AC voltage from single magnetic pole

[nix85]

...

[nix85]

Current is very relevant for coils. It is a major phenomenon of inductive energy storage and without it a coil does not store energy nor oppose external flux not attracts not repels anything.  In other words, a coil without current  is a Nothing Burger.
Also, current is directly proportional to the magnetic flux generated by the coil^* since the inductance of a coil is the ratio of its flux to the current flowing through it, in mathspeak: L=Φ/i   or  i=Φ/L.

* _{or an external flux attempting to change the total flux penetrating a closed coil}
Let's talk about it

And sky is blue.... Yes, current is needed to produce all the fancy magnetic effects and there was zero need to waste server space with that.

Once again current will bi in phase with voltage for all normal conditions and therefore is irrelevant in the context. Unless we are talking very high inductance and/or frequency, extreme cases.

But you are.
Take a look at the piece of our discussion below.  I wrote about current but you countered with an argument about voltage.

You are conflating by replying about current when my post was about voltage.

Note, that in that exchange above you made a tacit assumption, that the direction of the voltage induced in an open coil unequivocally determines the direction of the current induced in that coil when it is shorted.

It does, except if we are talking backEMF in DC motor that only lowers the input current and thus self regulates motor speed. In other words, current never flows in direction of that backEMF, it only reduces input voltage and current.

Also, you made a mistake writing that the voltage induced across an open coil depends on dB/dt.

This is wrong because the induced voltage across an open coil does not depend on the rate of change of magnetic flux density at all.

Facepalm..

It depends only on the rate of change of magnetic flux, in mathspeak: dΦ/dt.

dB/dT is perfectly valid expression of Farraday's law.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-derive-the-Maxwell-Faraday-equation-from-Faradays-law

Here you probably assumed that it works the same way as with a resistor when the direction of voltage applied to a resistor unequivocally determines the direction of current flowing through that resistor.
However that voltage vs. current relationship is not true for an inductor.

I did not assume anything. The root of your confusion is in your "professor's" animation.

I gave you one example where induced voltage does not produce current in same direction, but this is an exception to the rule.

I beg to differ.
Also, the direction of the induced voltage in an open ideal coil does not determine the direction of the induced current in that coil when it is shorted.  This is not a resistor!

Another facepalm..

That's why analyzing coils only with induced voltage leads you down the garden path.

And another..

Last, but not least it is impossible to even measure the induced voltage in an ideal shorted coil.

Impossible you say.. Have you ever seen a distribution of voltage across a loop of wire. Did it not cross your mind that opposite sides of the loop will have 1/2 of induced voltage between them. Never crossed your mind did it.

First of all now you are conflating power with energy. Power is the rate of change of energy so it cannot be consumed by definition.

Again you cling to semantics trying to sound smart but you turn out just the opposite. Here, learn something, quoting from the thread i posted here the other day...

https://overunity.com/18592/few-general-formulas/

Force = Mass * acceleration
Work = Change in Energy
Work = force * distance moved unit: newton meter or joule or Work = Mass * Gravity * Height
Power = work / time = force * displacement / time = force * velocity
Power (hp,watt) = work(ENERGY)/time aka time rate of energy transfer
Energy = Power x Time

Energy cannot be consumed either but it can be converted to other forms of energy.

We got a genius here!

However, my most important objection to the quote above is that inductive reactance does not consume energy permanently, because pure inductive reactance stores the energy as magnetic flux and then converts all of it back to electric current.
Notice that this cannot even be properly analysed with pure induced voltage without the consideration of the current flowing in thee inductor.

Reactive power consumes energy through copper losses P = I²R. Eh

OK, I grant you that you did but you do not seem to consider it in your consideration of an open coil being waved in front of a naked permanent magnet.

You have no idea what you're saying, do you.

This statement is not even wrong until you notice that it is impossible to measure the induced voltage in an ideal shorted coil.

Already addressed that nonsense. We are not talking superconductors here, voltage will be distributed evenly across the coil and opposite sides will have 1/2 of the induced voltage between them.

I do not see anything unusual in this video but I see a lot of misunderstanding what is happening and the constant assumption that the direction of the induced voltage somehow unequivocally determines the direction of the induced current like in a resistor according to Ohm's law.

There sure is a LOT of misunderstanding at your side.

