MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[tinman]

I suppose you will.

http://www.ti.com/product/tms34010

With raster graphics-raster?

You should point out there spelling mistakes MH-it could lead ti dire consequences 

Maybe it's  a word i just have never heard of.

Being that you cannot determine which little  JT circuit would be more efficient ,i find it hard to believe you could accomplish  anything like the link presents.

Perhaps some pics of some of your builds from days past would be good to see.


Brad

[poynt99]

Then why do you say the 1p Ohm trace is wrong?

Or, if you're not saying that, are you saying that it is not close enough to ideal? If so, why?

Is the first 3 seconds of a 158 thousand year time constant not close enough to a perfect straight line for you?

[tinman]

Brad:

So you are still a coward.  You are afraid to illustrate your "theories" with concrete examples.  Instead, we get some mindless diversionary trash talk revolving around the usual "you don't do experiments" nonsense.

Make a graph of current vs. time for the alleged "CEMF current" and the EMF induced current and show the world what you mean.

Oh, you won't do that?  Then that means your proposition is a fail, your theory is junk, a mistake.  You are just too afraid to admit that.  You are a coward.  You are weak.  You are a fraud.

How about this Brad:  Straight to your face, NO, the answer is NO.  For the tenth time, I don't have any equipment.  Pound that in to your frying brain.  Does that sound like "ducking, weaving and dodging" to you?

You have to use an imaginary real coil, and you have to use an imaginary ideal coil.  Draw a set of graphs showing current vs. time for the "CEMF current" and the EMF current for both types of coil to back up the statements that you have made multiple times.  Illustrate your proposition using your intellect only.

Oh, you won't do that?  Then that means your proposition is a fail, your theory is junk, a mistake.  You are just too afraid to admit that.  You are a coward.  You are weak.  You are a fraud.

No, I used those numbers for illustrative purposes only and it was late at night and I was very tired.  You are talking paranoid delusions.

Right now your statement looks totally stupid, it doesn't make sense at all.  You don't need the illustrative numbers I made up to create that impression.  Correct ratios won't make any difference.  Draw up two graphs to back up your own statements to prove me wrong.

One more time for good measure:  Oh, you won't do that?  Then that means your proposition is a fail, your theory is junk, a mistake.  You are just too afraid to admit that.  You are a coward.  You are weak.  You are a fraud.

This "book worm" could whip your ass on a bench any day of the week with one arm tied behind my back and blindfolded, even though I haven't been on a bench in 25 years.  You say crazy things like there is no voltage drop across a resistor, or a battery across a coil doesn't constitute a current loop.  I would spin circles around you and leave you dizzy.

What's so annoying is that you are a fraud just like some YouTube free energy pitch man is a fraud.  You have the same M.O. but you aren't asking for money.  But you play the same game of evasion and deflection and do whatever ass-backwards-bending you have to do to save your fragile ego.  There is basically no difference between you stalling and deflecting when asked to graph the current vs. time to illustrate your "theory" and asking John Rohner to measure power-out vs. power-in on his fake Papp engine.  Neither will ever happen and in both cases it's a form of fraud, one is for money, and one is pure intellectual fraud to save your fragile ego.

If you admitted that you were wrong you would probably have a nervous breakdown.

You could whip my ass on the bench any day?

Good-lets do it then.
JT,pulse motor, or rotoverter ?--im ready for you to back up your claim.

While we are at it MH, how is the current able to flow when there is no potential difference?
Lets forget about current flowing through the coil,-tell us how current flows through the wires from the source,when the voltage across the coil is also the same value as the voltage across the source.

I bet iknow what your answer will be,and the reason as to why you have not stated said answer earlier on--but we will see.


Brad

[MileHigh]

Brad:

So, you are never going to make a graph to back up your whackadoo "dual current" theory.  Surprise surprise.

For what it's worth, I count about 12 spelling, punctuation, and style mistakes in your posting #1570.

Being that you cannot determine which little  JT circuit would be more efficient.

I actually responded to that issue in a moderate amount of detail but it passed right through you like you weren't even there.  Yes I could easily whip your ass on the bench, and that has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it's likely that I will never go on a bench again.

Lets forget about current flowing through the coil,-tell us how current flows through the wires from the source,when the voltage across the coil is also the same value as the voltage across the source.

I don't really know what you are talking about, and I am not really following the discussion.  Now, if you can actually formulate a proper question and not have it be the usual half-assed mangling of the English language and I can actually understand you without having to rely on a secret decoder ring, then I might try answering.

MileHigh

[hoptoad]

With raster graphics-raster?
snip...
Brad

Raster graphics is common pixel graphics. Most digital photos are based on raster graphics, which is why a high pixel count camera represents a higher resolution picture, and the raw raster image stored on a disk is usually quite large. Most cameras offer the .jpg or other algorithms to automatically downsize the stored photos bit space for smaller files, but with some loss of initial data.

Vector graphics are more common with drawing programs, and usually have a much smaller file size footprint.
These days computers are so fast, with a lot of memory and high speed processors, the time taken to render an image to a file or to screen is negligible, but decades ago, a raw raster image could take a while to render to screen if it was a very large image, and a vector image could take a while as well, if it was sufficiently complex.