MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[wattsup]

@MH

You know what. Your only fall back is to attack me with something that is totally irrelevant to the discussion. You want to discuss constructs then open a new thread and i will be there in my corner of the boxing ring. No problem. If you want we can play knowledge court where you will defend EE and I will accuse it of fraud. That would make a good weekly. Hmmmmm

You had a chance to teach something and you failed. Not me. For me a teacher is like a brain farmer. The farmer knows exactly how to treat the crop, feed it at proper intervals, make sure its thirst is quenched and then if the crop is harvested, he gets paid. Teachers should follow the same modus. No crop no pay. You failed not me. The onus is always on the teacher to read the possible misunderstandings and quench them before they grow into weeds. You failed because you were to busy with your big mouth and fast action posts, not really thinking things through, never judging where and how to properly help the crop grow. You failed not me.

You presented a problem, gave it some parameters and "assumed" that your students will not take it literally. That is your fault and not ours. So you know what. You learned something today. You learned that you can be one hell of a jackass always relying on your hing legs to protect yourself should things go bad. So defer the real question on who's responsibility it is to make sure a question is asked in its proper context. Surely not mine. I only found the fault. I only had to read endless pages of crap to then realize the fault, point it out so you can then chastise me instead of congratulating me for seeing it. Man, just great. So no need to thank me man. Maybe excuse yourself to @tinman for stringing him along while you whipped him good.

I even tried to make your bumble up work but no, not even one comment on that. Not even a "nice try wattsup, interesting way of analyzing the problem". Just your usual self-centered boy worrying about how the world will see him. Tell me what take more guts, pointing out the problem or following the pack. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. One stupid little question that could have been answered in one page and  none of you saw the flaw. Oh, but I did, didn't I and I am the sureal. hahaha

I'll put my logic against anything you want to throw at me boy. You muster up any EE concept you wish, throw it at me and I will cut it down to flea grass. That's because now that I know how and why electricity conveys in our wires and coils, I know which questions to ask you that will prove it to yourself. That's what I am now good at. And actually I have you to that thank for being the typical pompous ass scientist that needs no more outlook on nature then a worm needs more earth. I asked you guys a question a few pages back and no answer, not even a remark because I now know the EE modus. Ignore whatever can eat away at your present comfort zone. Funny thing is it is not out-of-the-box. It is just normal logic taking its logical course like water eventually taming the stone.

wattsup

[Pirate88179]

But how did they get to the moon?  Answer:  Lunar orbit rendezvous.

There is a great documentary, I think it's a Nova.  I did a quick check but I don't think I saw it on YouTube.  It's all about how the NASA scientists in the late 1950s and early 1960s were struggling to design a system that would get men to the moon and back.  Typically, the solutions relied on massive rockets that would go to the moon, land, and then blast off and then go back to Earth for a standard reentry.  The launch system to do that had to be humongous, say five times the size of a Saturn V rocket.

There was a lower-level scientist that had the idea for lunar orbit rendezvous.  He could not get anybody's attention and was ignored for a few years, nobody took his ideas seriously.  Out of frustration he sent off a letter and bypassed three levels of management to make his case and get the attention his idea deserved.  That's how they ended up choosing the system for getting to the moon.

What's the point?  The point is the scientist conceived of the lunar orbit rendezvous plan all by himself, in his own head.  He did an entire successful moon mission in his head based on hardware and software that didn't even exist.  Then he took out his napkin and started doing some basic number crunching to confirm that what he had conceptualized all by himself was doable.  It's a great story about a true unsung hero.

What is the escape velocity for Earth?  You can figure that out on a blackboard by writing down a few equations.  You don't have to build a rocket and find out by trial and error.

MileHigh

I believe you are speaking of Max Fagat...he is the guy that favored not only lunar orbit rendezvous, but came up with the ridiculous idea of throwing away the used portions of the spacecraft.  Main booster tanks empty?  Throw it away.  2nd stage burned out?  Throw it away.  Landed on the moon with the lander?  Throw away the base.  Back in the command module?  throw away the lander...and etc., etc.  He was a true genius.

Von Braun favored earth orbit rendezvous.  He said that if we did not do that, the moon would be the last place we went...and he was right.

But, MH, I am not talking about criticizing brainstorming or creative thinking and analysis here.  What if old Max used an ideal booster in his thinking?  One that required no fuel and weighed nothing?  How far would his thought experiments have gone then?  Reality must overrule in any thought experiment with any components of any kind in my opinion.  What if Max considered a rocket that would accelerate to 1.5 lightspeed?  He would have then designed a spacecraft needing only 3  minutes of oxygen for the crew to get to the moon.  Yes, he could have pictured a booster doing this but what good would it do?

I know were are on different wavelengths here and I mean no animosity by it.  I have said this before, and I will say it again...you, and the other trained EE guys here have forgotten more about electronics than I will ever learn.  But, this is not my field, but a hobby I have picked up in order to learn.  I appreciate everyone's input...I just am missing something here with the made up "ideal" component business.

Bill

[poynt99]

I never posed a question whether MH knows "what an ideal voltage source is".
Just go back and read exactly what I wrote.  Read every word, understand it and come back to me with an apology.

I still don't think that MH knows what an "ideal voltage" is.  Do you?

I read every word. How was that post helpful to anyone?

I encourage you to avoid the so-called rhetorical questions, and instead try to help Brad understand why his thinking on this affair is a little off the tracks.

[poynt99]

So, just to be clear here...

I can have an ideal voltage source that puts out 4 volts @ 1 amp but then, after 2 seconds, puts out 10 volts at .5 amps
and later, after 20 seconds puts out 2,000 volts @ 500 amps?

You almost got it Bill.

The problem with your guess is that the currents probably aren't going to track that way. The assumption is and always has been that the ideal voltage source is always connected to the same load, regardless of what it is.

Did you see my post on arbitrary wave form generators? Did you see my post of the wave form MH prescribed for the experiment? I don't get what is so difficult to understand about this. Think of it as a special function generator that has zero output impedance and can be programmed to produce any imaginable wave form. Make sense? These aren't imaginary, at least the wave form generator part. The "ideal" part is of course not achievable, but we can get so close that it makes not a bit of difference in the final analysis. This is a hurdle that Brad also seems to be having trouble getting over.

Now I'm beginning to feel like I'm in an episode of the Twilight Zone 

[Pirate88179]

You almost got it Bill.

The problem with your guess is that the currents probably aren't going to track that way. The assumption is and always has been that the ideal voltage source is always connected to the same load, regardless of what it is.

Did you see my post on arbitrary wave form generators? Did you see my post of the wave form MH prescribed for the experiment? I don't get what is so difficult to understand about this. Think of it as a special function generator that has zero output impedance and can be programmed to produce any imaginable wave form. Make sense? These aren't imaginary, at least the wave form generator part. The "ideal" part is of course not achievable, but we can get so close that it makes not a bit of difference in the final analysis. This is a hurdle that Brad also seems to be having trouble getting over.

Now I'm beginning to feel like I'm in an episode of the Twilight Zone 

Thanks Darren.

So, is it OK to have more than one "ideal" component in an exercise? Or is it?  Or, is it more to have an imaginary component (ideal) replace something you already know in the circuit and are wanting to find out about something else in the circuit?  Is this it?  Like solving for X when you already know Y?

Picture a place and time when you go to a roadside dinner at 3:00 a.m. and all of the waitresses have one large eye in the center of their head.  You have entered...the Twilight Zone.

Bill