Did you watch the video that I have linked from prof. Belcher and noticed that the direction of the induced current does not change?

So that is the root of your confusion. Here is another video of your "professor" doing real test showing just the opposite (normal) effect.

Description of the video

"As a permanent magnet is moved back and forth in the vacinity of a coil of conducting wire, a current is induced in the coil (as measured by the ammeter in the video)"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y5qejN9FpI

Of course, the total flux* penetrating the coil varies up and down and that induces voltage across an open coil in both direction.  There is nothing unusual about it according to Faraday's law.
Notice, that the video shows only an open coil being measured so you remark "shorted or not" is Ad Hoc.
* that also includes return flux.

Another facepalm..

Notice that as it is being swept across an naked magnet the first thing it encounters is the return flux.

Now you're repeating what i said in the first post.

Yes, that's the Faraday's law, but it has nothing to do with magnetic flux density dB/dt.

No comment..

Also, with small coil and large magnet you get two double voltage pulses because it:
1) starts encompassing the return flux.
2) stops encompassing the return flux.
3) starts encompassing the flux at the magnet's surface.
4) starts encompassing the flux at the magnet's surface.
First of all, it is impossible to measure the voltage across an ideal wire.
Also, an ideal short forms an ideal 1-turn loop/coil with the ideal wire.

More nonsense. Optimal magnet width is horizontal thickness of the one side of the coil and optimal magnet height is height of the coil's hole.

The direction of the induced current flowing in that loop/coil will be the same in cases 1 & 2 and the same but opposite in cases 3 & 4.  The direction of the current in cases 2 & 4 will be opposite.

Presumably you wanted to write 4) stops.. There is no "stops" phase, flux coil sees changes suddenly from N on approach to S in the middle and then N again. And you are wrong with those conclusions. I summed it nicely in the first post, again...

First small negative voltage from side N flux, then higher positive voltage as coil passed the center of the magnet and then another high negative voltage as coil crosses from strong central S flux to weak side N flux.

The magnitude and direction of the induced current will generate magnetic flux that will oppose any changes to the total flux encompassed by this shorted coil. In consequence the total flux encompassed by the coil will remain constant.
Notice that the direction of the current induced in a shorted coil DOES NOT follow the direction of the voltage induced in the same coil when it is open.  You do not appear to know that and that is why I wrote that you are conflating the behavior of an unloaded (or open) coils with loaded (or shorted coils).

It seems your confusion has roots in that animation, do yourself a favor and forget it, start with single wire in a magnetic field, then proceed to coils etc. Little by little you will understand.

Don't assume that this a new topic for me. I have been through it many times on this and other fora.

You're funny, i'll give you that.

Notice, that the Lenz's law is a qualitative law that specifies the direction of induced current, but states nothing about its magnitude.

Sure, cause it is an extension of Faradday's law which already specifies magnitude.

Also, sometimes it is said that the Lenz's law is manifested as the minus sign in the Faraday's law ε= - dΦ/dt.

Lose the "sometimes".

That minus sign refers to your voltage induced across an open coil by a changing flux. Note the concept of this voltage fails the Ohm's law in a shorted ideal coil and that is one of the many reasons why it is better to analyze coils in the current domain than voltage domain....and the capacitors - just the opposite.

Like i said, a funny guy.

[nix85]

But i'm thankful you reminded me of coil shorting 'cause i was about to post this old post from Stephan..

https://overunity.com/9720/fuelless-car-prototype-by-ismael-motor/

Hi All,
I got these supportive emails from Konehead ( Doug Konzen),
who is also working on overunity pulsemotors:

Douglas L. Konzen
an harti
   
   
hi Stefan

here is Ismael Aviso's electic car - it runs on "nothing at all" (it loops) and uses a battery only as buffer

plus the car runs on a standard forklift motor ...I dont know if you know about it yet - here is the peswiki article whch has condensed all the public information on it fairly good:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Ismael_Aviso_Self-Charging_Electric_Car

he uses highvoltage resonating and "shorting" coils in the MEG and gets exponential power increase, maybe its similar to Tesla's electric car...but that antenna isnt really the way it works so much - the antenna is sort of a power-booster to it.

He did some tests of 600 reps of starting and stopping this car, and the battery doesnt go down and those forklift motors are amp-hogs.......its very amazing Ismaels MEG.....

