Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[EMJunkie]

You have shamed yourself.  Contrary to your claims, the current function versus time is easily determined.  It does not depend on the inductor package or any of the other red herrings that you threw out.  It depends on the integral of V/L dt as MH posted.

MarkE Shame is on MileHigh's plate, I carry not a single bit of shame!

I answered the question, the answer I gave was correct for the question! No matter how much Crap Spouts from your Blow Hole!

MileHish is wrong and you also will not admit to the equation you posted being an approximation!

This puts you and mileHigh in the Lunatic Basket! Clinically!

Anyone here can already see this, even well before I came along!






Wow you, MileHigh and TinselKoala have made some enemy's here in this forum!






I have four, including BillyGoats Gruff - But I don't mind him because he is just simple and follows the leader, which he thinks is you and mileHigh.



You know, for an ex-hacker, youre not bad at getting to information quickly! Is it Wikkipedia or do you have a SQLDB setup for the quick ones?

Doesn't make you smart though! Again you lack all native intelligence! A balloon holds Hot Air too!

[NoBull]

MileHish is wrong and you also will not admit to the equation you posted being an approximation!

It is not an approximation for an ideal lumped circuit.

Even if you could not evaluate an integral, at least writing that the current increases linearly at a higher rate between 0-5s and a linearly but at a lower rate after 5s would be an indication that you understand something about this problem.

Your attempt to apply a frequency domain AC technique such as the "inductive reactance" to a transient state problem in a time domain, is an indication that you don't have a clue about basic electronics.

Complaining about the zero resistance in an Ohm's law relation misapplied to this problem, is another indication.

[EMJunkie]

It is not an approximation for an ideal lumped circuit.

Even if you could not evaluate an integral, at least writing that the current increases linearly at a higher rate between 0-5s and a linearly but at a lower rate after 5s would be an indication that you understand something about this problem.

Your attempt to apply frequency domain AC technique such as the "inductive reactance" to a transient state in a time domain, is an indication that you don't have a clue about basic electronics.

NoBull - Just in case you have NOT READ ths Posts:

Ask away, My electronics is OK, my Magnetics is much better.

You have shown the very same rediculious behaviour of a child - Grow Up you FOOLISH Idiot!

I made no claims here you stupid FOOL

To imply "you don't have a clue about basic electronics" because I could not give the desired answer a question that was changed half way through the test, after already admitting I am Ok in Electronics does nothing but prove to everyone here that YOU NoBull are an Idiot!

A Stupid Foolish Idiot that cant use any common-sense!

Again, this proves nothing, you as mileHigh and MarkE  have proved, is just a bunch of non-sense that fills the mind of morons.

I cant believe your Babbyish behaviour! You Child!

[MarkE]

MarkE Shame is on MileHigh's plate, I carry not a single bit of shame!

Then you make yourself a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.  Until the trivial any college EE student could easily derive answer was spoon fed to you, you offered lots of red herrings:  going off on frequency domain parameters in this time domain problem, talking about inductor package size etc.  Any claims you now make to supposedly having understood the problem fall flat.

I answered the question, the answer I gave was correct for the question! No matter how much Crap Spouts from your Blow Hole!

No your answers were all fails. 

MileHish is wrong and you also will not admit to the equation you posted being an approximation!

MH stipulated an ideal inductor in a circuit with no resistance and a perfect voltage source.  If you are going to try and suggest that we consider propagation effects on a 2H coil it is a distinction without difference.

This puts you and mileHigh in the Lunatic Basket! Clinically!

I see you want to play a clown again.  As you wish.

Anyone here can already see this, even well before I came along!






Wow you, MileHigh and TinselKoala have made some enemy's here in this forum!






I have four, including BillyGoats Gruff - But I don't mind him because he is just simple and follows the leader, which he thinks is you and mileHigh.



You know, for an ex-hacker, youre not bad at getting to information quickly! Is it Wikkipedia or do you have a SQLDB setup for the quick ones?

Doesn't make you smart though! Again you lack all native intelligence! A balloon holds Hot Air too!

That kind of response is just sad.  Why do you do such things to yourself?

[EMJunkie]

Then you make yourself a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.  Until the trivial any college EE student could easily derive answer was spoon fed to you, you offered lots of red herrings:  going off on frequency domain parameters in this time domain problem, talking about inductor package size etc.  Any claims you now make to supposedly having understood the problem fall flat.No your answers were all fails.  MH stipulated an ideal inductor in a circuit with no resistance and a perfect voltage source.  If you are going to try and suggest that we consider propagation effects on a 2H coil it is a distinction without difference.I see you want to play a clown again.  As you wish.That kind of response is just sad.  Why do you do such things to yourself?

Only Clown in the Room is MarkE, with his jester and best friend MileHigh, with the friendly little kitten NoBull

Seriously, you are idiots!

Oil Company Troll Idiots!