MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[partzman]

Perhaps we have a solution for the Emf = Cemf issue using some basics.
 
Refer to the image below. Now picture a bar magnet approaching the coil from the left with it's north pole facing the coil. From Lenz we know an Emf will be produced in the coil that opposes the approaching PM with the polarities as shown.  I think on this we can all agree.  Note that the current flow is conventional.

Now the question is, does this induced Emf produced coil current produce a Cemf to itself?  IMO, no as there is no evidence to support this.

IOW, the induced Emf produced across the windings of the coil produces a current in the coil to oppose the approaching PM field yet it does not produce another Cemf to oppose itself.

Notice the polarity of the Emf. It is the same as would be required by a fixed voltage source to produce the same current and magnetic flux polarity.  So, logically we can remove the PM and replace the Emf with a fixed voltage supply and produce the same end results without any Cemf.

So I guess we can say that the Emf = Cemf because they are always the same, Emf is Cemf in this example so one could also simply say that Emf = dI * L/dt. No feedback required.

OK, now you can blow this all apart!

pm

[minnie]

   Who'd a thought a poxy coil of wire could cause so much controversy.
         John.

[tinman]

Perhaps we have a solution for the Emf = Cemf issue using some basics.
 
Refer to the image below. Now picture a bar magnet approaching the coil from the left with it's north pole facing the coil. From Lenz we know an Emf will be produced in the coil that opposes the approaching PM with the polarities as shown.  I think on this we can all agree.  Note that the current flow is conventional.

Now the question is, does this induced Emf produced coil current produce a Cemf to itself?  IMO, no as there is no evidence to support this.

IOW, the induced Emf produced across the windings of the coil produces a current in the coil to oppose the approaching PM field yet it does not produce another Cemf to oppose itself.

Notice the polarity of the Emf. It is the same as would be required by a fixed voltage source to produce the same current and magnetic flux polarity.  So, logically we can remove the PM and replace the Emf with a fixed voltage supply and produce the same end results without any Cemf.

So I guess we can say that the Emf = Cemf because they are always the same, Emf is Cemf in this example so one could also simply say that Emf = dI * L/dt. No feedback required.

OK, now you can blow this all apart!

pm

And so-- a magnet will remain floating above a superconductor motionless.
The equal and opposite remains when resistance is completely removed.
For every action,there is an equal and opposite reaction when there is no energy dissipation.


Brad

[tinman]

   Who'd a thought a poxy coil of wire could cause so much controversy.
         John.

Now that we can agree on John.

Enough time wasted on something that will never be tried and tested--well,not by any of us anyway


Brad

[MileHigh]

Brad:

You are a coward.  You offer up your own "theories" and then when you are asked to provide examples of your theories in action you chicken out.  You chicken out because in fact you can't illustrate a simple example of CEMF being less than the EMF with a coil.  You chicken out because in fact you can't draw a graph showing the mechanism for "CEMF current" in opposition to EMF current for an ideal coil and a real coil.

You talk the talk but when asked to walk the walk you are a coward.

I can suspect that if you went to try to graph the two opposing currents you would quickly realize that it doesn't work.  That would mean you would have to admit that your theory that you have stated repeatedly is wrong, it's nonsense.  That would mean that you are wrong.  That would lead to you having a nervous breakdown so the only "escape" is you laughably saying, "I will do it but you have to do something first."  It's just one big Brad sizzling brain fry.

You're the weakling, you're the fraud.

Please pay careful attention to the highlighted lol.

And that's just you being a pure jackass.  I just used some numbers for illustrative purposes.  Do you understand that term, "illustrative purposes?"  That's just another case where something is explained to you and any normal person would just accept it and move on.  But you shamelessly repeat nonsense like that over and over thinking that you are "scoring points" when what you are really doing is looking like an idiot and digging yourself into a hole.

And let's not forget Brad, that the well of your mistakes and gaffes and misunderstandings is so deep and so plentiful and so full of material, that it's a bloody Saudi Arabia of idiocy.  If I milked the well like you will repeat nonsense about me over and over, we would need a separate thread just for that.  Repeat every mistake and gaffe and misunderstanding you made back to you 20 times and we would end up with a thread that is 500 pages long.

You up for that JT build off challenge yet?

Another vain idiotic feign at misdirection.  You know that I am not interested and you know I have no equipment.  Every time you say something stupid a bell rings somewhere.

Enough time wasted on something that will never be tried and tested--well,not by any of us anyway

Sure, your sizzling brain learned more in the past three months than you learned in six years worth of staring at spinning pulse motors spin.  Why don't you just smash your oscilloscope, it's a waste of time.

You are a coward.

MileHigh