Just tought I would give you heads-up on it...Ismael is good friend of mine we went to Sweden two summers ago to build electric car for SAAB but nothing happened they were going broke and what he does is very hard to believe to be true too...anyways you could put generator in place of car too, and have free energy home gensets easy enough.

Hopefully he will start producing some MEGs for public soon just thought I would let you know.

Basically how it works is he SHORTS coils at sinewave peaks, the coils collapse and rebound with huge voltage increase -then he shorts the peaks of the oscillations created and then you get the exponential power increase (nutshell description)...so instead of oscillations "fading out" the oscillations expand to huge increases in power - its non-reflective type of power increase too - rosens ramp the primary up in extra draw...

ciao Konehead (Doug Konzen)

Hi Stefan

you can post it on OU.com no problem

I know Ismael really well and he has told me how it works on telephone when he gives me his updates and progress...so
I know mabye 90% in general terms, and mabye 60% in "technical terms"

Ismael is a genius - he is microwave engineer and set up all the cell phone system in Saudi Arabia where he went to school.
He can write with his right hand , or his left hand, it doesnt matter so he is one of those guys with two brains going at once...

He uses some "inventions" of mine from my old konehead motors which I am proud of that he is using  - these are "pickup winds" which are simply secondary winds wrapped around, behind, and inside, of the primary winds. (his "core" is actual an inner secondary coil! plus more windings behind and around the "primary" to pickup all the normally-wasted ambient magnetic flux)

Also Ismael has the "repelling force" technology, which I have witnessed in Sweden of demos for  SAAB execs - this alone is really super amazing -  he can shoot a 1 kilo object in air (a coil) 30 ft in under a second and he dows it with a 9V battery and he can do it 16 times over and over and the battery will only drop around .3 V.....when I saw this, I wanted to throw all my stuff away....he has been doing the repelling force for awhile - he has some you tube videos showing it. Basically it is a coil vs coil
N agains N and pulse is super high frequency resonating pulse of 7500VDC discharge....dont know how he does it really but doesnt use invertor and is cascading DC and pickup winds "recycle" power back to where it came from plus he does coil-shorting in it too "somehow"

So think about  doing this repelling force with no moving parts - just slam a coil against another coil with that much force, and which  requires hardly any power to do - (it is all very much resonating power too, in the repelling force - iron just nearby will throw the resonance off!!)

He made some attempts at motors powered by it, but things kept flying apart from so much power - he started concentrating on the MEG last year, with no moving parts, and it has made the "mechanically rotating" repelling force obsolete sort ot....

other things he does is that he uses bifilar winds like that famous Tesla patent and he takes out all the hundreds/thousands of harmonics produced from them - he says that most people dont realize what bifilars do - because the increased power is usually cancelled out but Ismale gathers it all up somehow....actually he went to "septfilar" winds lately - 6 wires instead of just two, and now he got much more power that way.

He told me if you realy understand the HUBBARD coils, that is sort of what he is doing in his MEG.

Ther real heart of system, is the "shorting of the coils" at their sinewave peaks - this is also one of my inventions/discoveries I did a few years ago - you can amplify the voltage in a regular generator coil around 20times more voltage doing this - it is REALLY SIMPLE - just use a switch  (must be very low resistance like high-amperage mosfet or a few mosfets in paralell) and simply "touch" the coil leads together with this switch for say 2ms or so - and put FWBR AC legs across the coil and ZING  - a cap on the DC side of bridge goes up in voltage X 20 just like that...."amps" remain the same.....the coil collapses, and "rebounds" with a vengeance is how I describe how it works...

Ismael took this a few steps further - and he shorts the coils 5 times during sinewave peak period - it is very interesting looking at scope at a shorted coil - it is like a Tesla spark gap as it creates oscillations/ringing and what Ismael does is short the PEAKS OF THE OSCILLATIONS CREATED with very quick and accurate switching....this is heart of his MEG system as far as I understand it, and where he gets all his power from the "ambient" you could say....so he gets X100 increase in power doing this from his initial primary-feed....

the gain is in VOLTAGE - and you cant put any resistance on the cap as itr fills - and also like mentioned the switching must be very low resistance....Ismale uses some IGBTs  in the MEG - it is high voltage, high frequency....

it must have a "2-stage output" circuit, where the cap fills from shorting, then cap hits load while cap is disconnected from "source"...pretty simple also....

