MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[partzman]

Has anyone here read Miles Mathis?   Here is a quote from his paper "Alternating Current and Inductance".

"This also explains inductance.  The whole idea of inductance is something they invented because theydon't have a real charge field.  Without inductance, they can't explain why current moves in AC, as above, so they come up with inductance as the explanation.  The textbook definition of inductance is a voltage produced by a changing current.  That is odd beyond odd, since they previously defined current as produced by voltage.   So they are telling you that voltage causes current, and changing current causes voltage.  I think you can see they have gone circular.  The effect cannot cause the cause.
 
Once you have a real charge field creating your field of initial potentials—both electric and magnetic—you don't need inductance.   Mutual inductance is easily explained because the ambient charge field links all local charge fields.  And self-inductance is just a ghost.  Once you understand how the field really works, you don't need it.  It isn't inductance that is the cause of energy transfers, it is the charge field.
 
All this goes back to initial confusion by Faraday, which has persisted to this day.   Faraday didn't recognize the existence of a real charge field, composed of real particles like photons.  Nobody at the time did.   Therefore, when he saw these effects being produced, he couldn't show a direct cause. Instead of being created or produced, they had to be induced.   Something that is induced is produced indirectly, by unknown means.  Think of the difference between deduction and induction in philosophy.
Deduction is supposed to be a straight line of logical cause and effect, while induction can be much less rigorous.  It is much the same here. The word induction was not chosen by accident.  It was a sort of admission that no mechanics could be pointed to.  Faraday then created some lines of potential or force, but they were back-engineered from the motions.  No kinematics was involved, and Faraday admitted it.  How could he not?  While it is not surprising that Faraday did what he did at the time, it is quite surprising we have improved on it so little in almost two centuries.  We now have mountains of data pointing directly at a   real charge field composed of real particles, but we still teach electrical engineering based on these old outdated ideas. It would be like medical schools still teaching leechcraft."

pm

 

[picowatt]

No Poynt,i dont think i have missed the boat at all.

Let me ask you this,and in an ideal way.
We have two identical rocket engines strapped to two identical carts. Each rocket engine can produce 1000LBs of thrust. The two are put nose to nose,and they are fired up. Every time rocket engine 1 is throttled up to produce an extra 100 LBs of thrust,rocket engine number 2 also matches that increase in thrust. At no point in time will rocket engine number 1 move rocket engine number 2,as long as rocket engine number 2 matches the thrust of rocket engine number 1--it is a stale mate,and no motion takes place.

For this analogy to work, lets tie the carts together so they act as a single cart and lets point the rocket engines' thrusts away from each other so they oppose.  Engine #1 has a fixed and continuous thrust (EMF).  Engine #2 has an identical thrust that can be turned on or off (CEMF).  A sensor and control mechanism is used to determine the acceleration (rate of change) of the cart in the direction determined by engine #1's thrust.  We have set the desired acceleration rate to 800 feet per second .

Engine #1 fires and the cart accelerates.

1.  When the cart's acceleration reaches 800 feet per second, engine #2 fires

2.  When engine #2 fires, the cart's acceleration decreases

3.  When the cart's acceleration becomes less than 800 feet per second, engine #2 is cutoff

4.  When engine #2 is cutoff, the cart's acceleration increases (return to 1, loop forever)

Again, this is a step wise description.  If engine #2 could respond instantaneously, and the time between steps were made infinitely small, there would be a smooth and continuous acceleration of the cart at a rate of 800 feet per second in the desired direction.

PW

[partzman]

Gyrator-capacitor modeling of inductors and transformers can yield quite accurate simulations of complex electromagnetic devices. I've attached a simulation of a co-planar 3-winding transformer with gaps that has complex couplings and leakage inductances. 

In some ways, the application of gyrators for magnetic problems are easier to understand with their magnetic and electric equivalencies.

pm

[picowatt]

Gyrator-capacitor modeling of inductors and transformers can yield quite accurate simulations of complex electromagnetic devices. I've attached a simulation of a co-planar 3-winding transformer with gaps that has complex couplings and leakage inductances. 

In some ways, the application of gyrators for magnetic problems are easier to understand with their magnetic and electric equivalencies.

pm

Partzman,

My only experience with gyrators is with respect to fixed and variable Q simulated inductors built using opamps, resistors, and capacitors as used in analog circuits.

Using them to simulate transformer design is, well, "tip of my hat to you" stuff!

Looks very interesting...

PW

[partzman]

Partzman,

My only experience with gyrators is with respect to fixed and variable Q simulated inductors built using opamps, resistors, and capacitors as used in analog circuits.

Using them to simulate transformer design is, well, "tip of my hat to you" stuff!

Looks very interesting...

PW

Thank you PW. 

Off topic but many years ago I designed and marketed a digital tuner for pianos, stringed instruments, etc, that used a very high Q gyrator/capacitance simulated inductor in series resonance that allowed measuring over three octaves with one setting. This created an electronic capability of "stretch tuning" the overtones of a stringed instrument in the same manner as a skilled professional tuner. The accuracy was 1 cent with 100 cents/semitone.

Also off topic but I read the comments about solid state vs tubes so I assume some here are pickers and/or audiophiles. I researched the differences nearly fifty years ago as best one could with a single channel kit scope, and determined the main difference was the output impedance or damping factors. I found tube outputs to be soft or poorly regulated with the changes in speaker impedance over a given frequency range, where s/s was highly regulated with high damping factors. By using a combo of negative voltage and current feedback in a s/s bipolar power amp, one can approach the ideal tube type output impedance tracking which yields the fat, warm tube sound. Other factors played a role as well like depletion mode j-fets in preamps, passive tone networks,  and phasing the output so the attack transients from a string pushed the cone forward, etc.

With today's mosfet power devices and engineering tools, some really good sounding amps could be built.

pm