Joule Thief 101

[Magluvin]

The problem is that CEMF is just a measurement, it's not a tangible entity like a coil or a voltage source or a current source.  You should realize this.  It's just an electrical version of Newton's third law.

Look at this very familiar differential equation:  v = L di/dt.

Whoops, there is no resistance in that equation.  That equation is an equation for an ideal inductor and yet it is used all the time.  I suppose we are just waiting for this business to be resolved and move forward.  I am already smelling the possibility of dismal failure with no resolution to this silly impasse and the question never gets answered.  That would really be unfortunate.

Why doesn't somebody just take the lead on the question and leave Brad to stew in his own juices?  Move forward and let Brad figure it out for himself.

"The problem is that CEMF is just a measurement, it's not a tangible entity like a coil or a voltage source or a current source.  You should realize this."

Cemf is just a measurement and not an effect?  I fail to realize that. Cemf is an action within the inductor. It is the action that impedes current flow. It is part of the definition of impedance. You should realize this.

Mags

[MileHigh]

"The problem is that CEMF is just a measurement, it's not a tangible entity like a coil or a voltage source or a current source.  You should realize this."

Cemf is just a measurement and not an effect?  I fail to realize that. Cemf is an action within the inductor. It is the action that impedes current flow. It is part of the definition of impedance. You should realize this.

Mags

I am not going to play a dumb-ass mind game with you.   

[Magluvin]

The issue of an ideal voltage source varying in time has already been discussed several times on this thread.  Just look at the original question, the ideal voltage source varies with time.  I don't know how ideas like "an ideal voltage source cannot change in time" take hold but apparently they do.  Somebody says it and nobody thinks to question it.

<<< The only thing that could possibly rise is current, that is if current flows at all considering the argument of cemf being ideal also >>>

We are beating an old horse to death at this time.  It's a second strange idea, it's baffling and it and the "fixed ideal voltage source" idea would not last more than eight minutes apiece on a real electronics forum before they were sliced to pieces.

Look at this clip that discusses ideal inductors and brush up on your inductor concepts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8CPGiK59f8

lol.  You say 'your' ideal voltage source is self varying?  here is a vid for you..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSH3I4cqoJc

So far I do not see an explanation that the ideal voltage source is self varying in any way.

"Being that an ideal voltage source has zero internal resistance, and, thus, 100% efficiency to outputting all of its voltage to a load due to perfect voltage division, its voltage ouput to a load is steady and constant and doesn't fluctuate even if load resistance values change."

http://www.learningaboutelectronics.com/Articles/Ideal-voltage-source.php


So again, you are playing by your own rules with 'your' self imagined ideal voltage source that is self varying. 

I dont need to brush up on anything except on how the rules change as you describe them.

Mags 

[MileHigh]

"Being that an ideal voltage source has zero internal resistance, and, thus, 100% efficiency to outputting all of its voltage to a load due to perfect voltage division, its voltage ouput to a load is steady and constant and doesn't fluctuate even if load resistance values change."

No a single word there about it not varying in time.

Sometimes you are expected to be able to think on your own.  Like this, "Hey, a voltage can have a zero output impedance and change value in time."

[Magluvin]

I am not going to play a dumb-ass mind game with you.   

Its not a mind game. You cannot just say that this is how things are and refer me to a vid on inductance. If the official definition of the ideal inductor 'includes the reasoning' that the cemf is not ideal, then maybe they do not have that definition down pat with every aspect of the ideal inductor. But you dont seem to be able to find a reference on that other than you just saying so.  No mind games. Just prove what you are saying and maybe we can move on. Until then my argument stands.


Please show me some definition of an ideal inductor that explains why the cemf of the ideal inductor is not ideal cemf, rather than just stating that is is so and that I just have to accept that. Please.     Show me the money Jerry Maguire! Show me the money! Otherwise it is just you feeding us your made up rules as we go. How else can I look at it? Why cant you provide a strong definition that states 'why' an ideal inductor cannot have ideal cemf? I havnt found it yet. Where do I find such info other than what is stated in these 2 threads???

Mags