AC voltage from single magnetic pole

[nix85]

LOL i take back what i said in last post.

That is just an empty assertion without supporting arguments. It appears nonsense to you because you not understand my arguments.

It's just an objective statement. I don't understand your arguments? Funny..

You had no arguments so far.

Anyway, it does not justify your unscientific remarks.....

Oh the irony.

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.

All your rant comes down to ascribing some mystical properties to pure inductor, which you yourself can't define nor explain, meanwhile you "forgot" ordinary transformer is a near-perfect inductor.

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.

Do you want to discuss individual components? How far would you get?

In which of 7 cosmic planes and infinity of subplanes do you put your limit?

Would i hear it from you that density of matter, speed of light and rate of time flow all increase by factor of 49 for each next octave of light in the Creation.

Are we getting too deep, would you tell me that there are nearly 14 billion bubbles of non polar ultimate "atoms" of the next cosmic plane in the smallest "particle" of our plane, something akin to Planck length..

Would you tell me how is this Cosmic Forcefield produced from literally no-thing, simply by limited vibrations within infinite vibrations, through 12 axis of time and 60° offset...

Maybe you can tell me about bubbles of invisible neutral energy hitting our magnetic field and atmosphere and only then two of similar bubbles joining to produce polarized herzian waves....

Would you tell me about 3 phases of ONE FORCE in 4 great subforces cascading all the way down to matter and that altering all 3 in so called matter changes gravitational potential?

Would you tell me of secrets of the hail, 7 colors of darkness, the cold and negative gravity returning to the sun...

Or are we getting too deep into "individual components"

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.

So you googled for all phenomena associated with coils, all of which are known to me and most members here and all of which are totally irrelevant for the this thread which is about direction of voltage induced by a magnet approaching and leaving a coil of wire. VOLTAGE - IN OPEN CIRCUIT.

Ok if you wanted to discuss the difference when coil is shorted, then we could have some sensible talk cause current and associated backEMF does affect the voltage in the coil to a degree, but to go on a rant about perfect coil and insist on it is polluting the thread.

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

You did not simplify anything, you just confused over something very clear and simple.

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.
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?

Just stick to direction of voltage due to changing flux, we can talk current too but no need to get into hysteresis or magnetostriction or other secondary phenomena. Simple air core coil in PM field, as in the video.

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).

You claim? Current lags voltage in ANY circuit that has more inductive than capacitive reactance for that particular frequency.

Nothing to do with ideal coil.

Because of that, I cannot agree with your statement above, especially with the word "only".

Read my previous sentence.

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 overcomplicating a very simple phenomena. Coil cares not if it's near-the-pole flux or "return flux", it only feels change of flux cutting it.

If from state of no flux, flux starts to cut it it will self induce a voltage in one direction and as that same flux decreases in the opposite voltage.

In picture attached, as N passes to the right, voltage is such that electrons would go up, as N leaves it, electrons would go down.

I am here clearly ignoring the weaker side flux, that is assumed side flux would first induce smaller voltage opposite to pole flux voltage, and on the opposite side would help the voltage due to disappearing N.

Also, + flux increasing and - flux decreasing produce the same voltage

All of this is common knowledge.

(which reminds me of Figuera push-pull coils 180° out of phase)..

I claim that this animation from prof. Belcher is not wrong and it supports my claims.
What are your reasons for stating that this animation is wrong ?

What makes you sure it's correct? And even if it is it applies to supeconductors only.

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 use any of these relationships in the Farady's law 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 roc of flux density or any of the other related expansions listed above.

Practically, this means that in the end, a voltage induced across an open coil (according to this law) is dependent only on the rate of change of flux and the distribution of the flux density (B) in that coil does not alter the magnitude of that induced voltage.

Good for you, dB/dT is still a common expression of Faraday's law.

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 will be the same regardless of the speed of the motion between the coil and magnet.

If you want to ascribe some unusual behavior to superconducting coil then you have to explain it in clear scientific manner, not just make a claim.

I have not studied induction in superconductors, all i know about superconducting coils it that they expel the magnetic field aka Meissner effect, that in them electrons join into Cooper pairs and that mass of the pair is less than two electrons' mass, that they produce gravitational anomalies in certain situations, Ning Li, Eugene Podkletnov etc...

But as far as induction i believe all that would happen is that current and voltage would be 90° outta phase.

That's dodging a question - not answering it.

Not dodging, it really is totally irrelevant for present subject.

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.

Yes, regular resistive coil, not superconducting coil. That can be a thread of it's own, but not this one.

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.

Bla bla. Not escaping anything, it's just that none of use use superconductors, but normal resistive coils.

Again, i don't know how exactly superconducting inductor behaves, i expressed my opinion above.

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.

Again you with ideal coil. We are talking about voltage distribution in a normal resistive coil.

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).

...

Not in this context because you wrote that: 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"

Again nitpicking, "consumes more power" or "uses more power" is common engineering term, no one interprets it the way you did and everyone knows the difference between power and energy.

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

Someone give this man a cookie.

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.

My God..

