Alternator Paralleler Circuit

[Gibbo]

Yes I agree with that when the battery is OPEN CIRCUITED - I don't have a problem with that. But the voltage that appears when the battery (or alternator) is IN circuit is not the actual true voltage of the battery. It is the battery's true voltage LESS the voltage drop across its internal resistance owing to the current it is delivering to the circuit to which it is attached.

 

 

The voltage at point V when the switch is closed is NOT the same as the battery charger voltage of 12.6v. It's also not the same as the open circuit voltage of the battery being charged. You would only see the 12.6v at the battery charger if the charger were open-circuited. The bits within the boxes are not accessible but still exist.

 

Chris

 

You're doing it again!

 

You're putting all your faith in maffs. Maffs doesn't represent reality. It is a tool.

 

A battery is not a perfect voltage source in series with a resistor. That is a device to predict what will happen at the outside terminals. It isn't what is really there! It isn't what happens inside.

 

Get a battery (I'll send you one if you want). Then pull it apart and send me the perfect voltage source and the internal resistance separately. I will put them back together without the resistor and have a perfect battery.

 

Oh wait, that's just silly isn't it!

 

Why is it silly? It's no sillier than you trying to puts maffs to it and treat them separately then expect that the internally calculated figures are somehow related to reality.

 

This was the mistake you made with your "60 volts on the W terminal". You were so convinced that the maffs represented reality that you actually stated that you had measured that voltage when we all knew you hadn't. You simply made that bit up based on your maffs to try to prove your (incorrect) assumption. I said in post #208

 

I think you're making this up based on what you think you know as opposed to what you really measured with a scope.

 

And it would appear I was quite correct.

 

Gibbo

[chris w]

Chris this is an old one and I'm sure you'll have heard it before but it perfectly demonstrates the situatrion that maffs is a tool and should not be relied on to represent reality because it is often very wrong if that is attempted.

 

Man has to travel from A to B

 

Nothing can travel infinitely fast (including our man) therefore it will take a certain amount of time to travel from A to B

 

Before man gets to B he has to get halfway there. Before he gets halfway there he has to get a quarter of the way there, before he gets a quarter of the way there he has to get an eigth of the way there etc etc etc.

 

Mathematically we can keep dividing this down forever. And as it is impossible for man to travel infinitely fast this means that it is impossible for him to travel from A to B. He will simply never get there. That's what maffs proves.

 

Yet we know he can get there.

 

Gibbo

That shows your lack of maths knowledge and your lack of understanding of "limits"

 

The example you cite above can be written mathematically as follows:

 

Let the distance between A & B = 2d and the speed = s

 

So the time t = 1/s{d + d/2 + d/4 + d/8 + d/16 + etc........ to infinity}

 

But mathematically the limit of the bit in brackets, as the denominator tends to infinity, is 2d

 

Therefore, in the limit, t = 2d/s so if say d = 10 miles and the speed = 5mph, then the time will be 2 x 10/5 = 4 hours, as expected

 

........ and my diagram above shows clearly what I mean by real voltages not being accessible to measurement whilst in circuit.

 

Chris

Edited May 20, 2009 by chris w

[Gibbo]

You both raised some (genuinely) interesting points in this arguement. Did you ever resolve it?

 

I think (?) Chris is still working on the maths. We made some headway but not sure what happened later.

 

Gibbo

[Timleech]

So, because you don't understand something (as is very clearly evidenced by this thread) you try to make out other people don't? Interesting tact.

 

 

Gibbo

 

Not a new one, though

 

Tim

[Gibbo]

That shows your lack of maths knowledge and your lack of understanding of "limits"

 

The example you cite above can be written mathematically as follows:

 

Let the distance between A & B = 2d and the speed = s

 

So the time t = 1/s{d + d/2 + d/4 + d/8 + d/16 + etc........ to infinity}

 

But mathematically, the limit of the bit in brackets as the denominator tends to infinity is 2d

 

Therefore, in the limit, t = 2d/s so if say d = 10 miles and the speed = 5mph, then the time will be 2 x 10/5 = 4 hours, as expected

 

.... and my diagram above shows clearly what I mean by real voltages not being accessible to measurment whilst in circuit.

 

Chris

 

Thank you. So you already accept that maffs doesn't always work.

 

When infinities are introduced into maffs it all falls apart and you have to add in a "fudge factor" ("it tends to" so "let's pretend it is"). Because it cannot deal with them.

 

Do your above equation again, but this time continue writing down the equation to infinity. Because that is the only way you can get the correct answer.

 

Or is it?

 

According to popular scientific wisdom the reality is that it isn't possible to infinitely divide space. That's the real solution. As a later poster alluded to. So trying to fudge the maths to account for infinities is actually the wrong solution.

