Joule Thief 101

[Magluvin]

<<< An ideal voltage dose not vary in time-regardless of the load it is placed across.  >>>

I am really sorry that you are unable to conceptualize normal things like v(t) Brad.  It is obviously a severe handicap.

There you go again. The ideal situation is NOT normal MH.   That is not our handycap, as we understand that it is NOT normal. But you I guess have lots of normal experience with normal ideal components.     Get a grip dude. Your insults are normal, they just dont make any sense.

Over and out. 

Magluvin

[Magneticitist]

a real level of resentment seems to lie in the fact that we have some
professionals in the field here with academic credentials
deserving some respect. but when dealing with a theoretical
discussion that cannot possibly be proven, the professionals
expect everyone to simply accept their opinion as fact.
any deviation no matter how contrived from sheer pondering
is often shot down to the degree of being idiotic and senseless
rather than simply being disagreed with. I see this happening
all over the internet and especially in physics forums.
Sure, this would make some sense as the professionals
are indeed very likely to know what they are talking about..
But to challenge the established way of things as currently
maintained by the professionals is implied in overunity.com's
mission statement. that goes for the professionals, the students,
and the tinkers alike I'd imagine.

we are supposed to challenge every nook and cranny until we
are absolutely sure for ourselves, without ingesting
every piece of personally untested information as fundamentally
correct, that way we don't have to cross some bridge in the learning
process where we have to accept what 'other people are saying'
without truly believing it. sure this may slow the learning process
but then again it may not, it may enrich the learning process.

This does not mean there is some conscious effort made to oppose
those taught fundamentals just for the sake of being difficult,
or unique, or fringe, or whatever.

If we want to seemingly revert to the stone age and learn
in a manner that professionals often consider a foolish reversal
of logic that follows a path going against the grain those
professionals have tilled, then why not let us pursue that
seemingly foolish path unimpeded if we simply seem too
stubborn to agree with the majority perspective in the field.

No matter how you look at it we are not arguing over a flat earth here
and it's not as simple as merely 'opening your eyes to the obvious provable truth'

[MileHigh]

a real level of resentment seems to lie in the fact that we have some
professionals in the field here with academic credentials
deserving some respect. but when dealing with a theoretical
discussion that cannot possibly be proven, the professionals
expect everyone to simply accept their opinion as fact.
any deviation no matter how contrived from sheer pondering
is often shot down to the degree of being idiotic and senseless
rather than simply being disagreed with. I see this happening
all over the internet and especially in physics forums.
Sure, this would make some sense as the professionals
are indeed very likely to know what they are talking about..
But to challenge the established way of things as currently
maintained by the professionals is implied in overunity.com's
mission statement. that goes for the professionals, the students,
and the tinkers alike I'd imagine.

we are supposed to challenge every nook and cranny until we
are absolutely sure for ourselves, without ingesting
every piece of personally untested information as fundamentally
correct, that way we don't have to cross some bridge in the learning
process where we have to accept what 'other people are saying'
without truly believing it. sure this may slow the learning process
but then again it may not, it may enrich the learning process.

This does not mean there is some conscious effort made to oppose
those taught fundamentals just for the sake of being difficult,
or unique, or fringe, or whatever.

If we want to seemingly revert to the stone age and learn
in a manner that professionals often consider a foolish reversal
of logic that follows a path going against the grain those
professionals have tilled, then why not let us pursue that
seemingly foolish path unimpeded if we simply seem too
stubborn to agree with the majority perspective in the field.

No matter how you look at it we are not arguing over a flat earth here
and it's not as simple as merely 'opening your eyes to the obvious provable truth'

You're sitting in your Electronics 101 class and you are doing a quiz.  The first question says, "There is a +/- 10-volt 25 Hz triangle wave across a 2 Henry inductor...."  Well that means that it's an ideal voltage source triangle wave because it's a quiz and it is what the question says it is.  It doesn't state there is an output impedance associated with a function generator, it just says that there is a triangle wave, period.

So do you make a fuss and object to the question and disrupt the class and claim that the question as it is worded is "impossible," or do you try to answer the question as it is given in the quiz?

The whole thing is ridiculous and the question on the other thread will never be answered.  It's beyond the capabilities of the people here and they are severely handicapped with their insane attitude and they seemingly don't want to help themselves.  Like I said, it's a farce.

[Magneticitist]

You're sitting in your Electronics 101 class and you are doing a quiz.  The first question says, "There is a +/- 10-volt 25 Hz triangle wave across a 2 Henry inductor...."  Well that means that it's an ideal voltage source triangle wave because it's a quiz and it is what the question says it is.  It doesn't state there is an output impedance associated with a function generator, it just says that there is a triangle wave, period.

So do you make a fuss and object to the question and disrupt the class and claim that the question as it is worded is "impossible," or do you try to answer the question as it is given in the quiz?

The whole thing is ridiculous and the question on the other thread will never be answered.  It's beyond the capabilities of the people here and they are severely handicapped with their insane attitude and they seemingly don't want to help themselves.  Like I said, it's a farce.

tbh this is what I find ironically interesting. I believe the way your question was asked, in the context that it was asked, and during the heated moment of debate it was asked, included
well, not quite a deceptive, but an 'unorthodox' aspect. I know to you it seems common practice but there was a certain degree of "hmmm could this be a trick?".. When I first looked at the varying
voltages I was thinking hmm how does that work.. It never occurred to me the voltage from the
source could vary but then that was sort of the point of you bringing it up, that it's a variable we
are supposed to pick up on and account for given the test parameters. I believe this actually
caused some people to look at it in a much deeper way than they may have prior. It personally
threw me into some deep thought. In the end your question, though not answered satisfactorily
in your opinion, may have taught more than you think. You may have helped to strengthen
a belief some of us would have not held in the first place prior to really analyzing this scenario.
Had you asked a question more like idk let's say solve for current in the inductor at t=0 through t=9 given x voltage at t=0 with an R then Brad would have probably just solved it, and if he didn't know, would have probably brushed up online before solving it. But then, there's the possibility
he may have never thought about this entire 0 resistance superconductive inductor scenario. maybe he has idk..

