MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[poynt99]

Because there is(for example).000000000000000001% difference between unity and overunity.
One is possible,and the other is not-apparently
The difference between the two is enormous.
The difference between 0 resistance(no resistance)and .000000000000001ohm is also just as enormous,as the difference between 20 000 000 000 watts of power,is no where near an infinite amount of power.

Fortunately in the case we are dealing with, a small parasitic resistance in the circuit has essentially no impact on the results.

Your sim needs some sort of resistance to even start to compute the numbers--it will not compute the question as asked--we have seen this already.

Indeed, but the fact we have to add a very tiny resistance has no impact on the final result.

Your sim shows power being dissipated,and that is not what would happen with the device defined in the question.

Yes my circuit dissipates a tiny bit of power in the parasitic resistance, but it is quite small in comparison to the power flowing in the circuit. I have reduced the parasitic resistance to 1p Ohm, and as such the power dissipated by this resistor peaks at about 6pW (as shown in the attached). By comparison, the circuit power peaks at 9.56W. That is a ratio of 1.59 x 10¹²:1 which is a very big number (1,590,000,000,000).

How do you know for sure that there is not some huge change when resistance is removed altogether,like the removal of that .00000000000001 ohm resistance has on power calculations?.

We can keep dividing the parasitic resistance by a factor of 2 or even a factor of 10 and re-run the simulation, and all that happens is the dissipation in the resistor decreases. By observing the scope shot comparing the voltage source power and the resistor power you can see that the resistor power is inconsequential, even at a much higher dissipation. For example, if the parasitic resistance is two magnitudes higher at 1m Ohm, the results are essentially identical. That small resistor dissipation factor has no real bearing on the results. It is analogous to having one penny to your possession vs. 1/100th of a penny, in each case you essentially have no money and no buying power. Having a lower and lower fraction of a penny to your possession makes it closer and closer to having absolutely zero money, but what difference does it make? Compared to a monthly salary of say $2000, 1 penny is essentially zero money, agreed?

It is the same with this parasitic resistance; we only need go low enough so that the inductive reactance of the inductor (the monthly salary) completely and totally swamps it (our 1 penny) out (remember the L/R ratio I have mentioned several times?). As you go to a lower and lower value of parasitic resistance, there is essentially no difference in the resulting currents, voltages, and power measured in the circuit.

Why dose a voltage appear across an inductor(coil) before current starts to flow?--and i dont mean just throw in inductive reactance,or some simple term like that.I mean--what is the mechanism taking place that delays the current flow?.

If you are referring the MH's question, voltage and current occur simultaneously. Unless I don't understand your question. Look at the scope shot again, as soon as +4V appears across the inductor, the current begins to rise.

[MileHigh]

Mike:

You have a feeling for things from both sides now and are thinking differently a bit perhaps?  Here are some doozie postings:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

+Robert Murray-Smith One more time Robert you have a serious serious problem in one of your clips.  Your measurement of your device in the clip "A Perspective On The B Type EESD" is completely out of whack.  It's so bad that it is shocking.  I suggest that you review what you did, take down the clip, issue an apology clip, and then redo the test properly in a new clip.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

+Robert Murray-Smith Your clip is a total sham Robert because you do not multiply the current by the voltage to calculate the energy in your EESD device and then convert your correct measurement into ampere-hours @ 3.8 volts to make a fair and direct comparison with the lithium-ion cell.  How can you possibly make so elementary a mistake as that?  At 19:23 in the clip you say, "We've done that (the testing on your device) so we can make a direct comparison (with the lithium-ion battery)." But you totally fail to make a direct comparison and the clip is a sham.  Your numbers do not show in any way, shape, or form that you have an advantage over a lithium-ion battery when it comes to the energy to weight ratio for your compounds in comparison to the compounds used in a lithium-ion battery.  You should take down your clip, issue an apology, and then redo the clip properly.  You are grossly exaggerating the energy density by weight of your cell.  A preliminary estimate is that your exaggeration could be somewhere between 5X and 10X.

---------------------------------------------------------------

+Robert Murray-Smith In your clip <A Perspective On The C type EESD> you encourage your viewers to make a proper energy measurement by multiplying the current times the voltage times the time slice. In your clip <A Perspective On The B type EESD> You make the totally unbelievable error of measuring the current but not measuring the voltage output of your cell over time and then calculating the total energy output and then converting that into equivalent ampere-hours at 3.8 volts to put yourself on a level playing field with the lithium-ion battery. So what is your game? How could you do something as completely moronic as that and say it with a straight face? Could it be because you are a <chief technology> guy for a little Pink-Sheet-type of company and you want to impress the uneducated eyeballs with money that land on your YouTube clip? Those two clips are a complete and utter farce and as far as I am concerned you consciously committed an engineering mortal sin by making a farce clip where you only measure the current x time and ignore the voltage. There is no <that is just my perspective> like you posted in the comments on that clip. What the hell is your game?