I will answer your quesitons below:


>
> Could I post this in my overunity.com forum ?
DK:
sure no problem

> Or could you post it ?
DK:
you can  do it...

DK:

Have you tested it yourself ?
I helped Ismael do demos of his repelling-force power in Sweden two summers ago, so have witnessed it and have general knowledge how it works (the replling force tech) and it is very real and very amazing jsut that...

As for the MEG, I havent built one - it is way too complicated it needs special microproccesors for IBGT filtering and EMP cancellations in order to do the very fast frequencies the MEG works on - he hired team of top notch computer chip guys to do his special microproccesors - but I have tested the "shorting-the-coils tech" alot, and I know how good that works plus know that pikcup winds around primaries gathers all the "ambient" flux that is normally wasted....so those two things, and also backemf/recoil collection circuits too I know and have tested all that but I cant do the 7500VDC cap discharge in his repelling force tech (I assume alot this is his "primary" in his MEG too)
and I cant do the resonating-high frequency pulse to his repeliing force tech either.

that anntenae on his car I dont really think does all that much - it will do somethign, but the real power is in the resonance, the shorting coils exponenetila-power increase via 5 times at peak coil-shorting, the pickup winds, and all the HUBBARD coil-like tech in his MEG.

>
> Are you convinced that it works this way ?
DK:
yes - I've seen the repelling force, and have been following his MEG progress for the past year and it works just like described - in fact better than you think, since it is so amazing, nobody believes it! I asked him what is the "ratio" of power increase, if you have like 100W system, and you put the MEG "onto" it, just so I could tell people, and he said it is 1000 times more power - and I said come on Ismael you have to tell something to people they will believe!! So just for fun I say it is 100times increase in power - but it is really way more than that....the doing the math on his older repelling force tech - it comes to about 1200HP blasts  from a 9V battery 16 times....which is ridiculous nobody believes it...Hector thought there was rocket fuel in the videos and it was fake!


> The videos are pretty amazing...
DK:
Yes - the battery is a BUFFER actually in way to connect high voltage power to lower voltage -
he uses no invertor but something else is going on  - so the battery is-not the "power source" but you got to give something people understand so the battery is in there...you can imagine how much power it takes to run a forklift motor - and battery goes up while he is running it....
they did 600reps  of starting car form stop battery stayed at 13V
His MEG when it puts out power has already gathered-up all the backemf and plasma then will destroy brushes  in the switching - so he runs that forklift motor on very high voltage and very low amps which is also amazing thing too....he has  recent video of this - looking at the brushes in his forklift motor and there si no plasma at all >

> So how does he extract the power from the shorted coils ?
DK:
Like described above - at least that is how I do it - he does something very similar but needs very low resistance switch, and no resistance in the caps and must have a two-stage circuit...his MEG is very complicated to me cant really say exacty what he does in extraction of the coil-shorting he does at high voltage and high frequencies but it works I can talk about this stuff forever he has told me lots about it.


> Does he use some kind of transformer hooked up to it ?
DK:
No - no invertor and doesnt step-down the voltage to the motor either - it is very "clean" power hitting the forklift motor as described.


> So does this violate Lentz law ?
DK:
Yes in that the extra-power gained in the "coil shorting" 5 times at sinewave peak is "non-reflective" to the primary.
I use the coil-shorting tech in my latest Muller-type generators, and with two stage output and "AC series cap" in circuit (like Tesla does with his "resonator caps" in his spark gap stuff) I can get power output form my aircored generator coils, (induced by neodymium magnets in rotor like Muller) to be "non-reflective" to the motor input.....which is "lenz-buster"

Ismael told me that the 5 times at peaks coil shorting does not affect the primary to any extra draw too, and he uses the "AC series caps too, which worked like "high bypass filters" really, in that the 'lug" is blocked" but the high end stuff goes through and fills caps up with no-reflection...I could go into more details on this but this is good enough for now....


> BTW, what happened to your own pulse motors ?


