AC voltage from single magnetic pole

[nix85]

Just to add, you don't need a superconductor to have near perfect inductor, transformer can be plugged into wall 24/7 yet it uses very little real power cause voltage and current are almost 90° out of phase.

When you put load on the secondary, to the primary it's core starts to look more lossy and voltage and current come more into phase, bigger load you connect.

Does this mean current in the primary does not follow voltage, it doesn't, it follows it perfectly, just with a delay.

[ramset]

Voltage always comes first
Verpies taught this many times over last decade


There are pages of similar discussions where members argued
Against Verpies about this here and elsewhere!

However I do believe he also mentioned another
Exception or stipulation?

——///—-///—-//////——//—

I propose a solution here !


A gentleman's contest!!


A steel cage match ...two men enter
One man leaves!!


However IMO everyone wins



Stefan has a steel cage match venue somewhere ?(I always had to clean it up and roll
It back into storage room !


He may have sold it for scrap ?
Will look ?


Anyhoo
An impartial judge ? Maybe like that Dave guy from EeForum?
Or?" Suggestions "?


And one stipulation from my view ...would be real time
Not overnight "mail in ""copypasteathon"


Could sell tickets for charity?

[nix85]

I have no doubt Verpies is knowledgeable and good man. Aside the ego flaming, i think the biggest issue is he focused too much on that animation and ideal coil instead of real ones.

[ramset]

Well
I have corresponded with Verpies
And he will absolutely engage in teal time
Discussion


However with one addendum


That there be technical panel to oversee efforts ( unbiased to anything
But standard EE or physics ( actually hard to write physics since I know
Verpies has issues at some levels with " physics "and perhaps both fields?


However IMO the goal should be to debate a claim of some heretofore overlooked
Or misinterpreted /miss understood "anonomolous behavior"






And for clarity Verpies is an open source builder
IMO the goal here should be empirical evidence which manifests
In a build to prove same claim


With 100% transparent scrutiny!!( no restrictions)
Scientific method of brutal honesty and integrity!!






Judges will be sought if agreed


However a 100% scientific experiment would be simpler?
Verpies has very limited time !
Keeps very busy in his life as well his service to open source community.
Short and simple would be best!


Respectfully


Chet K

[verpies]

When someone writes nonsense there is nothing else to say.

That is just an empty assertion without supporting arguments. It appears nonsense to you because you not understand my arguments.
Anyway, it does not justify your unscientific remarks.

Talking about ideal coils does not "keep discussion focused"

Yes it does, because it decomposes a complex phenomenon into its basics constituent phenomena. 
In this discussion the inductive phenomenon is one phenomenon and the resistive on is another.  You conflate them and analyze them collectively and them just call them "coil",
Talking about basic constituents of a phenomenon in separation is simpler that talking about them collectively.

That is why chemistry breaks down matter to its more basic components and interactions.
An automotive mechanic does not diagnose/repair the entire car but its individual components.
An electronic engineer does not design the entire circuit but builds it up from individual components.
By the same token, a physicist decomposes complex phenomena into a complex arrangement of simple phenomena, so the constituents are easier to understand and calculate.

If I was to argue with you about all the phenomena* occurring in a "real coil" collectively, then the discussion would become so complex that it would quickly lose focus.
- resistance of a real coil.
- inter-turn capacitance of a real coil
- the displacement current through the above inter-turn capacitance
- the magnetic flux generated by the capacitance above.
- near fields generated by of a real coil
- far fields generated by a real coil
- radiation resistance of a real coil
- change of coil's geometry in inductance due to the Laplace force
- the skin effect in the winding of a real coil
- the proximity effect in the winding of a real coil
- the circumferential vs. axial current of real solenoidal coils.
- the myriad of ferromagnetic, ferrimagnetic and nuclear effects occurring in a real coil with a core, that I will not list here now.

Thus, I am not apologizing for simplifying things and talking about the constituent phenomena depicted in the video that started this discussion, separately.

I will continue to decompose the phenomena manifested in the video which you linked in your 1st post, into their constituent phenomena, which are.
1) The pure inductance of an ideal coil
2) The resistance of the real coil
3) The magnetic flux generated by that large permanent magnet (especially its geometry).

P.S.
I don't think it is necessary to get into the BH curve of the permanent magnet (external flux source) in order to analyze the induction phenomenon occurring in a coil that is swept across this magnet's pole.
IMO we can disregard the real ferromagnetic phenomena occurring in the magnet and just treat it as an ideal magnetic flux source for the sake of keeping this discussion focused.
If you disagree to that simplification, then object.

The only difference in ideal coil, that is, ideal inductor is that current will lag voltage by 90°.

Are you referring to the induced voltage depicted in the video from your 1st post, or to some other current and voltage from another experiment?

