Where the OVERUNITY using INDUCTION COILS comes from (eg Joule Thief)

[tinman]

It really does not matter how the external flux change is generated.  It does not matter if the magnet is being inserted into that ring or withdrawn from it or passed through it.  It does not matter if the magnet is moving parallely the ring's axis or perpendicularly to it (as when a magnet is "passing across"). 

Analyzing a half of the motion, as in just withdrawing instead inserting and withdrawing (passing through) does not change anything conceptually - it just changes the initial conditions of the analysis.

BTW: It also does not matter if the external flux change is generated by another coil (as in a transformer).  All that matters is that some external flux is pushed into the coil somehow.

The video by the same author shows what happens when that ring is not superconductive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUaqXk6axOo

Faraday's law of induction states that only a voltage across an open coil increases as dPhi/dt increases.
Any current that flows as a result of that voltage will oppose the change in flux that causes that voltage according to the Lenz Law. 
According only to Ohm's Law the induced current can grow without limit but when you add in the Lenz Law that limit becomes i=Phi/L.  That limit cannot be exceeded no matter how fast you move the magnet (no matter the dPhi/dt).

But the coil stores and discharges energy as a current source - not a voltage source.
Capacitors store and discharge energy as a voltage source - not inductors.

You are wrong about this.  You seem to be conflating a change in magnetic flux with mechanical force while it is the gradient of the magnetic flux density that determines the force.
Notice that in the video linked below, the magnet is much smaller than the superconductive loop and that allow the flux lines to deform.  Also notice that the number of these flux lines penetrating the loop is ALWAYS THE SAME regardless of the position of the magnet.  These lines do get closer together (denser) at some times but their number stays the same.  It is the gradient in density of these lines that determines the mechanical force acting on the magnet - not the amount of lines.  Such is the difference between magnetic flux density and magnetic flux.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL4pfisCX14

No, you will be able to pull out (or insert) a magnet without any problems and without demagnetizing the magnet.  The lines of flux will bend and remain to maintain the total amount of lines constant, just like in that simulation..  That simulation by prof.Belcher is very accurate and the loop modeled in it is perfectly superconductive.

The only difference is whether the superconductive loop is "frozen" with the magnet inside it or without it.  These are called "initial conditions" when the loops becomes superconductive.

With non-superconductive coils everything works the same way except that the current is slowly dissipated in the resistance just like in an RL circuit.  In such case it is only a matter whether the change in magnetic flux is able to generate the current faster then the resistance can dissipate it as heat.

First off,the original question-->Do you not get more current if you move a magnet across a coil faster? We are assuming a load is placed across the coil/inductor.

My answer to this is yes,and verpies answer to this is no.

Second--there are no magnetic !lines! of flux,the field is like a fluid--no lines of flux,but one smooth field.


Brad

[tinman]

The quantity of charge that is displaced external to the coil, dumped in the trough, is Amps*time in seconds,, 1 Amp for 1 second is the quantity of 1 Coulomb,, 6.242*10^18 electrons,, so for a fixed external resistance that quantity will stay the same per cycle.

I would tend to think that the stretchy bucket is like using a changing external resistance.

If we have a voltage potential of say 5 volt's,a current limit of say 10mA,and a cap of say 10000uF--what is the only way the cap could be charged to 4 volts quicker?.


Brad

[memoryman]

"IMHO Energy does nothing,, power makes things move,, that is energy used over some time period,, but I could be wrong."
We are ultimately only interested in WORK;, which is not conservative.
WORK is done whenever ENERGY moves; potential ENERGY does not do WORK.

[Magluvin]

"IMHO Energy does nothing,, power makes things move,, that is energy used over some time period,, but I could be wrong."
We are ultimately only interested in WORK;, which is not conservative.
WORK is done whenever ENERGY moves; potential ENERGY does not do WORK.

Well if you dont have any potential energy, then how will you do work? If you did not eat for 20 days, then you were required to replace the roof of a house, would the roof get done?
If so, then how?
If not then why?

Mags

[memoryman]

WORK is the result of kinetic energy, so to have WORK done, the potential has to change to kinetic.