[tinman]

For reference, this is the harder version of the question I answered that Brad made reference to in post 2607:

<<<
Here is the harder version of the question and the answer:

You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys.  At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source.  The voltage source waveform is 20*t^2.  So as the time t increases, the voltage increases proportional to the square of the time.

The question is what happens starting at t = 0

The answer:

The current through the ideal coil starts from zero at time t = 0 and then increases with this formula:  i = 1.33*t^3.

Time..........Voltage.........Current
0...............0.................0
1...............20...............1.33
5...............500.............166.67
10.............2000............1333.33
20.............8000............10666.67
50.............50000..........166666.7


>>>

And poor Brad thinks I am talking about "DC current" when I am talking about a rising voltage waveform proportional to t-squared and the resultant rising current waveform that is proportional to t-cubed.  The mind boggles.

Quote Brad from post #2607:

<<< Have you lost your marbles MH ?
This whole thing you have been peddling is about how you can place a voltage across an ideal coil,and a DC current will flow through that coil.See below >>>

What's even more of a joke is when I started the process of answering the easier question these were Brad's responses:

<<<
You are the epic failure others claim you to be.
You are a total disaster
Your a fraud.
You epic failure.
You are now the laughing stock of this forum.
>>>

Brad:  Everything you read in your own quoted text above in reality applies to you yourself.  You have been bluffing your way through this whole thing.  It's a farce and a fiasco.

MileHigh

Brad, you need to try to get up the learning curve such that you get to the point where you come back and acknowledge the answer given above is correct.

MH
I need to point out to you ,that you are no longer able to confuse people around here,by changing things around to meet your need's--your starting to look silly.

As i said in the other thread,i am not interested in your modified version--it's nothing more than a distraction from the original question.

The original question
Quote: You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys.  At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts.  Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts.  Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
What happens from T=0 when the ideal voltage is connected to the ideal coil?.

It would seem that you need to understand your own question,so we will dissect it piece by piece.
This way you may learn what your question actually means
The very first 5 words seem to have you some what confused
Quote:-You have an ideal voltage

The first thing we do,is find out exactly what an ideal voltage is.
We will look at the definition on the first 5 pages of the google results.

1-wikipedia-->An ideal voltage source is a two-terminal device that maintains a fixed voltage drop across its terminals.

2-http://www.learningaboutelectronics.com/Articles/Ideal-voltage-source.php
-->An ideal voltage source is a voltage source that supplies constant voltage to a circuit despite the current which the circuit draws.
This means that despite the resistance which a load may be in a circuit, the source will still provide constant and steady voltage.
An ideal voltage source has the following characterstic that allows it to act as a 100% efficient source of voltage: it has zero internal resistance.
When an ideal voltage source has zero internal resistance, it can drop all of its voltage perfectly across a load in a circuit. Being that the source has zero internal resistance, none of the power is wasted due to internal resistance. The ideal voltage source can 100% efficiently drop all of its voltage across a load. This is proven by ohm's law. According to ohm's law, voltage is dropped across circuit elements according to the formula, V=IR. If a voltage source has zero internal resistance, it can drop all voltage across a load and none will be wasted internally. This is 100% power efficiency and this is an ideal voltage source.

The above statement MH,dismisses your answer in regards to verpies comment,that by adding the ideal voltage source in series with the inductor,brings in an element of resistance.
As i told you before,and ideal voltage source dose not have a resistance,and so the complete circuit remains void of any resistance.

3-http://www.electrical4u.com/ideal-dependent-independent-voltage-current-source/
But in ideal voltage source  this difference is considered as zero that means there would not be any voltage drop in it when current flows through it and this implies that the internal resistance of an ideal source must be zero. This can be concluded that, voltage across the source remains constant for all values of load current.

The above also tells you what a Independent Voltage Source,and a Dependent Voltage Source is. You may want to read up on them as well,as there you will find your voltage source that changes in time.

4http://www.ee.sc.edu/personal/faculty/simin/ELCT102/13%20Voltage%20and%20Current%20sources.pdf
An ideal voltage source is a circuit element that maintains a prescribed
voltage across its terminals regardless of the current flowing in those
terminals

5-http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mastascu/elessonshtml/source/source1.html#WhatIdealVSource
An ideal voltage source is a voltage source that maintains the same voltage across the source's terminals no matter what current is drawn from the terminals of the source or what current flows into the terminals.

So now it should be clear to you that an ideal voltage dose not change in time--unless you change it.

Next
and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys.
First,what is an ideal coil,or inductor.
I will supply only the first two links that have decent explanations--the rest will be the same anyway.

1-wikipedia
An "ideal inductor" has inductance, but no resistance or capacitance, and does not dissipate or radiate energy. However real inductors have side effects which cause their behavior to depart from this simple model.

Please note highlighted

2-http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/72597/what-would-a-perfect-inductor-be-like
The perfect inductor has reactance without any resistance. In other words, the real component of its impedance would be zero. Loss of power as heat within the inductor is thus also zero.
The perfect inductor presents no impedance to a constant current (i.e. DC), yet opposes any slightest change of current. Any non-superconducting material can not meet this condition, as it is bound to have some resistance.
Hence, a perfect inductor would need to be made of superconducting material

So now you should know what an ideal voltage source is,and what an ideal coil/inductor is.
No matter how much you would like to include the MH paradox,you just cannot redefine things as you please MileHigh.


Brad