MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[citfta]

MileHigh,

You are apparently using the voltage drop across the coil as YOUR definition for CEMF.   That is not what the rest of the electronics world uses as that definition.  For the rest of us CEMF is the generated voltage that opposes the applied voltage.  The CEMF is generated by the increasing magnetic field of the coil as the current rises.  If your claim that the CEMF equals the EMF were true then no current would flow and that means the could NOT BE any CEMF.  Sorry, but your argument makes no sense at all.  I haven't read all the posts in this thread but it appears you are the only one that believes CEMF can equal EMF.  I really don't think all the rest of us are wrong and you are the only one correct about this.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[hoptoad]

snip...
But now 2 questions for you Hoptoad.
1-why dose the magnetic field that is inducing the CEMF,slowly decrease in change over time in an inductor from T=0-->moment of the applied voltage across the coil.
2-why is the CEMF equal to the applied EMF at the moment the voltage is placed across the coil?.
snip...

The magnetic field of the inductor is still increasing through each time constant until it is 100% maximum value derived from steady current at the end of TC5. Only the RATE of increase in the source current/magnetic field is getting less with each TC.

The CEMF does not arise from the source current/magnetic field of the inductor per se, it arises from Changes in the source current/magnetic field of the inductor. The level of cemf is most dependent on the Rate of change of the source current/magnetic field not necessarily the strength of the magnetic field or amount of source current. At actual time =0, in a real world inductor, nothing happens really. But at 0+ picoseconds to microseconds the RATE of change is highest causing the maximum cemf to arise.

But cemf is not self sustaining because it is an emergent phenomena with a value based on rate of change of current/magnetic field, and there can be no more change if emf = cemf, so the cemf begins to drop, and as it does, more source current flows. The diminishing cemf still opposes the Rate Of Change of the source, but not the actual flow of current per se. In opposing the rate of change it diminishes the cause of its own existence. So the cemf diminishes in the familiar TC curve we see in all inductors.

Cheers

[MileHigh]

Well, I see we are now all unwitting players in some kind of Monty Python comedy sketch.  We are a bunch of crazy people in a tizzy over Kirchhoff's voltage law.  It's like we are all in electronics kindergarten, and it's the very first day.  We are all running around with runny noses and bumping into walls.

We have our knickers in a super twist.  It's the Mother of all Wedgies, and some of us have our brains in our cojones.

The question is, who has the cojones to state the truth?

This one volt voltage drop across the inductor is horse radish,and also makes things more confusing than they need to be.
The inductor dose not cause the voltage drop,as the voltage applied across the inductor by the source is exactly what will be across the inductor. You might as well say there is a 1 volt voltage drop across a 1 volt battery--how stupid dose that sound

MH
You are doing nothing but adding some sort of idiotic confusion to everything everyone has learned.
I dont give a rats ass what you say,if the CEMF is equal to the applied EMF,then no current will flow through that inductor.
And this cods wallop about a resistor creating an equal and opposite CEMF to that of the applied EMF,is nothing short of insane.

Yep,as that is what stops the current through an inductor shooting straight up to a maximum value determined by the inductors winding resistance,when a voltage is placed across.
Same with water flowing through pipes-as i stated before. Once the head pressure pushing back against the pump equals the pumps maximum pumping pressure,there will be no water flow.
The pressure is your voltage,and the water flow rate is your current.

Say what you will MH,but i am no longer interested in what you have to say.

Brad

This one volt voltage drop across the inductor is horse radish,and also makes things more confusing than they need to be.
The inductor dose not cause the voltage drop,as the voltage applied across the inductor by the source is exactly what will be across the inductor. You might as well say there is a 1 volt voltage drop across a 1 volt battery--how stupid dose that sound

Gustav Robert Kirchhoff is rolling in his grave and wants to start walking again.  This is one of those mind-blowing moments with you.  Lock yourself in a room with half a dozen books on basic electronics don't come out until you have read through them and understood them.

Sorry, but you sound incredibly stupid.  You have been playing with electronics all this time, for years, and you can't understand what a bloody voltage drop is?

I dont give a rats ass what you say,if the CEMF is equal to the applied EMF,then no current will flow through that inductor.

But you have been repeatedly asked to give an example with a coil where the CEMF is less than the EMF resulting in current flow and you refuse to do it because you can't do it.

Same with water flowing through pipes-as i stated before. Once the head pressure pushing back against the pump equals the pumps maximum pumping pressure,there will be no water flow.
The pressure is your voltage,and the water flow rate is your current.

No, because that example would be like connecting a capacitor across an EMF source.  The head pressure in the pipe would be like the voltage across the capacitor, and no current flows.  The equivalent and proper example would be a long pipe.  Water flows through the long pipe and at the junction of the pump and the long pipe, the maximum pumping pressure of the pump and the head pressure in the pipe are the same.  Then as you travel along the long pipe the pressure in the pipe decreases.

So Brad,

1) The unanswered request for you to put substance behind your claim with an actual example remains unanswered because you simply have no clue what to do and you can't show an example.

2) You could not break down my example and show us exactly where and why it is wrong because in fact it is correct.  You didn't even try.

So no progress for you, a double fail on your part.

MileHigh

[minnie]

   Well with our ideal set up of inductor the current and time lead us
to a situation of infinity.
                John.

[hoptoad]

   Well with our ideal set up of inductor the current and time lead us
to a situation of infinity.
                John.

Indeed. Anybody got an ideal inductor?