DK:
I started doing Muller motors with very strong neodymiums, and  started doing lots of AC rotovertors...best thing that happened with the old konehead pulse motors, is that Ismael took it and expanded it into what he has now...Ismael was one of the first people to replicate one of my konehad motors long ago and got it to work great (overunity) - then he incorporated the shorting coils into them too - ( I just did this with generator coils in Muller generators)  then he got the repelling force tech going (with pickup winds which were from konehee motors) and then went onto the MEG>
> Any progress ?
DK:
Doing some good motor-generators right now seem to be 8 times overunity sold a unit to someone in florida but my stuff is like toys compared to Ismaels tech....>


> Many thanks again and keep up the great work.


DK:

you too overunity.com is great thing going on!
I am going to replicate Anton HHO tech soon - my friend has reactors, I modified motor already...

Here is cirucit I use for coil-shorting....what Ismael does is "somewhat" similar to it...note the AC cap in series off the FWBR...this is what make it "non reflective" to motor draw:

http://sites.google.com/site/alternativeworldenergy/upright-alternator-circuits

Here is my site-lots of rotovertors and muller-type generators on their axles

http://sites.google.com/site/alternativeworldenergy/

Robert Myrland in Norway has some LOOPING "rotovertor-Mullers" he uses hiperco cores with needle-point design - he is doing some small scale produciton right now like 2 or 3 a month - i might help him make some in may....

Here is the thing I made this summer for cusotomero - an "uperight motor-generator" that uses coil shorting in the generator coils - runs on 5W and puts out about 40W (that is nothing compared to Ismaels stuff!)

http://sites.google.com/site/alternativeworldenergy/upright-alternator

ciao!
Konehead

[verpies]

And sky is blue...
Facepalm..
Another facepalm..
And another..
Again you cling to semantics
We got a genius here!
You have no idea what you're saying, do you.
Already addressed that nonsense.
Another facepalm..
No comment..
More nonsense.
You're funny, i'll give you that.
Like i said, a funny guy.

This does not constitute a scientific discussion.

Once again current will bi in phase with voltage for all normal conditions and therefore is irrelevant in the context. Unless we are talking very high inductance and/or frequency, extreme cases.

I was talking about ideal coils to keep the discussion focused. Real coils have resistance, which make their analysis more complicated and their behavior somewhere between the ideal shorted coil and open coil.

You are conflating by replying about current when my post was about voltage.

That's my point.  I am pointing out that your analysis of inductors in the voltage domain does not yield valid results. if it did, the induced current in a shorted ideal coil subjected to any changing flux would become infinite and the direction of the induced current would always follow the direction of the induced voltage...but it doesn't.

It does, except if we are talking backEMF in DC motor that only lowers the input current and thus self regulates motor speed. In other words, current never flows in direction of that backEMF, it only reduces input voltage and current.

The direction of the induced current in a shorted coil also does not follow the direction of the induced voltage in the same coil which is open.  It does not have to be a part of a DC motor. This applies to any shorted ideal coil that is subjected to varying external flux.

dB/dT is perfectly valid expression of Farraday's law.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-derive-the-Maxwell-Faraday-equation-from-Faradays-law

Not as the standalone dB/dt expression.


The contour integral converts the rate of change of magnetic flux density dB/dt into the rate of change of flux dΦ/dt.
The same goes for the inverse of the curl operator in the differential form.

I did not assume anything. The root of your confusion is in your "professor's" animation.

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

I gave you one example where induced voltage does not produce current in same direction, but this is an exception to the rule.

One exception is enough to invalidate the entire claim as a universal proposition.

Impossible you say.. Have you ever seen a distribution of voltage across a loop of wire.

Not across an ideal wire.  Only across a long resistor such as a copper wire.

Did it not cross your mind that opposite sides of the loop will have 1/2 of induced voltage between them. Never crossed your mind did it.

I thought that when I was 13 years old.
A loop does not have an end so it cannot have opposite sides by definition.
An ideal coil does not have a resistance which would allow for a voltage drop to be measured.

Again you cling to semantics trying to sound smart but you turn out just the opposite. Here, learn something, quoting from the thread i posted here the other day...

Semantics are important. It allows for precise communication. Using bad terminology only confuses the conversation and makes the speaker look careless and ignorant.

