Baluncore said:
No. That is the voltage across a perfect inductor. A DC motor comprises a series resistance plus an inductance. The inductance plays no part when the current is stable. You appear unwilling to accept that DC is not AC.
What? That equation must be used in conjunction with the internal resistance of the winding. I was speaking only of the inductance at this point but later elaborate with respect to the series resistance. The equation is wholly valid regardless of a DC or AC application. In DC, the current differential is zero and no voltage exists across the coil.
All you did was restate exactly what my question was and make a judgement of my will. Your statements are not making sense. You say that I am wrong, then state that in a coil, with constant current, "takes no part." This is exactly what I said would happen and the subject of my question to you for verification.
Baluncore said:
No. Only when it is stopped, but it would then develop a very high current = very high torque, so it will start and then the back EMF will cancel part of the supply. That contradicts the steady state you hypothesised. You need to stop making irrelevant idealistic assumptions that contradict reality. They are destructive and a waste of your time.
These irrelevant idealistic concepts are the basis for what really happens. It may be your opinion that such things are irrelevant, but I believe they are vital to full comprehension of any problem. Understanding the base case further facilitates understanding the more complicated ones.
Baluncore said:
You are wrong. Back EMF of a DC motor is proportional to RPM. It is the motor acting as a generator. It is inside the motor and must be subtracted from the supply voltage. Suddenly switching off the current through an inductor will also generate a back EMF.
I am right, but have not considered the other times EMF is generated. You state below that I exhibit arrogance, yet you reply in this manner here and above.
Baluncore said:
That would be really stupid. You could not possibly use a motor if you did not connect it across the supply.
You are making a literal assumption here and not fully considering what I wrote. By not applying the motor across the supply I meant perhaps having a series resistance as well or something to protect a short circuit of the supply's terminals (if that could happen - which is another question I had asked).
Baluncore said:
Torque is directly proportional to current. When the only load is friction and drag losses, then that must determine the current.
I understand this concept but further elaborated my confusion with the following sentence with an attempt at an example.
Baluncore said:
That is only true if there is a shaft torque due to your undefined current component Y.
What I was trying to illustrate here was if, for example, 100mA is the absolute minimum current required to drive the motor at its absolute slowest possible rate (perhaps this results in about 1rpm or so) then that appears to be the current required to overcome the frictional and drag forces. So, with that, the X amps I wrote earlier would be the 1mA minimum current.
My confusion was that you had said the no-load current would be equal to the current that was required to overcome these forces. However, the motor - when ran at no load - may be ~10k rpms and drawing a current substantially higher than the minimum current required to move it very slowly (this slow-turning current drawn is the current required to overcome those external forces). This extra current I wrote as being Y Amps. So, in this way, the no-load operating current would be (X+Y) Amps.
But it was confusing to me because this operating current is much greater than the current required to overcome the external forces. You can drive half that current with a reduced speed.
Baluncore said:
You have completely ignored the key equation I = (Vs – Vb) / Rs
I detect an arrogance in your approach. Only when you are prepared to read and think in a non-hostile way will you begin to understand.
I am completely open to new concepts and corrections of my misconceptions. I have not been hostile in any way. Maybe it's that I first say "I thought .." before addressing your comments that you think this. I do that because I hope to portray my understanding in hopes of a full correction in all areas of where I have gone astray.
I cannot accept the equation until I understand where it derives from. That is why I asked questions per statement you made.
Your comments are the ones in which a subtle notion of arrogance is present.
I am doing nothing more than stating what it is that I currently have as my understanding and then ask questions to remedy my misconceptions.
This has really snow-balled into something much larger with lots of things I am not fully certain about, but I still do not understand how those LED I mentioned in the OP operate. Is it that the design exploits the fact that the motor will have at least ~1.5V or so across its leads there forward-biasing the diodes?
After all of the preceding posts it seems this is the case.
It seems that the LEDs would not conduct if the motor is a low-voltage variety unless the diodes have very low Vf.