 

Back to your battery. If you want to deal with infinities (as you seem to want to) you have to model the battery as an infinite number of perfect voltage sources, each of infinitely small voltage, each individually in series with an infinite number of infinitely small resistances. You will have to do the same with the stator in the alternator.

 

Now where are you going to measure this theoretical voltage (that doesn't exist)?

 

In reality, we don't need to go this far, we go as far as single atomic particles, we can then deal with it exactly. So infinities aren't needed (and maths doesn't work properly with infinities anyway). Which is why I previously referred to "macroscale electronics" ie not on the atomic scale. Remember? That bit you didn't understand?

 

Gibbo

[chris w]

You're doing it again!

 

You're putting all your faith in maffs. Maffs doesn't represent reality. It is a tool.

 

A battery is not a perfect voltage source in series with a resistor. That is a device to predict what will happen at the outside terminals. It isn't what is really there! It isn't what happens inside.

 

Gibbo

I agree of course it's not just a perfect voltage source in series with a resistor. But horses for courses. The simplified model above will predict the voltage at point V above with sufficient accuracy for all practical purposes. It won't predict the exact charging characteristic of the battery's being charged.

 

The internal resistance itself changes too depending on the actual state of charge of the battery. You know that in our "behind-the-scene" maths to which Bridget alluded just now, we agreed that the internal resistance can be represented reasonably in milliohms by the equation Ri = 56d² + 10

 

where d = the depth of discharge (DoD, ie: DoD fully charged = 0, discharged DoD = 1)

 

Chris

Edited May 20, 2009 by chris w

[Gibbo]

I agree of course it's not just a perfect voltage source in series with a resistor. But horses for courses. The simplified model above will predict the voltage at point V above with sufficient accuracy for all practical purposes.

 

Yes, and that is all it will ever do. The internally calculated voltages are a part-way answer in the mathematical process. They in no way represent reality, they are not real, they cannot be measured, and they do not exist.

 

Gibbo

[chris w]

Thank you. So you already accept that maffs doesn't always work.

 

When infinities are introduced into maffs it all falls apart and you have to add in a "fudge factor" ("it tends to" so "let's pretend it is"). Because it cannot deal with them.

 

Do your above equation again, but this time continue writing down the equation to infinity. Because that is the only way you can get the correct answer.

 

Gibbo

That is total crap........

 

taking the equation above:

 

let y = x + x/2 + x/4 + x/8 + x/16 +..............+ x/n

 

Now multiply both sides by 2

 

so... 2y = 2x + x + x/2 + x/4 + x/8 + x/16 +..............+ 2x/n

 

Now subtract the first equation from the first and we obtain:

 

y = 2x - 2x/n = 2x(1 - 1/n)

 

Therefore, in the limit, as n tends to infinity, the expression 1/n tends to zero

 

Thus, in the limit, as n tends to infinity y = 2x QED

 

"Infinity" is in no way a fiddle factor, unless you somehow believe that dividing anything by infinity is not zero.

 

Your mortgage payments and your pension growth is calculated in EXACTLY the same way. They don't actually do the interest payments month by month over 25 years - they use an equation that uses "limits" - But it IS totally accurate.

 

Chris

[Gibbo]

"Infinity" is in no way a fiddle factor, unless you somehow believe that dividing anything by infinity is not zero.

 

Really?

 

We all know (and maths can easily prove) that multiplying something by 2 makes it twice as big.

 

Therefore 2 X infinity = 2infinity. Yet it doesn't. 2 X infinity is still infinity. If 2i = i then either infinity = 0, 2 doesn't = 2 or = doesn't mean =. Take your pic.

 

Maffs can't handle infinities. Only mathematicians think it can. But they can't handle reality as clearly demonstarted in this thread.

 

Gibbo

 

Your mortgage payments and your pension growth is calculated in EXACTLY the same way.

 

I can absolutely guarantee that you are wrong.

 

Gibbo

[chris w]

I can absolutely guarantee that you are wrong.

 

Gibbo

You are wrong - there are standard equations for mortgage payments and car loans and pension growth etc, ALL of which rely on limits to infinity. No-one sits down and calculates what your monthly payments will be month by month. You ask for a quote, they fill in the equation's parameters and hey presto.

 

If you want to be bored then I can give you the line by line proof on here.

 

It's your lack of maths knowledge that doesn't allow you to realise how daft your statements are regarding maths.

 

Chris

 

Really?

 

We all know (and maths can easily prove) that multiplying something by 2 makes it twice as big.

 

Therefore 2 X infinity = 2infinity. Yet it doesn't. 2 X infinity is still infinity. If 2i = i then either infinity = 0, 2 doesn't = 2 or = doesn't mean =. Take your pic.

 

Maffs can't handle infinities. Only mathematicians think it can. But they can't handle reality as clearly demonstarted in this thread.