Force = Mass * acceleration
Work = Change in Energy
Work = force * distance moved unit: newton meter or joule or Work = Mass * Gravity * Height
Power = work / time = force * displacement / time = force * velocity
Power (hp,watt) = work(ENERGY)/time aka time rate of energy transfer
Energy = Power x Time

Your equation for power is correct but you still used it interchangeably with energy in your statement.

Reactive power consumes energy through copper losses P = I²R. Eh

You were discussing inductive reactance (an imaginary component of impedance) and copper losses are caused by the resistance (the real component of impedance).
It would be more correct to write that reactive current converts electric energy into heat energy in resistive circuits.  But not in ideal systems.


This is where being imprecise with semantics leads you to apply phenomena from gray-area systems which mix the imaginary and real components of impedance, to purely reactive systems.

We are not talking superconductors here,

But I am.
Everytime I used the phrase "ideal coil" I really meant it.
Ideal coils do not exhibit any resistance. Of course coils can be made or mixed with resistive materials but then they are not ideal anymore and when we discuss theory we must define the behavior of the ideal systems first before we introduce imperfections into them....such as resistance.

voltage will be distributed evenly across the coil and opposite sides will have 1/2 of the induced voltage between them.

This cannot be true because an ideal shorted coil does not have "opposite sides" and it does not have resistance which can exhibit a voltage drop, which can then be measured.

So that is the root of your confusion. Here is another video of your "professor" doing real test showing just the opposite (normal) effect.
Description of the video
"As a permanent magnet is moved back and forth in the vacinity of a coil of conducting wire, a current is induced in the coil (as measured by the ammeter in the video)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y5qejN9FpI

That video correctly shows the current decaying in the resistance of the coil...but that coil is not ideal.  Its resistance constantly converts the induced current into heat, dissipating it.
That is the behavior of resistance not an ideal shorted coil.
The previous video, which I have posted shows an ideal shorted coil without its "contamination" by resistive phenomena.

More nonsense. Optimal magnet width is horizontal thickness of the one side of the coil and optimal magnet height is height of the coil's hole.

I was not discussion optimal coil dimensions. I merely wrote that a coil which is much smaller than a magnet will first encompass the return flux and next it will encompass the surface flux.  The two stages can be further subdivided into the increase and then decrease of that flux penetrating the coil.  That makes 4 substages with 4 different rates of change of flux through the coil.

Presumably you wanted to write 4) stops..

Maybe you read it before I did my proofreading and correcting after copy/pasting these lines.

There is no "stops" phase, flux coil sees changes suddenly from N on approach to S in the middle and then N again.

Sudden changes in magnetic flux direction are very unlikely.  I claim that these changes in encompassed flux are gradual and they pass through zero as the coil is moved like on your video at 5:20.

And you are wrong with those conclusions. I summed it nicely in the first post, again...

Prove me wrong

First small negative voltage from side N flux, then higher positive voltage as coil passed the center of the magnet and then another high negative voltage as coil crosses from strong central S flux to weak side N flux.

The animation below shows the flux that is encompassed by a small open coil (red, edge on view) as it moves from left to right.

https://i.imgur.com/6gBXOit.gif

First it enters the magnet's return flux (the flux is pointing down). This return flux encompassed by the coil first increases and then increases. Eventually the coil will enter a space where the return and surface flux are equal, so the net flux encompassed by this coil will become zero. After that more and more surface flux (pointing up this time) will be encompassed by the coil and it will eventually will reach a maximum. After that, the surface flux penetrating the coil's surface will decrease until it the collective flux reaches zero as more and more return flux attempts to penetrate the coil in the opposite direction.


The voltage induced in the open coil will be proportional to the rate of change of the flux penetrating the coil.
The current induced in a shorted ideal coil will be proportional to the flux attempting to penetrate the coil, but the net flux will remain constant.  Because the return flux and surface flux have opposite directions the induced current will also have opposite directions in these regions.
Also, the magnitude of the current induced in an ideal shorted coil WILL NOT depend on the speed of the coil's motion ...but the voltage induced in an open coil - will depend in the speed.  That's more disparity between the induced voltage and current for you.

It seems your confusion has roots in that animation, do yourself a favor and forget it,

I am not confused. That animation is correct.
It is you who is confused by the mixture of inductive and resistive phenomena

start with single wire in a magnetic field, then proceed to coils etc. Little by little you will understand.