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

No you just misassumed what is being conveyed.

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 carried by 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.
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".

Damn..

Already addressed that nonsense, no need to repeat. I know what i meant, but you misinterpreted it that i meant reactive power is real power which is silly, i talked about reactive power in other threads, you are the one who doesn't seem to grasp what it is.

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 ?

If you have to ask that, i really have no comment.

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 ?

There is a great difference between complex and confused.

"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.

"Passes through zero" has no duration in time. It's a point of switching from one flux to another. Zoom into the waveform as much as you want, that crossing point will always have 0 duration in time.

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.

Well, if zero has duration, it is too short to be observed on an oscilloscope. And this is for voltage induced by HAND, how short is it then.

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

Well, well, well, we got an attempt at ad-hominem with what appears to be a clumsily constructed cynicism, usually indicating an insecure person of lower intellectual capacity.

Yes

So that is why you base your "argument" on youtube animation never mentioning your real life experience. Interesting.

Would you like to be left alone in blissful ignorance ?

If i'm ignorant, what would that make you, a fly?

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?

I'm not protesting anything, you got a strange fixation on ideal coil, ironically again, i had to write it for you that household transfomer is a near perfect inductor..

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

For someone to talk so much about perfect inductor and not even mention a voltage-current phaseshift, well..

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 ?

I am talking in general.

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.

Well, i do have some 6th sense powers..

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

I'm posting a pic just in case.

Only half of the time

Always if you travel at 1,000 miles per hour along the equator.

[verpies]

All your rant comes down to ascribing some mystical properties to pure inductor, which you yourself can't define nor explain, meanwhile you "forgot" ordinary transformer is a near-perfect inductor.

I am not ascribing mystical properties to the ideal inductor.  I am ascribing properties that we can measure and calculate and predict.
Transformers are a composite devices composed out of at least two inductors, at least two interacting fluxes, at least two resistances and a combination of ferromagnetic phenomena. As such, it is a device that is much more complicated than the EM induction in a coil by a moving permanent magnet we were discusson.  Do you need to introduce a new device to complicate the present debate about a simple air core coil in a moving PM field, as depicted in the video?

Do you want to discuss individual components? How far would you get?
In which of 7 cosmic planes and infinity of subplanes do you put your limit?

As basic as we have the math for.
Do you have math for these cosmic planes which allows to calculate the voltage and current induced in a coil ?

Would i hear it from you that density of matter, speed of light and rate of time flow all increase by factor of 49 for each next octave of light in the Creation.
Are we getting too deep, would you tell me that there are nearly 14 billion bubbles of non polar ultimate "atoms" of the next cosmic plane in the smallest "particle" of our plane, something akin to Planck length..
Would you tell me how is this Cosmic Forcefield produced from literally no-thing, simply by limited vibrations within infinite vibrations, through 12 axis of time and 60° offset...
Maybe you can tell me about bubbles of invisible neutral energy hitting our magnetic field and atmosphere and only then two of similar bubbles joining to produce polarized herzian waves....
Would you tell me about 3 phases of ONE FORCE in 4 great subforces cascading all the way down to matter and that altering all 3 in so called matter changes gravitational potential?
Would you tell me of secrets of the hail, 7 colors of darkness, the cold and negative gravity returning to the sun...
Or are we getting too deep into "individual components"

Now you are getting away from quantifiable reality and escaping into esoterica.

So you googled for all phenomena associated with coils, all of which are known to me and most members here

I did not have to Google them, because I discussed most of these phenomena on this forum years ago.
...and as recently as two weeks week ago I was struggling with some of them on the overunityresearch forum. Namely, the skin effect, proximity effect and the inter-turn capacitance and associated magnetic flux generated by the displacement current distorting the flux generated by my coils for an NMR experiment.

and all of which are totally irrelevant for the this thread which is about direction of voltage induced by a magnet approaching and leaving a coil of wire. VOLTAGE - IN OPEN CIRCUIT.

I'm fine with limiting the discussion here to the timing, magnitude and direction of voltage & current induced by a magnet approaching and leaving a coil of wire. I do not want to change the subject of this conversation by including the combination of multitude of phenomena occurring in transformers and other devices. I want to simplify this conversation by talking about more basic component phenomena in the subject at hand.


Notice, that I added the current and deleted you restriction to "OPEN COILS ONLY", because open coils are just big Noting Burgers that don't produce all the fancy magnetic effects including forces and transfers, storage and conversions of energy.  Energy is the primary concern of this forum.

I thought we already agreed about this, since you wrote that:

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

Ok if you wanted to discuss the difference when coil is shorted, then we could have some sensible talk...

Yes we should have a sensible talk about the entire range of coil operating regimes: from ideal shorted coils --> through RL circuits comprised of such coils + resistance in series --> all the way to open coils.
Notice that the behaviors of a coil in all of these operating regimes are covered by an LR circuit with its resistance varying from zero to infinity.

cause current and associated backEMF does affect the voltage in the coil to a degree,

To what degree?

