MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[MileHigh]

And you are still full of crap.  True resonance has been properly defined and explained and that makes you mad.

[tinman]

author=MileHigh link=topic=16589.msg486597#msg486597 date=1466338366]

The most cynical part of that posting is that Poynt got off to a shaky start at one point in the discussion and part of it was because he got thrown off by what his sim was saying.  His bad sim was reinforcing his mistaken preliminary thoughts.  Within one or two days clarity came back to him and he retracted his incorrect statements.  Everybody following the thread was witness to this.
And here you are like a clown repeating some of his incorrect statements that he already retracted as part of a setup for your posting where you show conflicting viewpoints being expressed by some people.

Exactly what i thought you would say--you hypocrite.
How many threads,over how many months,have we listen to you harp on about how EMJ and wattsup could not answer the very question this thread is about-->how many Mr hypocrite?.

Do you understand how doing that is beyond ridiculous on your part?  It's just shameless unethical and incorrect behaviour.

Do you now understand how the rest of us has had to endure the very same thing from you over the past 10 months.?

Beyond that, what you should do is do a followup posting where you demonstrate all of your new knowledge and resolve all of the apparent conflicts and explain the rationale for each resolution.

Sure--right after some one here can back up the claimed correct answer with a circuit that accurately follows the description of the circuit in the question--the scientific method.

Enough work has been put into this thread by many people.  A countless number of your misunderstandings, mistakes, or obstinate refusals to budge from wrong positions have been argued out in a sincere effort to bring this question to a successful conclusion.

The question will be bought to a successful conclusion right after the above stated is carried out. No question is answered correctly based around assumptions--that is not the scientific method you harp on about all the time here.

So that's my suggestion to you:  Do a bit of shining and list the apparent conflicts and disagreements on the technical points one by one and and then resolve each one with the correct answer with a full explanation for each answer where you demonstrate competency in the subject matter.

My suggestion to you is-->do some shining of your own,and back up your claimed answer with solid proof,base around a circuit that accurately represents the circuit in your question.
Anything short of that will not be accepted as a correct answer.
You bought the !ideal! into this,so now you must back it up.


Brad

[Magluvin]

From what Ive 'seen', an initial pulse to a device/object that has a resonant freq, can be in a situation that it is only allowed to be excited for a single cycle, or even just the first half cycle, then be damped till the next pulse. If we ping the wine glass, and only allow it to ring for 1 cycle, that one cycle is the strongest cycle that would occur if it were allowed to ring further than 1 cycle.

So if we have a situation that an ice is at an rpm that excites the tuned pipes, for even 1 cycle or a half cycle then is damped and waits for the next pulse, then I have to say that resonance does occur and has an effect on the operation in that band of rpm.  And I can see where there may be an rpm that could produce a resonant situation in the pipes that has no down time and is in sync with the exhaust pulse.

Mags

[tinman]

I know you can do much better than that Brad.

I put time and effort into that post, which clearly illustrates what happens. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that particular post and why you still believe the results shown are incorrect.

Even from a layman's point of view (and I'm not implying you are a layman), I would think the scope shot makes perfect sense.

For example, do you not agree that the calculated power from t=3 to t=6 ramps from +9.56W to 0W? We know there is 2.39A of current flowing, and now that the voltage has reversed, it is actually in-phase with the current, so the power goes positive, i.e. +2.39 x -(-4) = +9.56W.

Green=Voltage Source Voltage
Red=Circuit Current
Purple=Voltage Source Power

Because there is(for example).000000000000000001% difference between unity and overunity.
One is possible,and the other is not-apparently
The difference between the two is enormous.
The difference between 0 resistance(no resistance)and .000000000000001ohm is also just as enormous,as the difference between 20 000 000 000 watts of power,is no where near an infinite amount of power.

Your sim needs some sort of resistance to even start to compute the numbers--it will not compute the question as asked--we have seen this already.
Near enough is not good enough to claim OU,and so near enough is not good enough to answer a given question. Your sim shows power being dissipated,and that is not what would happen with the device defined in the question.
Can the circuit described in the question be built to verify the claimed answer?
How do you know for sure that there is not some huge change when resistance is removed altogether,like the removal of that .00000000000001 ohm resistance has on power calculations?.

Why dose a voltage appear across an inductor(coil) before current starts to flow?--and i dont mean just throw in inductive reactance,or some simple term like that.I mean--what is the mechanism taking place that delays the current flow?.

All to often,we just get as close as we can,and that then becomes good enough--but this is not the scientific method we have all been taught to stick to.
Near enough has not yet been good enough to get the TPU up and running


Brad

[MileHigh]

The most cynical part of that posting is that Poynt got off to a shaky start at one point in the discussion and part of it was because he got thrown off by what his sim was saying.  His bad sim was reinforcing his mistaken preliminary thoughts.  Within one or two days clarity came back to him and he retracted his incorrect statements.  Everybody following the thread was witness to this.

And here you are like a clown repeating some of his incorrect statements that he already retracted as part of a setup for your posting where you show conflicting viewpoints being expressed by some people.

MileHigh

Exactly what i thought you would say--you hypocrite.
How many threads,over how many months,have we listen to you harp on about how EMJ and wattsup could not answer the very question this thread is about-->how many Mr hypocrite?.

Brad

I am challenging you that what you say above does not make a single stitch of logical sense.  Why do you allege that I am a hypocrite, and explain your reasoning.  Go ahead and explain how what you say makes any sense, if you can.