----------------------------------------------------------------

+Robert Murray-Smith In your clip, <A Perspective On The B type EESD> you actually have not made a case for a higher energy to weight ratio for your compounds as compared to the compounds in a lithium-ion battery. Your measurement error for the weighing of your materials is roughly +/-25%. You have exaggerated the amount of measured energy in your cell by perhaps 5X to 8X. Combine the exaggeration in the energy content with the error tolerance in your weight measurement and you have nothing. So one more time, you are supposed to be a scientist and you make the most amateur half-assed measurement to claim you have a better energy to weight ratio for a lithium-ion battery. An astute chemistry student in grade 10 high school could make a way more accurate measurement than you without putting that much thought into it. You used your digital balance at the extreme low end of its measurement scale such that its error tolerance was sky high. All that you had to do was weigh the scrapings from 10 or 20 samples to lower your error tolerance on the weight measurement by a factor of 10 to 20. The clip is a farce, whats your game?

-------------------------------------------------------------

+Robert Murray-Smith The funny thing is that you made the same immature low-brow vulgar insults to me when I was talking to you that "Random Stranger" also made.  So I would not be surprised if "Random Stranger" is just Robert Murray-Smith with a sock over his head. You are trying to drop a subliminal hint to Lasersaber to delete this discussion because you hate the fact that what I am saying is 100% correct and true.  I hope that he does the right thing and leaves these comments up because they speak the truth about you.  My technical comments about your flaws and outright failure in making your measurements are 100% true.

------------------------------------------------------------

So there you go Mike.  That's the sad story and that's why, to my surprise, RMS made a clip about me alleging that I was a "troll" when all that I was trying to do was get him to retract his invalid clips, issue an apology, and then redo the measurements in the clips honestly and correctly.

His clip about me being a "troll" is completely and totally fake.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Dear MileHigh.

Many thanks for your interesting interpretation of the links I shared. The story goes that the Petter Super scavenge engine came about by accident. Upon load testing one day the engineers saw a marked reduction in fuel consumption for the load applied, during their investigation they found that someone had forgotten to replace the crankcase doors after a spot of maintenance. Being a Two stroke design using crankcase compression/transfer obviously something else was recharging the cylinder...... The exhaust !! 

I'm having to copy and paste as my browser keeps coming back with " page unavailable. "

You wrote. " That's in contrast to a pipe organ or a whistle, where the tube is acting like a resonator and kinetic and potential energy is resonating back and forth in a standing sound wave inside the tube. "

If I have read you correctly? You're saying that an organ pipe is a " True " resonator ?

My question is, what's the difference?

In an organ pipe we have air under pressure passing the " flue " that creates a series of pressure waves to make a sound of a given frequency.
The same thing is happening in an exhaust pipe, the only difference is in the way the pulses are generated.

From my point of view I see the same picture. I realise that my posts are irritating to some so this will be my last on this subject, I will, however look forward to reading your reply.

Kind regards, Grum.

The difference is that in the organ pipe the standing-wave pressure waves are true manifestations of resonance.  From what I read the air interference patterns at the "flue" are a random mix of frequencies.  However, the frequencies that line up with the dimensions of the organ pipe are reinforced and all of the other frequencies don't "line up" and they undergo self-cancellation and/or they quickly die out.  The net result is a pure tone coming from the organ pipe that is due to the resonant standing wave pattern in the organ pipe.

So here is the essence of the resonance in the organ pipe with respect to a one-centimeter cube of air in the pipe:  That cube of air will alternate back and forth between being in motion (kinetic energy) or it will be stationary and compressed like a spring (potential energy).  So the energy inherent in the standing wave action relative to the cube of air inside the pipe cycles back and forth between kinetic and potential energy.  That is the true signature of resonance.  if you don't have energy cycling back and forth between two forms in a stable pattern then it is not resonance.  Again, the moving mass of the one-centimeter cube of air is the kinetic energy.  When the one-centimeter cube of air is compressed to a higher pressure than the ambient pressure, that is the compressed air which is storing the energy as potential energy like a compressed spring.  Essentially the same mechanism happens in a wine glass, a bell, or a tuning fork.

The exhaust pipe "resonator" does not do that.  There is no energy storage alternating back and forth between two forms.  Instead, you have a time delay for a shock wave to reach the end of the tube, and depending on the configuration you get a positive-pressure or negative-pressure shock wave returning back to the cylinder with essentially the same time delay.

In a Helmholtz resonator, you do have the true signature for resonance.  The velocity of a mass of air in the neck of the resonator represents the kinetic energy.  The compression of the air mass in the cavity of the resonator represents the potential energy.  In a Helmholtz resonator, the energy cycles back and forth between kinetic and potential energy.

MileHigh

[poynt99]

Brad,

In terms of voltages and currents in inductors, the following is true:

1) If the inductor current is steady (not changing), then the voltage across it must be 0V.

2) If the inductor current is changing, then there must be a non-zero voltage across it.

[ramset]

Miles
Quote
I come out smelling like roses
end quote
---------------------------------------------------------


RE ICE and your resonant ignorance..
Do not perceive the silence here as capitulation to your self adulation...

The breeze being generated by you patting yourself on the back ...doth surely send a cringeworthy chill to -your- readers .

the pause is out of respect to Poynt and his efforts.