Just stick to direction of voltage due to changing flux, we can talk current too but no need to get into hysteresis or magnetostriction or other secondary phenomena. Simple air core coil in PM field, as in the video.
...but to go on a rant about perfect coil and insist on it is polluting the thread.

I'd be happy to stick to that and not complicate the discussion with secondary phenomena.
However, the behavior of perfect coils is NOT a secondary phenomenon - rather it is component phenomenon, that results from the deconstruction of the inductance + resistance combination (a resistive coil or RL circuit).

Current lags voltage in ANY circuit that has more inductive than capacitive reactance for that particular frequency.
...
I am talking in general.

When you talk in general, do you refer to all LR circuits regardless of their resistance and source of energy ?
...or only to experiments involving the simple air core coil in a moving PM field, like the one depicted in the video ?

You are overcomplicating a very simple phenomena. Coil cares not if it's near-the-pole flux or "return flux", it only feels change of flux cutting it.

Do you mean the delta of flux lines cut (ΔΦ) ...or the rate of change of these cuts (dΦ/dt) ?

Please just answer the question and write me the numbers of statements that you disagree with, so I don't have to guess what you mean?
You can disagree with all, none or some. At most you will have to write 9 numbers - it is not much work.


I will continue when you reply

[nix85]

"You are getting away from quantifiable reality" on the contrary i have been talking of fundamental bubbles of energy making up all realities, the fundamental ratio of 49...etc. These are physical LAWS unknown to you. 

"escaping into esoterica" ha, what you call esoterica is simply deeper science

To you all is "escaping" when in fact you keep escaping into fantasies about ideal coil while missing the basic knowledge on the subject like phase shift in reactive circuits, direction of electron flow when north flux cuts wire to the right (or the opposite)... and the worst being very smothering.

I am not wasting a second more responding to you.

[verpies]

"escaping into esoterica" ha, what you call esoterica is simply deeper science

Then open up a new thread and educate all of us about this "deeper science".  I will be happy to participate.
...but until you show me some math that can calculate the direction and magnitudes of voltage and current induced in a coil by a moving magnet from this deeper science - it does not constitute an argument in the discussion at hand in this thread.

To you all is "escaping" when in fact you keep escaping into fantasies about ideal coil

Inductors without resistance are not a fantasy - they are real devices even if they are expensive ones.
But most importantly they are COMPONENTS of RL circuits.

while missing the basic knowledge on the subject like phase shift in reactive circuits

Which circuits are you referring to?
I asked you a concrete question about this before (see below) and you avoided the answer:

Current lags voltage in ANY circuit that has more inductive than capacitive reactance for that particular frequency.
...
I am talking in general.

When you talk in general, do you refer to all LR circuits regardless of their resistance and source of energy ?
...or only to experiments involving the simple air core coil in a moving PM field, like the one depicted in the video ?

You also avoided the answer to the important question listed below, that would be as easy for you as writing 9 numbers - not complicated at all.

The opposite directions of the magnet's return flux and pole flux evidently occur as demonstrated by the gaussmeter in the video at 1:15.  This animation and this FEMM simulation also show different regions with opposite directions of flux.
I am sorry that the detailed analysis of the induction in the coil (modeled as an RL circuit) as it travels through these regions exceeds your threshold of acceptable complication. I can't help that the coil goes through all these regions in that experiment.

Nonetheless, such detailed analysis is the only path to settle the issue whether the current induced in a shorted coil can be unipolar ("DC" as you refer to it).

You are overcomplicating a very simple phenomena. Coil cares not if it's near-the-pole flux or "return flux", it only feels change of flux cutting it.

Do you mean the delta of flux lines cut (ΔΦ) ...or the rate of change of these cuts (dΦ/dt) ?

Please just answer the question and write me the numbers of statements that you disagree with, so I don't have to guess what you mean?
You can disagree with all, none or some. At most you will have to write 9 numbers - it is not much work.

I am not wasting a second more responding to you.

Do you consider your position so untenable that it cannot withstand a debate?

[nix85]

You also avoided the answer to the important question listed below, that would be as easy for you as writing 9 numbers - not complicated at all.

I am not avoiding anything, it's just that you are posting tons of confused garbage about something very simple and very clear.

The opposite directions of the magnet's return flux and pole flux evidently occur as demonstrated by the gaussmeter in the video at 1:15.  This animation and this FEMM simulation also show different regions with opposite directions of flux.

Again repeating what i been saying since first post and what would be perfectly assumed even if i did not.

I am sorry that the detailed analysis of the induction in the coil (modeled as an RL circuit) as it travels through these regions exceeds your threshold of acceptable complication.

Eh the irony again. Complication in your case means confusion, not complexity. To quote Einstein, if you can't explain it simply so a child can understand, you do not understand it..it fits you perfectly.

You don't have clear understanding of any of the discussed phenomena, you think if you pile up more and more confused stuff you will create an image of understanding. I knew your level since your first post.

You didn't even know the direction of induced voltage nor the current lagging voltage in an inductor, nor that transformer is near perfect inductor (you accepted superconductors as only way to talk about your ideal coil fantasy).... you are a joke.