...and my advice to you is to start analyzing purely inductive phenomena and then little by little you will understand them correctly.
After you do, you can start introducing the resistive phenomena and the association between them which is expressed by the RL time constant.

Sure, cause it is an extension of Faradday's law which already specifies magnitude.

The Lenz law is a qualitative law that does not specify the magnitude of the induced current.
The Faraday's law is a quantitative law but it does not specify the magnitude of the induced current in shorted ideal coils. It specifies only the induced voltage (ε= - dΦ/dt) across open coils and incompletely shorted coils (i.e. resistive coils).

There sure is a LOT of misunderstanding at your side.

Please enumerate my misunderstandings of physics in a scientific manner, without using derision and Ad Hominem remarks.

[nix85]

This does not constitute a scientific discussion.

When someone writes nonsense there is nothing else to say.

I was talking about ideal coils to keep the discussion focused. Real coils have resistance, which make their analysis more complicated and their behavior somewhere between the ideal shorted coil and open coil.

Talking about ideal coils does not "keep discussion focused", we are talking real coils.

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

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.

That's my point.  I am pointing out that your analysis of inductors in the voltage domain does not yield valid results. if it did, the induced current in a shorted ideal coil subjected to any changing flux would become infinite and the direction of the induced current would always follow the direction of the induced voltage...but it doesn't.

You are wrong. Like i said, your confusion is rooted in that misleading animation. Again, the only difference in ideal inductor is that voltage will lead by 90° degrees just like current will for purely capacitive circuit.

The direction of the induced current in a shorted coil also does not follow the direction of the induced voltage in the same coil which is open.  It does not have to be a part of a DC motor. This applies to any shorted ideal coil that is subjected to varying external flux.

Again, wrong.

Not as the standalone dB/dt expression.

The contour integral converts the rate of change of magnetic flux density dB/dt into the rate of change of flux dΦ/dt. The same goes for the inverse of the curl operator in the differential form.

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.

A) Induction by flux cutting the induced wire: this induction is done in current generators and the flux lines must cut the wire. It requires relative movement (at speed v) between the field and the wire

                 E = B · v · Length

B)Induction by flux linking two coils: this induction is done in transformers. The flux lines do not need to cut the wire. It is just need a variable magnetic field

                E = -N · S · dB/dt

More > https://overunity.com/14711/is-faradays-induction-law-correct/

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

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

One exception is enough to invalidate the entire claim as a universal proposition.

That is even not an exception cause there is already a greater voltage in the wire which does not allow backEMF to produce it's own current. This does not show that current in a coil does not follow direction of voltage.

Not across an ideal wire.  Only across a long resistor such as a copper wire.

We are talking real not ideal.

I thought that when I was 13 years old.

Then you were smarter back then.

A loop does not have an end so it cannot have opposite sides by definition.

Yes it does, any point has an opposite point.

An ideal coil does not have a resistance which would allow for a voltage drop to be measured.

Again, we are not talking superconductors.

Semantics are important. It allows for precise communication. Using bad terminology only confuses the conversation and makes the speaker look careless and ignorant.

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

What i said is not bad terminology...

Your equation for power is correct but you still used it interchangeably with energy in your statement.

..it is actually perfectly correct, "more power" means more energy per unit of time, which is exactly what is being conveyed. That expression is used all over the engineering world.

You were discussing inductive reactance (an imaginary component of impedance) and copper losses are caused by the resistance (the real component of impedance).
It would be more correct to write that reactive current converts electric energy into heat energy in resistive circuits.  But not in ideal systems.

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.

You made the mistake cause in your rush to find a mistake in what i said you assumed i mixed reactive and real power while actually all i meant was that reactive power consumes copper losses.

You are obsessed with ideal inductor but have not even mentioned the key point, 90° phase shift of voltage and current, i had to do it for you.

This is where being imprecise with semantics leads you to apply phenomena from gray-area systems which mix the imaginary and real components of impedance, to purely reactive systems.

It's not being imprecise, it's only that you misinterpret things or use extreme cases like superconductors.

But I am.
Everytime I used the phrase "ideal coil" I really meant it.
Ideal coils do not exhibit any resistance. Of course coils can be made or mixed with resistive materials but then they are not ideal anymore and when we discuss theory we must define the behavior of the ideal systems first before we introduce imperfections into them....such as resistance.