 

Gibbo

.....and 2 light beams approaching each other do not have a combined velocity of 6 x 10⁸ ms^-1 but you presumably believe they do????

 

Chris

Edited May 20, 2009 by chris w

[Gibbo]

You are wrong - there are standard equations for mortgage payments and car loans and pension growth etc, ALL of which rely on limits to infinity. No-one sits down and calculates what your monthly payments will be month by month. You ask for a quote, they fill in the equation's parameters and hey presto.

 

Yet again you make sweeping statements without ever once considering that you could, just perhaps, (yet again) be completely wrong.

 

I repeat. I can absolutely guarantee that none of your equations are used to calculate my mortage or pension fund growth. I guarantee it. You are (again) wrong.

 

If you want to be bored then I can give you the line by line proof on here.

 

It's your lack of maths knowledge that doesn't allow you to realise how daft your statements are regarding maths.

 

It's your lack of ability to look outside the numbers that makes you almost perpetually wrong. Look outside the numbers. Look at reality.

 

Your inability to look outside your equations led to your silly statement regarding 60 volts on the W terminal.

 

Your inability to look outside your equations led to your statement that your equations are used to calculate my mortgage and pension fund growth. Not once did you consider that perhaps I have neither and therefore you are wrong. Your equations are not used. Look outside your equations. Look at reality. You might be right once in a while if you try it.

 

.....and 2 light beams approaching each other do not have a combined velocity of 6 x 10⁸ ms^-1 but you presumably believe they do????

 

No I don't believe they do.

 

But neither does maths work properly with infinities.

 

Gibbo

[chris w]

I repeat. I can absolutely guarantee that none of your equations are used to calculate my mortage or pension fund growth. I guarantee it. You are (again) wrong.

 

 

Your inability to look outside your equations led to your statement that your equations are used to calculate my mortgage and pension fund growth. Not once did you consider that perhaps I have neither and therefore you are wrong.

 

Gibbo

Is that the best you can do to counter the argument? Have you considered changing your company name to Smartarse?

 

Pathetic

[chris w]

Yet again you make sweeping statements without ever once considering that you could, just perhaps, (yet again) be completely wrong.

 

I repeat. I can absolutely guarantee that none of your equations are used to calculate my mortage or pension fund growth. I guarantee it. You are (again) wrong.

 

 

 

It's your lack of ability to look outside the numbers that makes you almost perpetually wrong. Look outside the numbers. Look at reality.

 

Your inability to look outside your equations led to your silly statement regarding 60 volts on the W terminal.

 

Your inability to look outside your equations led to your statement that your equations are used to calculate my mortgage and pension fund growth. Not once did you consider that perhaps I have neither and therefore you are wrong. Your equations are not used. Look outside your equations. Look at reality. You might be right once in a while if you try it.

 

 

 

No I don't believe they do.

 

But neither does maths work properly with infinities.

 

Gibbo

You're confused - maths works fine with infinities, it's dividing by zero that doesn't work.

 

The whole of differential calculus is based on limits or are you saying that doesn't work either?

 

Here's an example let y = x² + 3

 

Suppose y increases by a tiny amount dy

 

so we can write y + dy = (x + dx)² + 3

 

Multiplying out the bracket, y + dy = x² + (dx)² + 2xdx + 3

 

But y = x² + 3 so we can write

 

x² + 3 + dy = x² + (dx)² + 2xdx + 3

 

which means that dy = (dx)² + 2xdx

 

thus dy/dx = 2x + dx

 

In the limit as dx tends to zero, dy/dx = 2x QED

[chris w]

Here's an example of using limits to infinity to get an answer to an otherwise impossible calculation:

 

 

Let y = 1/x + 1/x² + 1/x³ + 1/x⁴ +............+1/xⁿ

 

Multiplying both sides by x gives:

 

xy = 1 + 1/x + 1/x² + 1/x³ +............+1/x^n-1

 

Subtracting one equation from the other gives:

 

xy - y = y(x - 1) = 1 - 1/xⁿ

 

 

thus y = (1 - 1/xⁿ)/(x - 1)

 

In the limit as n tends to inifinity, xⁿ tends to zero

 

Thus: y = 1/(x - 1)

 

So if say x = 3, then the sum of y = 1/3 + 1/3² + 1/3³ + 1/3⁴ +............+1/3ⁿ

where n = infinity is 1/(3 - 1) = 0.5

 

try doing that without using limits to infinity!!!!

