Joule Thief 101

[Magluvin]

You are just making a fool out of yourself Magluvin and if you are trying to play me then you are a double-fool.  Go chase after Brad because he is the brainiac that invented the term "Ideal CEMF."  It's an on-the-fly definition from him, another "pearl of wisdom" from his stream of consciousness.  Yes, in the basic definition of the term counter electromotive force, a resistor also generates CEMF in response to the current that is flowing through it.  It's a matter of perspective.  Deep thoughts Magluvin, deep thoughts.  You make me laugh about the "rules" about an ideal voltage source.  One more time, you can trace that back to another inspired steam-of-consciousness "pearl of wisdom" from Brad.  Go get your training and the definitions of the "new terms" from Brad - he is the originator of this stuff.

Well there ya go! Insult me and call me names. That proves your arguments in a most professional manner.    Is that all you got? Are you so frustrated that this bs commentary is what proves you are right and we are wrong. Ha!  That aint gunna cut it. But it is all you got, 'apparently'.    You couldnt simply provide proof on your end instead of the bs you just posted.  But, thats just you and how we get to know 'YOU' better. 


So again, tell us the reason cemf is not ideal in the ideal inductor?  Can you do that? Can you do that and 'try' to put it to bed instead of just simply saying it is what you say it is and thats it?


Back when we were discussing this years ago I questioned the same thing to no resolve from you, Poynt, TK, nobody. it is just brushed off. Well Im not dust Jim.

Put up substantial evidence that.....

1.    Cemf in and Ideal Inductor is not ideal cemf

2.    An Ideal Voltage Source is one that the voltage varies with time


These are your statements that you do not provide anything substantial to prove your argument. What you do say is that it has been discussed before and that is the end of it.   Bull-ony.   Just because it was discussed in the past, days ago or years ago, does not prove that the questions or statements were resolved.

It is your baby. You made the statements.  Prove what you say instead of just saying we need to go back to school. If you cannot then maybe it is you that needs to go back to school.


If you are not just making up your own rules as it goes, then you should 'easily' provide reference for what you say. On these 2 things you refuse to discuss it further. Just insult me and call me names..  Im not doing that to you. Im asking you to provided proof of your 2 statements.  Apparently you cannot.  So go ahead and insult me more and call me what you will. Its who you are.

Magluvin

[MileHigh]

Yeah, sure.

And I will remind you again that most viscous relentlessly attacking, insulting, demeaning, and degrading person I have ever seen on this forum is YOU Magluvin.  For about one full year you relentlessly attacked me, it was absolutely disgusting.  You are just doing a schtick right now, but it is nothing compared to how absolutely grotesque and horrible your behaviour was.  A fully grown man acting like a monster and you never had the character or class to apologize for it.

So I am not interested in your techno babble.

[SeaMonkey]

So I am not interested in your techno babble.

I believe I understand what Miles is saying (or conceding) here.

Although I may be wrong.

Anyone care to "translate" the Miles-Higher-speak above?

[Magluvin]

Yeah, sure.

And I will remind you again that most viscous relentlessly attacking, insulting, demeaning, and degrading person I have ever seen on this forum is YOU Magluvin.  For about one full year you relentlessly attacked me, it was absolutely disgusting.  You are just doing a schtick right now, but it is nothing compared to how absolutely grotesque and horrible your behaviour was.  A fully grown man acting like a monster and you never had the character or class to apologize for it.

So I am not interested in your techno babble.

So that is your proof for your statements.......

1.    Cemf in and Ideal Inductor is not ideal cemf

2.    An Ideal Voltage Source is one that the voltage varies with time


Again, the only answer you have is to insult and lay charges on me? Is that your proof of your statements?    Go ahead.  Keep on throwing it at me as a distraction to why you cannot prove your own words. 

So far, I think that you will not prove either statement or you simply would have, to show you have been correct and we were wrong. Why is it not a good way to go about it by providing proof of your statements? Wouldnt this day of discussion be a lot easier if you did so?

So either provide reference proof of your statements or call me names and insult me as a substitute. Your choice. Which one will prove you are right and Brad and I are wrong??  Which is it?  For the readers of course.


Mags

[Magluvin]

I believe I understand what Miles is saying (or conceding) here.

Although I may be wrong.

Anyone care to "translate" the Miles-Higher-speak above?

"So I am not interested in your techno babble."

I can translate it. It means he can not back up his statements or else he would. And he should if he could. But instead we get this babble to brush it off. 

MH, give us proof of your statements below....


1.    Cemf in and Ideal Inductor is not ideal cemf

2.    An Ideal Voltage Source is one that the voltage varies with time


Simple, isnt it?

Mags