Again, this is not a thread about superconductors, if you want to discuss them open a thread of your own.

This cannot be true because an ideal shorted coil does not have "opposite sides" and it does not have resistance which can exhibit a voltage drop, which can then be measured.

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.

That video correctly shows the current decaying in the resistance of the coil...but that coil is not ideal.  Its resistance constantly converts the induced current into heat, dissipating it.
That is the behavior of resistance not an ideal shorted coil.
The previous video, which I have posted shows an ideal shorted coil without its "contamination" by resistive phenomena.

Again, we are not talking ideal coils.

I was not discussion optimal coil dimensions. I merely wrote that a coil which is much smaller than a magnet will first encompass the return flux and next it will encompass the surface flux.  The two stages can be further subdivided into the increase and then decrease of that flux penetrating the coil.  That makes 4 substages with 4 different rates of change of flux through the coil.

I summed up clearly what happens in my first post.

Sudden changes in magnetic flux direction are very unlikely.  I claim that these changes in encompassed flux are gradual and they pass through zero as the coil is moved like on your video at 5:20.

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

Prove me wrong

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.

The animation below shows the flux that is encompassed by a small open coil (red, edge on view) as it moves from left to right.

https://i.imgur.com/6gBXOit.gif

First it enters the magnet's return flux (the flux is pointing down). This return flux encompassed by the coil first increases and then increases. Eventually the coil will enter a space where the return and surface flux are equal, so the net flux encompassed by this coil will become zero. After that more and more surface flux (pointing up this time) will be encompassed by the coil and it will eventually will reach a maximum. After that, the surface flux penetrating the coil's surface will decrease until it the collective flux reaches zero as more and more return flux attempts to penetrate the coil in the opposite direction.

You just repeated what i said in unnecessarily complicated manner altho what happens is very simple and clear. Oscilloscope shows exactly what happens. No need to repeat it.

The voltage induced in the open coil will be proportional to the rate of change of the flux penetrating the coil.

Duh

The current induced in a shorted ideal coil will be proportional to the flux attempting to penetrate the coil, but the net flux will remain constant.  Because the return flux and surface flux have opposite directions the induced current will also have opposite directions in these regions.
Also, the magnitude of the current induced in an ideal shorted coil WILL NOT depend on the speed of the coil's motion ...but the voltage induced in an open coil - will depend in the speed.  That's more disparity between the induced voltage and current for you.

Have you ever performed tests on superconducting coil? You haven't have you. So do not pollute this thread with your mislead "theories".

I am not confused. That animation is correct.
It is you who is confused by the mixture of inductive and resistive phenomena

You can't tell if animation is correct cause you never seen a superconducting coil, let alone performed tests on it.

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

...and my advice to you is to start analyzing purely inductive phenomena and then little by little you will understand them correctly.
After you do, you can start introducing the resistive phenomena and the association between them which is expressed by the RL time constant.

Ironically, i understand them better than you do. You didn't even know about voltage leading current by 90° in ideal inductor, the key point. Talking about ideal inductor without mentioning this is ridiculous.

Like i said, start with single wire in a magnetic field, see how Lorentz force, that is, Laplace force acts on it, then proceed to coils, see how voltage is induced in various configurations, learn about voltage-current phase shift in reactive circuits, then you can proceed to LC(R) tanks, in series and parallel, band pass and band stop filters etc. Here are few basic formulas to get you started..

XL= 2πfL
XC= -1/2πfC
Z = sqrt(R² + (Xc - Xl)²)
F = 1/6.28(LC)
F = 1/2π√LC
τ = L/R inductor time constant, after ~5τ (transient time) current reaches 99.5%
τ = RC for RC circuit, after 5RC cap is 99.5% charged
energy stored in an inductor E = LI²/2
energy stored in an cap E = 1/2 QV and E = CV²/2
true power P=VIcosφ

The Lenz law is a qualitative law that does not specify the magnitude of the induced current.
The Faraday's law is a quantitative law but it does not specify the magnitude of the induced current in shorted ideal coils. It specifies only the induced voltage (ε= - dΦ/dt) across open coils and incompletely shorted coils (i.e. resistive coils).

And sky is blue.

Please enumerate my misunderstandings of physics in a scientific manner, without using derision and Ad Hominem remarks.

I just did.