AC voltage from single magnetic pole

[nix85]

I indeed think that this "law" about the i&v lag does does not apply when the voltage is induced by the moving magnet.

It's a general rule for ideal inductors, it matters not the least how voltage is induced.

Save the bitcoin for a candy, to award yourself as you go through those preschool el. lessons.

You had no arguments so far, only false claims, this being a perfect example.

[verpies]

It's a general rule for ideal inductors, it matters not the least how voltage is induced.

It is clear now, that you believe this and that I do not.

You had no arguments so far, only false claims, this being a perfect example.

That is true only in the recent posts, because at this point in the discussion it has become clear to me, that you've made up you mind and you will not accept any arguments from me.
This is why I ceased arguing recently and concentrated on spelling out the differences between our knowledges and beliefs, using concise and precise claims.


Thus, in order to resolve these differences and to obtain the objective proof or disproof in this issue, we have to go beyond my arguments.


So what would constitute an objective proof for you?

[nix85]

What arguments? You are expressing your BELIEF.

I am referring to well known LAW of physics.

If you believe the law does not apply for moving magnet, burden of proof is on you.

You said you worked with sc, so try it. Pass a magnet over sc coil and see voltage current phase.

If you don't have access to sc, a high inductance, and low resistance and capacitance coil will do as well.

[verpies]

If you believe the law does not apply for moving magnet, burden of proof is on you.

I think it is customary for laws to be proven, rather than disproven. 
I don't believe that what you wrote is the universal "law".  It does not even have mathematical formula defining the alleged time lag between the current resulting from induced voltage.

...but in the interest of cooperation, I can accept the burden of disproving that "law".


To do that, I need to know what would constitute an objective disproof to you?

[nix85]

I don't believe that what you wrote is the "law" but I can accept the burden of disproving your "law".


To do that, I need to know what would constitute an objective proof to you?

It is a law, to claim otherwise is idiocy.

I just wrote what.