Quote:
Originally Posted by mss
You still fail to understand that I have no need to substantiate or prove anything to you.
|
...[Trimmed as irrelevant descent into downright rudeness]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mss
If you believe that what I say is incorrect, you need to state why and if you feel so inclined, back it up with science/theory. The fact that the formula I wrote applies to transient generation from inductive loads would be understood by any AS-level physics student with any understanding of basic electromagnetic principles. The fact that you equated the formula to "spinning magnetic field" told me all that I needed to know of your understanding of the field.
|
You couldn't be more wrong in any of the above. If I say the moon is made of blue cheese, is it up to someone else to disprove or for me to prove?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mss
What you had stated was that other than the alternator, there were no large inductors (meaning capable of generating transients) in our cars. I listed a whole host that are present in all cars.
|
Hardly a 'host' The starter motor and some relays most of which won't be connected to the battery with ign off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mss
You may care to study the following application note from Harris Semiconductor - people who design and manufacture transient suppressors for automotive applications - and note item 4 in the table on page 2, i.e.
< 320μs Inductive-load Switching transient <1J -300v to +8-V often
http://www.industrologic.com/autotransients.pdf |
Finally! something to back up your theory, I'll happily give it a look....
...Yep, done that - Unfortunately it doesn't support your theory. Although voltage spikes are possible during battery disconnection this is with the engine
running, the spikes discussed in the above linked note are related to jumpstarting and removing the battery
while the alternator is generating voltage (i.e. engine running and ign on ). No mention of battery disconnection with the ign off being any concern at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mss
What formula do you think applies when these are generated?
If you wish, please state why you believe that the formula I stated does not apply as I stated, which was that it shows the amplitude of the generated transient is dependent on the rate of change of current (the dI/dt term) and the inductance does not have to be very large to to generate a large transient voltage.
Even better, why don't you suggest a formula yourself? This should be easy for you given your extensive knowledge. 
I will leave it there, so that you can have the last post.
I will say that when you don't understand something, a little less of the idiotic arrogance will go a long way! 
|
Again, let's try and be clear:
- I made one jest about your presentation of Lenz's law formula
- You are under the false impression that I think it wouldn't apply (because of #1?), I just don't believe that presenting a formula on it's own proves your theory.
- Again, Proof of a claim/theory lies with the person making it, not the absence of disproof !!!
Repeatedly throwing out your theory and asserting that it's true until disproved doesn't automagically make you right. Although you seemingly repeatedly ignore this point, your failure to acknowledge it won't make it go away. Perhaps I should rephrase in more common vernacular: Put up, or shut up.
- Why don't I suggest a formula? What for? A formula that nothing bad will happen when you disconnect your battery from a car (R75) without the engine running and the Ign off? how about : 0 = 0?
- More repeats of your earlier abuse: just goes to show that you don't seem capable of remaining civil. (I've deliberately left them in the quote this time). It does absolutely nothing to establish your assertion of voltage spikes when disconnecting a battery with the ign off.
Apologies to other readers for the metaphoric raising of my voice there, sometimes all you can do is emphasise or speak louder when something important is being ignored...