Joule Thief 101

[Magluvin]

I think the whole 'ideal CEMF' idea is taken from the general idea that any inductor resists the change in current. the more perfectly it does that the less it wants to return the magnetic field
when there is nothing opposing it.

when we imagine a perfect model of this we picture something that simply will not allow a current rise to begin with so long as it's something that could theoretically become charged and never dissipate over infinite time.
Some are saying this is a simple confusion where that is what would happen if there were infinite inductance but then we are left with the argument of whether or not a true measure of inductance has any relation to resistance in the real world. I just currently do not have the total math understanding to concede that the constitutive equation for the inductor and the calculation of current change over time has no relation to a unit of resistance.

Wouldnt the magnet floating over the super cooled superconducting disk, block, whatever it is, be a perfect example of ideal cemf producing an equal opposing field in order for the float to happen?

Mags

[Magluvin]

This is what Verpies said:

<<< In an ideal inductor having a finite inductance, in series with an ideal voltage source, the current will be able to flow and it will increase linearly in time without a limit.  >>>

It makes sense that the inductance meter would do a resistance check but I thought there might be limits.  I don't know, I never played with one.  There is no such thing as "ideal CEMF."  A regular coil or an ideal coil will give you exactly the same CEMF.  This has been stated before.

I think you know the truth.

" There is no such thing as "ideal CEMF."  A regular coil or an ideal coil will give you exactly the same CEMF.  This has been stated before."

Well because it was stated doesnt mean it is fact. The question would be why is the cemf not ideal? What impedes the possibility of the cemf to be ideal?


" There is no such thing as "ideal CEMF."

And, there is no such thing as an ideal inductor.

Mags

[MileHigh]

Go ahead and define an "ideal CEMF" yourself if you want.

No ideal inductor?  That's right, just be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

What do you yourself think happens when you put voltage across an ideal coil?

[Magluvin]

Go ahead and define an "ideal CEMF" yourself if you want.

No ideal inductor?  That's right, just be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

What do you yourself think happens when you put voltage across an ideal coil?

Ok. Here is my short version of it..... Ive posted it pretty much the same for years now. Just a bit more expanded.


We all should know that when we have a charge between 2 terminals, that there are electric fields surrounding those terminals. They are in attraction, and can exist without an exchange of charge or say electrons.

So what I think is that when we go to hit the ideal on switch that the charge Im speaking of is now at the end leads of the ideal inductor. This could cause some forward vibration of the electrons in the inductor, like an atomic shift or say tension. Just a nudge, not necessarily moved from one atom to another as in current flow,could set up an initial field just in putting the electrons in a forward squeeze bump, of which that field from each winding affecting the others could be enough to have enough cemf reverse field tension to counter the input. Maybe setting up a little resonance thing. Bump and vibrate, standoff. lol

See, when we have resistance and the voltage division that it causes, then I can see that the initial field build would not be completely impeded by the cemf because we have less than 100% eff. Where the ideal inductor should be 100%efficient in all of its abilities it is defined by. To say that the ideal inductor has its shortcomings makes it less than ideal, doesnt it? And if  its cemf is not ideal, then the ideal inductor fails to be ideal. So if that is the case, where is the explanation that describes the cemf as not being ideal in an ideal inductor, and how do we 'account' for that inability of the cemf to be equal to the input in an ideal situation?

Just like I posted earlier, the magnet floating above the superconducting material, couldnt you see that as an example of what im trying to convey here? Actually I think it is a near perfect example. And maybe its not just a nudge vibration of the electrons. Maybe there is some initial movement and it then has a standoff with cemf and no current is able to flow from there, just like the floating mag.

Like I also said before, we cannot lay out special rules to define the ideal inductor, especially if the rule affects the actions that the inductor is defined by.

So until there is some 'good explanation' as to why the ideal inductor cannot have an ideal cemf, then we cannot claim the cemf to not be ideal in the ideal inductor just because we eliminated all resistance. 

Ok. I handover the microphone.


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.  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.