MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[poynt99]

That is incorrect Poynt.
Show me just one video of a coil ringing down,where the operator says the coil is resonating.
Even in normal every day speech,do we say the bell is ringing or resonating?.
An object resonates when is is oscillating at a continuous maximum amplitude.

I am conveying this from my own experience (and others'). It is not uncommon to use the term "resonating" when describing something that is still "ringing" after the stimulus is removed. Be it correct or incorrect, this IS the case.

That is correct.
When will the LC circuit resonate,and when is it said to be ringing down?

As I said above, "we" often use the terms interchangeably, right or wrong. To us, ringing down is the same as decaying resonance.

Yes,and that is due to the physical size,shape,and elasticity values of the object.

Those mainly determine what frequency something will resonate at, not whether it will resonate or not. I brought up the point of "energy exchange within itself" in response to your statements about tuning forks and wine glasses as being only single elements. The point was, regardless if an item appears to be a single element or not, if it is capable of resonating, then it does so by way of an energy exchange mechanism within itself and/or with its environment.

[MileHigh]

My definition of an ideal torque was the same as your,only not limited to motion such as yours.

Brad

This is the second time that you have mentioned this nonsense, even though I dealt with it directly the first time you brought it up.

As i said,your flywheel and angular velocity analogy was very limited,and poor at best,as there dose not have to be motion for a torque to exist.

My response:  <<< Yes indeed, and any angular velocity can mean an angular velocity of zero.  In other words, applying torque to an object that is not in motion.

Quoting myself in response to your foolish comments:  More importantly, I never said that there had to be angular momentum for there to be torque applied to an object.  You are falsely trying to put words into my mouth.  Likewise, I never stated that torque only applies to things in motion.  One more time, you are falsely trying to put words into my mouth. >>>

So where were you Brad?  Cloud Nine?  In space cadet summer (or winter) school?  My response passed right through you like you weren't even there?  This has happened dozens and dozens of times before.

Your attempt to define an ideal torque source is a bloody train wreck, plain and simple.  You use illogical terms like "ideal energy source."  You talk about force when it's a discussion about torque.  When you are going to define something it has to be right, and all that you can do is backpedal and spin instead of being a man and admitting that you were wrong.

Probably the biggest recent fiasco of yours is this illogical and totally irrational insistence that resonating wine glasses and tuning forks aren't actually resonating.  You are from the bloody Salvador Dali School of Infinite Improbability Loco Physics for Dummies.

Read again what I said:

<<<  What is the etymology for the word "resonance?"  It comes from French, meaning to "re-sound."  In other words, sound coming back, or sound bouncing back and forth.  Where is this "bounce" in resonance?  In the case of the tuning fork, the moving arms translate their motion and energy into the spring of the tuning fork and compress it.  Then the energy that is in the spring "re-sounds" or "bounces back" and the arms are moving again.  This process repeats over and over.  That is fundamentally what resonance is.

As such, an LC circuit, a tuning fork, a wine glass, and a bell are all LC resonators that resonate at their resonant frequency and manifest the phenomenon of resonance.  They don't have to be externally driven by an excitation that is at the resonant frequency, they are perfectly fine to resonate all by themselves and ring down if energy is put into the system.  i.e.; striking a tuning fork.  >>>

Is any of this going to sink in or are you just going to remain in the Dali loco school?

MileHigh

[minnie]

  It's such an exciting debate and I haven't a clue who's right or who's wrong.
  When it comes to fundamentals the tinman is usually wrong but he must get
  it right sometimes??
    Poynt is obviously very clever but is economical in disclosing too much forcing
  the reader to help him/herself as much as possible.
    Oh well, it's back to the fields for me, the agricultural type that is.
  Looking forward to the next instalment.
             John

[tinman]

This is the second time that you have mentioned this nonsense, even though I dealt with it directly the first time you brought it up.

My response:  <<< Yes indeed, and any angular velocity can mean an angular velocity of zero.  In other words, applying torque to an object that is not in motion.



So where were you Brad?  Cloud Nine?  In space cadet summer (or winter) school?  My response passed right through you like you weren't even there?  This has happened dozens and dozens of times before.





