[MileHigh]

<<< Two batteries in series,and one in parallel,with the inverter in series with the two series batteries,to the parallel battery.The inverter will be run on the potential difference-see schematic below. >>>

I will put on my ring for you:  You are driving a 12-volt inverter with three batteries in series, one of them reverse-polarity for net 12 volts to the inverter.

That is just a tired and worn out Houdini "trick" that never made sense in the first place.

Think of it like this:

You have one battery that is doing the work to run the inverter.

Then you have two batteries that cancel each other out.  So the first battery charges the second battery.  There are internal losses in the first battery to heat as it discharges, which is normal.  There are internal losses to heat in the second battery while it charges, which is also normal.

What are the implications?

One battery is running the inverter like normal and the other two batteries do nothing except produce waste heat for no reason whatsoever.

For some reason people think that this is somehow going to give them "Houdini magic" when all it does is uselessly exercise two batteries that would be better off just sitting on a shelf waiting for their turn to drive the 12-volt inverter.

It's fool's gold that makes no sense thanks to the Cult of Houdini.  But I know that you like doing this stuff and you have a new project to play with.  It will never outperform three separate batteries attached to the inverter, one after the other.

[tinman]

 author=MileHigh link=topic=16589.msg485984#msg485984 date=1465381150]
<<< Two batteries in series,and one in parallel,with the inverter in series with the two series batteries,to the parallel battery.The inverter will be run on the potential difference-see schematic below. >>>

I will put on my ring for you:  You are driving a 12-volt inverter with three batteries in series, one of them reverse-polarity for net 12 volts to the inverter.



Think of it like this:

That is just a tired and worn out Houdini "trick" that never made sense in the first place.

I agree.

You have one battery that is doing the work to run the inverter.
Then you have two batteries that cancel each other out.  So the first battery charges the second battery.  There are internal losses in the first battery to heat as it discharges, which is normal.  There are internal losses to heat in the second battery while it charges, which is also normal.

I agree

What are the implications?

One battery is running the inverter like normal and the other two batteries do nothing except produce waste heat for no reason whatsoever.

I agree.

For some reason people think that this is somehow going to give them "Houdini magic" when all it does is uselessly exercise two batteries that would be better off just sitting on a shelf waiting for their turn to drive the 12-volt inverter.

I agree.

It's fool's gold that makes no sense thanks to the Cult of Houdini.  But I know that you like doing this stuff and you have a new project to play with.  It will never outperform three separate batteries attached to the inverter, one after the other.

I agree.



Brad

[MileHigh]

Brad:

A final thought popped into my head about this resonance definition nonsense.

You go on and on about how the definition of "resonance" is only when an external driving force at the resonant frequency produces an increased amplitude response from the object that is resonating.  According to you that is the "only" definition of resonance.  You have probably insisted that this is the only definition for resonance about 30 times now.

Well, what about your ICE business that you have repeated about 75(?) times now?

The air intake resonance is simply a one-shot Helmholtz resonator that is repeatedly "primed" by the moving piston sucking in air.  It has nothing at all to do with your "increased amplitude resonant system response" definition of resonance.

The extra resonant cavity in the piston cavity is there to set up a pressure shock wave that is opposite to the pressure shock wave that occurs when the fuel explodes.  This causes wave cancellation which ensures a better and smoother compression cycle on the piston.  This is another from of resonant response to a one-shot impulse that is repeated over and over.  One more time this has absolutely nothing to do with your "increased amplitude resonant system response" definition of resonance.

So here you are pushing "MileHigh you were ignorant and knew nothing about resonance improving the efficiency of an ICE" and it doesn't even meet your definition of resonance.

MileHigh

[tinman]

Brad:

A final thought popped into my head about this resonance definition nonsense.

You go on and on about how the definition of "resonance" is only when an external driving force at the resonant frequency produces an increased amplitude response from the object that is resonating.  According to you that is the "only" definition of resonance.  You have probably insisted that this is the only definition for resonance about 30 times now.

Well, what about your ICE business that you have repeated about 75(?) times now?

The air intake resonance is simply a one-shot Helmholtz resonator that is repeatedly "primed" by the moving piston sucking in air.  It has nothing at all to do with your "increased amplitude resonant system response" definition of resonance.

The extra resonant cavity in the piston cavity is there to set up a pressure shock wave that is opposite to the pressure shock wave that occurs when the fuel explodes.  This causes wave cancellation which ensures a better and smoother compression cycle on the piston.  This is another from of resonant response to a one-shot impulse that is repeated over and over.  One more time this has absolutely nothing to do with your "increased amplitude resonant system response" definition of resonance.

So here you are pushing "MileHigh you were ignorant and knew nothing about resonance improving the efficiency of an ICE" and it doesn't even meet your definition of resonance.

MileHigh

No MH

Resonance is a maintained maximum amplitude in one object that was induced by another vibrating object at the same natural frequency. You will note that in your example,that each shot !as you call it!,of vibration in the air intake chamber,is a direct result of the stroke of the piston that caused it.
In a four stroke engine,that is every fourth stroke,and in a 2 stroke engine,that is every second stroke. So on the inlet side,every intake stroke results in 1 vibration of the resonant chamber,and this is also true for the exhaust side as well.
The expansion chamber on the exhaust will resonate at a set RPM,and it's frequency of resonation will be exactly that of the exhaust stroke frequency of the engine.
The expansion chamber will not resonate without the piston driving the exhaust gases into it at the correct frequency.

It would also seem that i may have to retract some or all of my !!i agree!! statements from my previous reply,as some early experimenting seems to indicate that what you said is not correct,and that the 3 battery system is more efficient at running the inverter,than one single battery.


Brad

[MileHigh]

No MH

Resonance is a maintained maximum amplitude in one object that was induced by another vibrating object at the same natural frequency. You will note that in your example,that each shot !as you call it!,of vibration in the air intake chamber,is a direct result of the stroke of the piston that caused it.
In a four stroke engine,that is every fourth stroke,and in a 2 stroke engine,that is every second stroke. So on the inlet side,every intake stroke results in 1 vibration of the resonant chamber,and this is also true for the exhaust side as well.
The expansion chamber on the exhaust will resonate at a set RPM,and it's frequency of resonation will be exactly that of the exhaust stroke frequency of the engine.
The expansion chamber will not resonate without the piston driving the exhaust gases into it at the correct frequency.

I am assuming that you are only discussing the air intake/exhaust, but you are not discussing the combustion chamber resonance.  Is that correct?

The simple fact of the matter is that the combustion chamber resonance is essentially the same thing as the striking of a tuning fork resonance.  Since you refuse to accept that a struck tuning fork is resonating, then you are screwed because you have been saying the whole time that there is resonance in the combustion chamber of a cylinder.

What you say above is just a word salad in a desperate attempt to massage the meaning to fit into your definition of resonance.  The air intake is a one-shot Helmholtz resonator that has a time constant associated with it.  You have a fixed time constant where the engine designers find the best compromise timing to match with the variable cycle frequency of the engine.

The expansion chamber on the exhaust will resonate at a set RPM,and it's frequency of resonation will be exactly that of the exhaust stroke frequency of the engine.
The expansion chamber will not resonate without the piston driving the exhaust gases into it at the correct frequency.

Your statements are bull crap, see what I say above.  The speed of the engine is variable so what you are saying does not make sense.

So that's two strikes Brad.  If you are going to stick to your nonsense then you are just back in brain fry territory.

The best thing you could do is admit that you are wrong, and admit that there are two perfectly good definitions for resonance and not just one.  Then all of your statements about the ICE will not be self-contradictory and they will make sense.

MileHigh