MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[tinman]

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.

Simple
You harp on about how some of us have to keep reminding you about your blunder in regards to resonance having nothing what so ever to do with the ICE,but at the same time,you harp on about EMJ and wattsup not being able to answer your 'ideal' question.
This means you are complaining about something that is being done to you,when you do the very same thing to others=hypocrite.

Now-you and Poynt seem to be at odds regarding voltage across an ideal coil while a steady current flows through it-->something that is relevant to the  question,and also your ideal voltage source being able to contain energy--this is also vital to Poynts last explanation. If you are correct,and the ideal voltage source dose not contain energy,then Poynts last explanation is incorrect.
If you are wrong,then Poynts explanation could make sense--but you'd have to be wrong,and we all know how much you would hate that-->MH dosnt quite know what an ideal voltage source is.

I do expect some form of spagetti explanation to be presented about this indiscretion 

[MileHigh]

Simple
You harp on about how some of us have to keep reminding you about your blunder in regards to resonance having nothing what so ever to do with the ICE,but at the same time,you harp on about EMJ and wattsup not being able to answer your 'ideal' question.
This means you are complaining about something that is being done to you,when you do the very same thing to others=hypocrite.

For starters you have exaggerated how many times I mentioned the question with regards to Wattsup and EMJunkie.  I also used it as an illustration about the abysmal state of electronics knowledge among some electronics experimenters even though they have had many years of experience on the bench.  More so when it comes to EMJunkie because he positions himself as someone that "teaches" other people about coils.  EMJunkie even had the nerve to try to deny it about a month or two ago which was outrageous.

And for the 80th time, I owned up to being wrong about a Helmholtz resonator being used on the input for a two-stroke engine because of my ignorance.  So I learned something new.  And of course we can't forget that your communication skills are so weak that you didn't even qualify your statement about ICE's and resonance.  I was thinking about a typical modern car engine when I made my statement, and in that sense I was not really wrong.  It's only when we lower the bar and bend over ass-backwards and accept your limitations and realize that you were actually talking about a two-stroke performance engine does resonance become relevant.  But the most important thing of all, is that I owned up to my mistake.

If you were normal you would have accepted my owning up to my mistake and just moved on and not have mentioned it again.  But no, since you have very little to go after me with you have repeated the same thing over and over.  And the fact that I owned up to it and you still keep repeating it makes you a dumbass that has nothing new to say.

Going back to what started this exchange, you make a totally dumbass posting where you knowingly and intentionally quote Poynt out of context.  You haven't retracted your statements.

What I said about EMJunkie and Wattsup was a true statement.  And when you posted Poynt's stuff you were knowingly and willfully making false statements.  You owe Point an apology for your dumbass behaviour.

Yes, I used the story about EMJunkie and Wattsup for illustrative purposes.  My statements were true, and it doesn't make me a hypocrite to complain about your repeated restatements about a mistake I owned up to.

MileHigh

[tinman]

For starters you have exaggerated how many times I mentioned the question with regards to Wattsup and EMJunkie.  I also used it as an illustration about the abysmal state of electronics knowledge among some electronics experimenters even though they have had many years of experience on the bench.  More so when it comes to EMJunkie because he positions himself as someone that "teaches" other people about coils.  EMJunkie even had the nerve to try to deny it about a month or two ago which was outrageous.

And for the 80th time, I owned up to being wrong about a Helmholtz resonator being used on the input for a two-stroke engine because of my ignorance.  So I learned something new.  And of course we can't forget that your communication skills are so weak that you didn't even qualify your statement about ICE's and resonance.  I was thinking about a typical modern car engine when I made my statement, and in that sense I was not really wrong.  It's only when we lower the bar and bend over ass-backwards and accept your limitations and realize that you were actually talking about a two-stroke performance engine does resonance become relevant.  But the most important thing of all, is that I owned up to my mistake.

If you were normal you would have accepted my owning up to my mistake and just moved on and not have mentioned it again.  But no, since you have very little to go after me with you have repeated the same thing over and over.  And the fact that I owned up to it and you still keep repeating it makes you a dumbass that has nothing new to say.

Going back to what started this exchange, you make a totally dumbass posting where you knowingly and intentionally quote Poynt out of context.  You haven't retracted your statements.

What I said about EMJunkie and Wattsup was a true statement.  And when you posted Poynt's stuff you were knowingly and willfully making false statements.  You owe Point an apology for your dumbass behaviour.