Anyway, I claim that the current can lag applied voltage also in non-ideal inductors (i.e. in inductors accompanied by discrete or distributed resistances, which form a basic RL circuit such as this one).
Because of that, I cannot agree with your statement above, especially with the word "only".

This does not mean current will be DC.
I talked about delayed lenz and Hanes in another thread but again this does not mean current is DC, it's AC, just delayed.

Let's enumerate situations when the induced current is unipolar and when it is bipolar. Your statement above claims that it is always bipolar.

I claim that the induced current in an ideal shorted coil being swept across the pole of a permanent magnet (see the motion that I am referring to here), will be:
1) unipolar when that coil enters only a region where the surface-flux at the pole dominates.
2) unipolar when that coil enters only a region where the return-flux at the pole dominates.
3) bipolar when that coil enters both regions enumerated above.

Additionally, I claim that the induced voltage across an open coil being swept across the pole of a permanent magnet (see the motion that I am referring to here), will be:
4) Always bipolar, regardless whether the coil enters a region where the return flux dominates or not.

Finally, I claim that the induced current in closed RL circuit (such as a resistive coil) being swept across the pole of a permanent magnet (see the motion that I am referring to here), will:
5) approach unipolar when the L/R constant of that circuit is large compared to the period of the motion and the coil enters a region where the surface-flux at the pole dominates.
6) bipolar when the L/R constant of that circuit is small or equal compared to the period of the motion and the coil enters a region where the surface-flux at the pole dominates.
7) approach unipolar when the L/R constant of that circuit is large compared to the period of the motion and the coil enters a region where the return-flux dominates.
8 ) bipolar when the L/R constant of that circuit is small or equal compared to the period of the motion and the coil enters a region where the return-flux dominates.
9) bipolar when that coil enters both the return-flux AND the surface-flux at the pole regardless of the L/R constant of that RL circuit.

Do you agree with all of the statements above. If "no" then please write me the numbers of the ones you disagree with.

You are wrong. Like i said, your confusion is rooted in that misleading animation.

I claim that this animation from prof. Belcher is correct for a shorted ideal coil and that it supports my claims.
What are your reasons for stating that this animation is wrong ?

Φ is integral of B over an area but dB/dT is commonly used as Faraday's law.
...
Two ways Faraday's law is used...

And I can invent many more expressions which reduce to magnetic flux, such as:

md^2/it^2 = Φ
RQ = Φ
vt = Φ
Li = Φ
Bd^2 = Φ
e/i = Φ
fd/i = Φ

_{where:
m = mass
d = distance
i = electric current
t = time
R = electric resistance
Q = charge
v = electric potential (voltage)
L = inductance
B = magnetic flux density
e = energy
f = force}

I can put any of these relationships inside the Farady's law and then use them to derive the fundamental relationship between rate of change of flux (dΦ/dt) and the induced voltage.
But as long as they reduce to the rate of change of flux (dΦ/dt) in the end, means that Faraday's this law depends fundamentally on roc of flux and not on roc of flux density, or any of the other intermediate unreduced expressions listed above.

Practically, this means that according to this law, a voltage induced across an open coil is dependent only only on the rate of change of flux (dΦ/dt) through that coil and not on the distribution of the flux density (B) inside that coil.


I will also go even further and add, that the magnitude of the current induced in an ideal shorted coil subjected to varying external flux, DOES NOT depend on the rate of change of flux dΦ/dt. 
I claim that it only depends on the difference between the staring and ending magnitude of the external flux or ΔΦ.

Yes, I claim that in this scenario it does not matter how quickly the external flux changes and that the magnitude of the induced current (and magnitude of energy associated with this current) will be the same regardless of the speed of the motion between the coil and magnet.

Are you claiming that this animation is incorrect for an ideal shorted coil ?

I'm saying it's irrelevant for the present discussion.

That's dodging a question - not answering it.

The present discussion is concerned with the voltage and current induced in a coil as it is subjected to varying external flux from a permanent magnet.
The animation depicts that.

Again, we are not talking superconductors.
...
You are obsessed with ideal inductor
...
We are talking real not ideal.

You cannot escape the consideration of idealized components because the scientific manner of performing a detailed analysis of a complex system is to decompose its complex behavior into a complex arrangement of simple behaviors.
I will discuss with you the resistive component of a real coil once we come to a consensus about the behavior of the purely inductive coil.

Yes it does, any point has an opposite point.

That geometrical opposition with respect to to a 3rd point - not an opposite point in an electric circuit such as a shorted ideal coil which does not even have a reference point.

more power" means more energy per unit of time,

I agree with that. Formally power it is the rate of change of energy. That "change" can refer the transfer of energy or to its conversion (e.g. into heat).

..it is actually perfectly correct,

Not in this context because you wrote that:

...power is consumed

And when the definition of power is substituted into that statement then you get a nonsensical one statement like:
"rate of change of energy is consumed"

What i said is not bad terminology...
That expression is used all over the engineering world.

