Inductive Kickback

[woopy]

Hi all

This morning i remembered an experiment i made some time ago, which seems to me as an other analogy , and could be relevant here.

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

A toy  balloon is attached to the tap.
In the balloon there is a hole where a semi soft hose is inserted.
The hose make first a U shape maintained by a spring (sandow) and then goes straight down with a certain length.

Then we open the tap so a current of water flows through the balloon and then in the hose. After some short time, the speed of the water falling down in the the down straight part of the hose, due to gravity, is faster than the input water supply, and sucks the the skin of the balloon against the entry of the hose, stopping instantly the current flow. The rest of the system is not important for my understanding of our purpose. What seems important to me in this experiment is the following

Following that brutal stop of the current flow (which is the cause ), then the inertia of the water contained in the hose induces a violent hammer like struck (the effect) which distend the spring (the result).

Mr Uday who proposed this experiment, tried to use this system to rotate a generator. I don't now if he managed.

That is just for fun

Good sunday to all

Laurent

[synchro1]

Nice try synchro.
Now lets have a look at why i said what i said-->in stead of your fumbled effort to discredit me.

Quote Erfinder-->Brad, can I call you Brad, its better to be pissed off than pissed on, well....guess that's relative huh....if getting pissed on is your thing or not.

My reply to that was-->"You are a sick man,and i wish to have nothing more to do with you.
Some told me some time back that you are a couple of cows short in the top paddock,and your words speak volumes".

You really seem to take being wrong  to heart synchro,even to go as far as chopping up bit's and pieces of post, and pasting them together to try and make those that show you to be incorrect, look bad.

Nice try,but an epic fail,as people here have the ability to read--do you not know this?.

@Tinman,

"An "ideal inductor" has inductance, but no resistance or capacitance, and does not dissipate or radiate energy. However real inductors have side effects which cause their behavior to depart from this simple model".

Sometimes it helps to simplify to increase understanding as in the case of ideal componants like capacitors and inductors without involving all the messy issues that accompany them.

There's nothing I don't understand about the "Magnetic Field Inertia" issue you keep trying to teach me. Additionally, your "concealed coil shorting circuit" has caused me to grow suspicious of you.

On top of that, and more importantly, you seem to fail to understand sufficiently how the rate at which spark gap contacts separate effects the level of Flyback Voltage.

Your attitude has been repugnantly condescending, not only towards me and Erfinder, but others who have challenged your special knowledge on your "Coil Shorting Thread". My opionion of you as a "Mylow" will remain unshaken until such time as you divulge your selfishly "Bogarted" secret!

[gyulasun]

MH,Verpies-anyone

When we calculate the dissipated power from the below diagram,during the 70% off time,the circuit should be split in half,and the dissipated power from each half should be equal-correct?.
So if we have say 13,68mW being dissipated across the inductor and resistor,we should also have 13.68mW being dissipated across the LED--?--see pic below.

So should it now be 13.68 + 13.68 X 70% for our power out?
Which would be 19.15mW ?

Hi Brad,

I can agree with splitting the circuit in half as you show but I disagree with the assumption that the dissipated power in each half should be equal.
IF your measurements indicate this half-half power split, I think it is only a coincidence in this particular circuit.  Just imagine you replace the LED with a normal Si diode, then the voltage and current conditions change in that half part of the circuit and this causes a change in the other half part too: why would the two changes have (again) an equalizing effect?

Under the conditions you show with the measured voltage and current (I suppose you measured them), the voltage drop across the 10 Ohm should be V= 4.8mA*10 Ohm=48 mV, right? (Of course I do not know the DC resistance of the coil.)
If you consider the LED DC resistance it represents in the moment when its current and voltage are 4.8mA and 2.85V, this gives R=593 Ohm.   (I neglect LEDs may have even some hundred pF self capacitance.)

It is okay that the total dissipation is approached by considering each components in the closed circuit and adding their dissipations up.   Perhaps a close approach would be to consider the coil's DC resistance too and adding up the losses for the 3 components: the LED, the 10 Ohm and the copper loss of the coil and then consider the duty cycle issue.

Gyula

[MileHigh]

It is because of the I/V characteristics(which im well familiar with) of an LED,that i am using an LED
Can you work out why?.

Offhand I can't.  Especially since I believe you stated the math function doesn't really work on your scope.  If you explain why it might hit me, not sure.  Can you explain why you want to use an LED?

[MileHigh]

Erfinder,

Thanks for your long reply, not much I can add.  Who knows, there may be "deeper meaning" or some kind of deeper insight into some aspects of electronics yet to be discovered.  However, I just dreamed up an analogy for my approach.  A mirror for most people just works.  They look into it and they see a reflection and they understand it and it is tangible.  However, "under the hood" you have all of the EM wave mechanics where the electric field in the incident wave bounces of of the flat silvered surface because it is electrically conductive, you can develop some kind of wave equation, discuss the reflection because of the impedance change, bla bla bla.  But to the average person it's just a mirror and they take it for what it is, and what it does, on face value - it is what it is.

Electronic circuits and the associated electronics components are like the mirror and can be taken at face value.  They do what they do.  There is no "radiant energy" with the meaning that you hear on the forums.  "Don't split the dipole" means nothing to me.  Perhaps the worst offender is the misused and abused Bloch wall.   Then there are all the "corkscrew" theories about magnetic fields - when in fact understanding how magnetic fields work are quite enigmatic for the beginner.  Hence the discussions on the forums that come up within a certain crowd about the "differences between north and south."

I don't want to get into a big philosophical discussion so I suggest that we leave it at that.  I think this thread is serving a good purpose and it's like the clock has been turned back six years and we are trying to master the dynamics of a charging and discharging inductor - and hopefully getting it right so that people have more understanding and more ability to distinguish truth from fiction.  One of the problems is that we are swimming in a morass of fiction and you have seen a sprinkling of totally nonsensical postings on this very thread.  I can get annoyed with the "Alice in Wonderland just took a huge hit off the bong" postings sometimes.  And we can't forget the pervasive criminal element lurking out there scheming up a new pitch to get that GoFundMe hamster wheel turning.

MileHigh