Read again what I said:

<<<  What is the etymology for the word "resonance?"  It comes from French, meaning to "re-sound."  In other words, sound coming back, or sound bouncing back and forth.  Where is this "bounce" in resonance?  In the case of the tuning fork, the moving arms translate their motion and energy into the spring of the tuning fork and compress it.  Then the energy that is in the spring "re-sounds" or "bounces back" and the arms are moving again.  This process repeats over and over.  That is fundamentally what resonance is.

As such, an LC circuit, a tuning fork, a wine glass, and a bell are all LC resonators that resonate at their resonant frequency and manifest the phenomenon of resonance.  They don't have to be externally driven by an excitation that is at the resonant frequency, they are perfectly fine to resonate all by themselves and ring down if energy is put into the system.  i.e.; striking a tuning fork.  >>>

Is any of this going to sink in or are you just going to remain in the Dali loco school?

MileHigh

Your attempt to define an ideal torque source is a bloody train wreck, plain and simple.  You use illogical terms like "ideal energy source."  You talk about force when it's a discussion about torque.  When you are going to define something it has to be right, and all that you can do is backpedal and spin instead of being a man and admitting that you were wrong.

Here we go--the old MH pick and choose as it suits my needs combo.

The question was-->define an ideal torque--nothing about source.
Please refer to your own question this thread is about,where you have only provided an ideal voltage source,and nothing about where the energy is stored--voltage is nothing without an energy source.
So my answer is fine,and you simply do not get to pick and choose when there dose and dose not have to be a need to provide every detail to suit your needs.

Quoting myself in response to your foolish comments:[/b]  More importantly, I never said that there had to be angular momentum for there to be torque applied to an object.  You are falsely trying to put words into my mouth.  Likewise, I never stated that torque only applies to things in motion.  One more time, you are falsely trying to put words into my mouth. >>>

I never put any words into your mouth at all--your definition was quoted word for word,and it was limited to motion.
My answer was the same as your,but not limited as your was---you asked to define an ideal torque,and i did so more accurately than your self--that is fact.

Probably the biggest recent fiasco of yours is this illogical and totally irrational insistence that resonating wine glasses and tuning forks aren't actually resonating.  You are from the bloody Salvador Dali School of Infinite Improbability Loco Physics for Dummies.

They are not resonating unless being acted upon by an outside force.
Once again-please read the Physics behind resonance,and the 3 things required to achieve resonance.
You are confused between acoustic oscillation and resonance.

http://www.intuitor.com/resonance/abcRes.html


Brad

[MileHigh]

The question was-->define an ideal torque--nothing about source.
Please refer to your own question this thread is about,where you have only provided an ideal voltage source,and nothing about where the energy is stored--voltage is nothing without an energy source.

At this point I am just correcting or clarifying things for you for the sake of doing it.  I don't know if things are going to stick because we seem to have a serious Teflon problem with you and I don't really care at this point.

"Ideal torque" and "ideal torque source" mean exactly the same thing and you should realize this and it's (almost) shocking that you don't.

For the hundredth bloody time, we are talking about black-box abstractions and there is no such thing as a literal "energy store" or "energy source" for any of them.

So my answer is fine,and you simply do not get to pick and choose when there dose and dose not have to be a need to provide every detail to suit your needs.

Your answer is dead wrong because you had to say two things, 1) "constant torque," and 2) "any angular velocity" and you failed to do that.  At this point you may as well go bark at the moon if you want to insist that you are right.

I never put any words into your mouth at all--your definition was quoted word for word,and it was limited to motion.

You are in "head banging against the wall" territory now Teflon Brad.  THINK:  Any angular velocity can mean zero angular velocity which means no rotation which means STOPPED and no motion.  Now, do you understand that?

They are not resonating unless being acted upon by an outside force.

You have been given multiple references that state that resonance does not need action from an outside source and you are intentionally ignoring them.

Beyond that, forget about all of the references and think for yourself and arrive at your own conclusion based on the facts and your own intellect.

You can arrive at the correct conclusion all by yourself.

MileHigh