Yes it is bad. You used a colloquialism which conflated power and energy....and then you tried to excuse it with Argumentum ad Numerum.

Very ironic from someone making so many mistakes who makes himself look exactly that, careless and ignorant.

So be precise with your terminology and don't conflate power and energy in your statements anymore, even of most of the lay people do it routinely.

You were trying to imply i don't know the difference between reactive and real power, when i actually understand it better than you do.

No, I was pointing out that the energy of imaginary (reactive) current is dissipated (converted to heat) by the real component of impedance (resistance).

...power is consumed by inductive reactance.

Even if I correct your first mistake by substituting "energy" for "power" and write:
"...energy is consumed by inductive reactance".

That statement is still wrong because Inductive Reactance is the imaginary component of impedance and as such it cannot "consume" the energy associated with the reactive current.
To consume/dissipate that energy as heat a real resistance is required.
Only then the equation for the dissipated power P_dissipated=Ri^2 applies. 
The same equation with the inductive reactance (X_L) substituted for the real resistance (R) is false, in mathspeak: P_dissipated<>Xi^2.

...all i meant was that reactive power consumes copper losses.

You are using imprecise terminology again.
First of all the phrase "power consumes" is wrong, because power cannot consume anything.
Also, in this context to "consume" means to "dissipate as heat" or to "convert to heat" since energy cannot be destroyed.
The phenomenon responsible for the conversion of electric energy in this case is the resistance of the copper (the real component of impedance) according to P_dissipated=Ri^2.
So your statement should be corrected as follows:
"...all I meant was that the resistance of the copper dissipates/consumes/converts the energy associated with the reactive current".

you have not even mentioned the key point, 90° phase shift of voltage and current, i had to do it for you.

I did not mention a whole lot of things, which I know, but what of it?
Also, why do you think that the 90° phase shift of voltage and current is a key point in the experiment depicted in that video in your original post, that deserved to be mentioned ?

Again, we are not talking ideal coils.
...
Again, this is not a thread about superconductors, if you want to discuss them open a thread of your own.
...
Every point on a normal coil has it's opposite point and pressure between the two is 1/2 the overall pressure/voltage. Again the superconductors..eh.
...
It's not being imprecise, it's only that you misinterpret things or use extreme cases like superconductors.

You are reacting to it as if I was changing the subject but the decomposition of complex phenomena into a complex arrangement of simple phenomena is a basic tool of science.
I am not opposed to adding the behavior and properties of resistance to ideal coils to later obtain the behavior and properties of real coils. But first we need to discuss these phenomena individually, because if we don't agree about the basic phenomena, how can we agree about their combination ?

Change of direction of flux is sudden, see the beginning of the video.

"Sudden" is a very relative concept.  All I claim is that the function of flux's direction vs. position is continuous and passes through zero.

Oscilloscope in the video proves you wrong. There are no "stops", as voltage from side flux ends immediately the voltage from main central flux begins.
...
Oscilloscope shows exactly what happens. No need to repeat it.

No, they don't prove me wrong. The picture displayed by the scope simply does not show everything as it depends on the setting of its time base.
Noting happens "immediately" and the direction of the flux, which is integrated by the coil's contour. Flux cannot reverse instantaneously nor without crossing the zero magnitude.

You just repeated what i said in unnecessarily complicated manner altho what happens is very simple and clear.

Simple? I think Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger need you for their studies.

Have you ever performed tests on superconducting coil?

Yes

So do not pollute this thread with your mislead "theories".

Would you like to be left alone in blissful ignorance ?

It's you who is confused about inductive and resistive phenomena in general and in combination.

Since you acknowledge at all, that there is a "combination" of phenomena at play in the experiment performed in the video linked in your original post, so why do thou protest so much at my attempts to discuss these component phenomena individually with you?

Ironically, i understand them better than you do.

The jury is still out, but they are watching...

learn about voltage-current phase shift in reactive circuits
Talking about ideal inductor without mentioning this is ridiculous.
...
You didn't even know about voltage leading current by 90° in ideal inductor, the key point.

Do you mean the voltage induced in that experiment referred to in your original post, where a coil is swept in front of a magnet's pole and of which you have posted this scopeshot ?

Also, asserting the knowledge of my knowledge is a pretty arrogant statement without telepathy. You would not write that if you read my other posts on this forum on the subject.

Like i said, start with single wire in a magnetic field, see how Lorentz force, that is, Laplace force acts on it,

I agree with the existence Laplace force but the force exerted on a current carrying wire (such as a coil) when immersed in magnetic flux is a new subject.
I though we ware limiting our conversation only to the induced voltage and current in coils.

I don't think we need to discus this because we both agree about the existence, magnitude and direction of the force exerted on a current carrying wire

And sky is blue.

Only half of the time ...at most