AC voltage from single magnetic pole

[verpies]

Reply to my last posts about Heins and sc at stackexchange.

Did I do it already or missed something?


I am replying to the messages on this thread chronologically and sequentially. I am a little behind and I do not read ahead.

[nix85]

No, you didn't miss anything.

[verpies]

Experiment in my dictionary means attempt to discover something, working with well known phenomena such as Ohm's law is a routine procedure.

In my Merriam-Webster disctionary it also means to:

EXPERIMENT:
an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experiment

You are referring to already "debunked" video.

I did not know.
I reply chronologically and sequentially and I do not read ahead.

If you read the second answer on that page you would know it says
"The main way current gets started, like in an NMR magnet, is by inductive coupling."

I am not disputing the ubiquitness of the procedure. I was just pointing out that there are two ways to energize a superconducting coil:
1) with electric means
2) with magnetic means


Our dispute is that during the energization procedure, the current increases with a delay:
a) In both cases 1 & 2 (which you claim)
b) Only in case 1 (which I claim)

I already quoted the first answer which says current lags voltage due to inductance...

I agree but only in case 1.

You are going against all of them.. Let's bring in some sc experts here...
Lets see them disperse your fantasies into pixie dust and unicorn farts quicker than Rocky pronounces an intelligible sentence.

OK

[nix85]

Yes, inductance delays the current that develops as a consequence of applying an external voltage to an inductor.
But that delay does not occur when that current is induced by a varying external magnetic flux.

Now that we are clear that your claim is for resistive coils too...

An external varying field perfectly includes varying field from an electromagnet, there is no sense to limit it to moving magnet.

And what then, if you insist on aircores, what is the difference between what you claim and a transformer in which core is removed from the secondary. Primary produces time varying flux just like moving PM does, and we got an aircore secondary.

So you are claiming current in this secondary will not lag voltage even when inductance and frequency are high?

That would be completely wrong.

[verpies]

You are making a distinction between electromagnet and PM as if there is any difference in their fields.

Fundamentally there is not much difference.
In detail there is a difference between the field of a shorted superconducting solenoid and a cylindrical permanent magnet, because the former attempts to maintain the flux that penetrates it at all costs and does not exhibit BH curve phenomena such as coercivity and remanence.
However I am not using these differences in our discussion.

I'd like to hear a sc expert on this.

Please do.