Edited May 20, 2009 by chris w

[Gibbo]

(i = infinity)

 

9 + i = i

 

Subtract i from both sides:-

 

9 = 0

 

QED

 

Gibbo

[chris w]

(i = infinity)

 

9 + i = i

 

Subtract i from both sides:-

 

9 = 0

 

QED

 

Gibbo

That just shows your absolute ignorance of the rules of maths to avoid daft statements like that It's puerile

[Gibbo]

That just shows your absolute ignorance of the rules of maths to avoid daft statements like that It's puerile

 

Actually, what it is, is proof that maffs can't handle infinities without some fudge. It simply doesn't work.

 

Go through it stage by stage and tell me where it is incorrect......

 

Does infinity plus 9 = infinity?

 

It either does or it doesn't.

 

Gibbo

[chris w]

Go read a maths book to get the answer. I'm not going to waste my time with infant stuff like that. You clearly don't have the basic knowledge to understand my sensible examples above.

 

Chris

 

PS: I had my first response from Adverc BTW re alternator controllers. They were less than charitable about you.

[Gibbo]

Is that the best you can do to counter the argument? Have you considered changing your company name to Smartarse?

 

Pathetic

 

It was a totally effective example of how you get an equation in your head and absolutely believe 100% that it represents the real world without ever once considering that perhaps the numbers and equations are not the whole picture. You get numbers in front of your eyes and put blinkers on. You simply cannot see outside your equations. Hence your 60 volts on the W terminal.

 

Gibbo

 

PS: I had my first response from Adverc BTW re alternator controllers. They were less than charitable about you.

 

LOL

 

They even have a webpage dedicated almost exclusively to me.

 

Funny, it appeared just after we stole all their fleet vehicle business.

 

Gibbo

 

Edit: They then tried to copy one of our devices after having spent years saying they don't work

Edited May 20, 2009 by Gibbo

[chris w]

It was a totally effective example of how you get an equation in your head and absolutely believe 100% that it represents the real world without ever once considering that perhaps the numbers and equations are not the whole picture. You get numbers in front of your eyes and put blinkers on. You simply cannot see outside your equations. Hence your 60 volts on the W terminal.

 

Gibbo

My 60v on the W terminal was a lapse of memory not a lapse of maths.

[Gibbo]

Go read a maths book to get the answer. I'm not going to waste my time with infant stuff like that. You clearly don't have the basic knowledge to understand my sensible examples above.

 

So you don't actually know whether 9 + infinity is infinity?

 

I thought it was quite a simple sum.

 

Gibbo

 

My 60v on the W terminal was a lapse of memory not a lapse of maths.

 

No it wasn't You actually "proved" mathematically how it got there. How is that a lapse of memory?

 

Gibbo

[chris w]

No it wasn't You actually "proved" mathematically how it got there. How is that a lapse of memory?

 

Gibbo

On the contrary, what my maths was telling me, but I wouldn't listen, is that the internal voltage was 60vpp.

 

Chris

With your silly little maths thing, you are making the mistake that i - i = 0

 

An example..... if we accept that the set of ALL numbers is infinite, then the set of ALL odd numbers must be infinite. Likewise the set of ALL even numbers must be infinite.

 

But ALL the numbers are made up of ALL the odd numbers plus ALL the even numbers. So infinity + infinity = infinity

 

If you follow the argument, then infinity less infinity is not zero hence your analysis of 9 + i is wrong too

Edited May 20, 2009 by chris w

[Gibbo]

On the contrary, what my maths was telling me, but I wouldn't listen, is that the internal voltage was 60vpp.

 

Chris

 

Justy to play silly childish game 9 + i + i .Therefore subtracting infinity from both sides gives zero = zero not 9 = 0 since as you said 9 + i = i

 

Er, even youknow how wrong that is.

 

Gibbo

 

PS> When are you going to publish Adverc's response about how their 14.4 volts must be a different voltage than everyone else's 14.4 volts?

 

I found this amusing............

 

"Infinity (symbolically represented by ∞) refers to several distinct concepts – usually linked to the idea of "without end" – which arise in philosophy, mathematics, and theology"

 

Notice how it only seems to exist in things that aren't real.

 

Gibbo

[chris w]

Er, even youknow how wrong that is.

 

Gibbo

I had already amended it to make it more mathematical but you probably only understand the simple version

[Gibbo]

On the contrary, what my maths was telling me, but I wouldn't listen, is that the internal voltage was 60vpp.

 

Chris

With your silly little maths thing, you are making the mistake that i - i = 0

 

An example..... if we accept that the set of ALL numbers is infinite, then the set of ALL odd numbers must be infinite. Likewise the set of ALL even numbers must be infinite.

 

But ALL the numbers are made up of ALL the odd numbers plus ALL the even numbers. So infinity + infinity = infinity

 

If you follow the argument, then infinity less infinity is not zero hence your analysis of 9 + i is wrong too

 

No. What it proves is that infinity is a concept, or a device. It doesn't actually exist and maffs cannot deal with it. Just like your 60 volts.

 

Gibbo