Yes, I used the story about EMJunkie and Wattsup for illustrative purposes.  My statements were true, and it doesn't make me a hypocrite to complain about your repeated restatements about a mistake I owned up to.

MileHigh

As i though-you avoided most of everything that post was about--as you do.
I owe Poynt nothing except thanks for the help he has given me--but that dose not mean i am going to agree with everything he says outright.

The statements i quoted are correct and not in anyway false.

Poynt says that a voltage exists across a coil(even an ideal coil) when there is a current(be it varying of stable)flowing through that coil.
You say that no voltage can be measured across an ideal coil that has a steady DC current flowing through it--and before you get your knickers in a twist,i would say that i have to agree with you,unless i have misunderstood what Poynt was saying.

Second-you clearly stated that an ideal voltage source dose not contain energy,and Poynt clearly stated that energy is returned back to the source--Quote post 1136-The energy stored in the inductor is returned to the voltage source.
So do not lie and say i knowingly and willfully making false statements,as what i said is absolutely correct and true--your lying is becoming way to obvious MH.

So ,as i !correctly! stated--one of you is wrong.
If you are correct,then Poynt needs to find some where else for that energy to be returned to,and there is no where else.
So for Poynt to be correct--you have to be wrong about your ideal voltage source.


Brad.

[MileHigh]

Brad:

The statements i quoted are correct and not in anyway false.

Here is what you quoted for one of Poynt's statements:

quote post 81-Poynt
Yes, nothing will happen with the ideal inductor, i.e. it will have 4V (or whatever the voltage is at any point in time) across it and zero current through it for ever and ever.

Did you get kicked in the head by a goat?   Did you walk and smack your head into a barber shop pole?  That is a statement that Poynt retracted after he got his proper bearings you dumbass.

Your statement is 100% false and have a good sizzling extra crispy brain fry over that.

Second-you clearly stated that an ideal voltage source dose not contain energy,and Poynt clearly stated that energy is returned back to the source--Quote post 1136-The energy stored in the inductor is returned to the voltage source.
So do not lie and say i knowingly and willfully making false statements,as what i said is absolutely correct and true--your lying is becoming way to obvious MH.

I guess your are mentally challenged and will never have the intellectual capacity to understand this very basic stuff about ideal voltage sources.  You think that there is a conflict between me stating that an ideal voltage source does not contain energy and Poynt saying that the energy stored in the inductor is returned to the voltage source.  In fact there is no conflict at all.  It's all simply just too much for your limited sizzling brain to understand.

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.

And here we are back in the business where your brain is too limited and you can't just work with things conceptually so your "big comeback" is the usual old line:  "An ideal voltage source dose not exist so what you are saying dose not make sense because it dose need to be shone with a real circuit that dose exist."

Meanwhile you have been told multiple times now that a good audio amplifier could be used as an approximation of an ideal voltage source and a a reasonable facsimile of the circuit could be built and tested.

Now let's get into the ultimate brain fry mode, the mother of all of Brad's brain fries:

Here is the equation that shows how you determine a resistor's voltage:

V = IR

Here is the equation that shows how you determine a resistor's current:

I = V/R

Here is the equation that shows how you determine an inductor's voltage:

V(t) = L di/dt

Here is the equation that shows how you determine an inductor's current:

I(t) = 1/L integral(V)dt


That's it, if you could understand this stuff then you could answer the question no problem and nothing has to be built.  You just have to have the intellectual capacity to understand it.

MileHigh

[Grumage]

Dear MileHigh.

Many thanks for your interesting interpretation of the links I shared. The story goes that the Petter Super scavenge engine came about by accident. Upon load testing one day the engineers saw a marked reduction in fuel consumption for the load applied, during their investigation they found that someone had forgotten to replace the crankcase doors after a spot of maintenance. Being a Two stroke design using crankcase compression/transfer obviously something else was recharging the cylinder...... The exhaust !! 

I'm having to copy and paste as my browser keeps coming back with " page unavailable. "

You wrote. " That's in contrast to a pipe organ or a whistle, where the tube is acting like a resonator and kinetic and potential energy is resonating back and forth in a standing sound wave inside the tube. "

If I have read you correctly? You're saying that an organ pipe is a " True " resonator ?

My question is, what's the difference?

In an organ pipe we have air under pressure passing the " flue " that creates a series of pressure waves to make a sound of a given frequency.
The same thing is happening in an exhaust pipe, the only difference is in the way the pulses are generated.

From my point of view I see the same picture. I realise that my posts are irritating to some so this will be my last on this subject, I will, however look forward to reading your reply.

Kind regards, Grum.