MH

We have already done this with your ideal coil and ideal voltage.
We know the coil has a resistance value of 0 ohms--or no resistance.
What do you think it is that stops the current going straight to an infinite value,as soon as the voltage is placed across it?.
Why dose it take 3 seconds to reach a current of only 2.4 amp's,and not shoot up to an infinite amount of current flowing through that inductor.
What is the !reactance! in inductive reactance?-->what is reacting to what?
What is !self inductance! ?

I have the feeling that this is just your way of making me waste my time on something that is already very clear--except to you it seems.
So i have voted not to fall for this !waste of time! ploy by you,and instead,i give you a video that should make it very clear to you. As you will see,the circuit to show the effective CEMF is quite simple,and im sure i could show what he explains in the video.

I hope you listen to this video very carefully,and then you will understand that if the CEMF was equal to the EMF that produced it,there would be no current flow,as there would be no voltage drop/or potential difference across the inductor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGTRXlarKww

But even then,i have a feeling we are going to see you !once again! try and change physics to suit your needs.

Brad

Brad:

There is nothing in that clip to back up what you are saying, it's just standard theory.

You are stalling, and in fact reading between the lines I think you are panicking.  You are panicking because you think you can talk the talk but when you are asked to walk the walk you come up short.

So, again, in your own words, give us some simple and fully explained examples that back up your proposal that the CEMF is less than the EMF in a simple inductor circuit and the difference between the EMF and CEMF is a requirement for the current flow.  You have to give actual values for everything and explain it.

No stalling and monkeyshines are going to work.  Give some examples just like I gave two examples that I fully explained in my own words with all of the variables defined.

MileHigh

As for your 'all four walls are fixed and immovable' in your cart analogy, if any single one of the walls is used as a backstop for the spring, then that wall becomes part of the energy dissipation system.( In reality, since all four walls are all part of the same entire mass of the trough, then the whole trough is part of the energy dissipation.)
You can not compress any spring from one side only. Try it without an anchor point like one of the walls, your spring would just move with the force applied to one side.

Go ahead, try to compress a spring by applying a force to one side without a backstop becoming an essential part of the system of components needed for the energy transfer required to compress it.

You don't need a concrete trough. Just a spring, your hand and .... whatever else is NEEDED to compress the spring.
Now I agree that most of the energy, even in a real world system, will get stored in the spring, but not all. The spring itself, unless ideal, will dissipate some of the compression energy it receives through heat due to lattice stress and displacement.
Only in an idealized world can perfect power transmission and storage take place.  Sadly we don't live in that world, we live in the real world, with circuit losses incurred and components that will never be 'ideal'.

I am just using a simple idealized model.  In that model there is no movement in any of the four concrete walls of the trough.  The spring is between the moving cart and the end of the trough.  As the cart moves forward at a constant velocity the spring gets compressed.  That is like energizing an electrical inductor with a constant voltage source.

I will use a similar example to yours to demonstrate I understand what you mean.

If you are in a house, and you are holding a large spring against a wall and you move forward with your body and compress it, where does the energy go?   Most of it goes into the spring, but the gyprock wall in the house will flex and absorb some of the energy also.  So the wall itself is like a second spring.

If you are outside and do the same thing against a concrete wall, the concrete wall will not flex and absorb any of the energy.  In this case all of the energy goes into the spring.

snip...
In summary, CEMF is not necessarily restricted to inductors.  Arguably any device that sustains a voltage drop in a current loop is a device that is manifesting CEMF.

MileHigh

I agree with you that CEMF is not restricted to inductors and can manifest from any change in current. As I explained in my previous post, technically any changing current at any level can produces a CEMF. Just as CEMF is not necessarily restricted to inductors, capacitance is not restricted to capacitors and resistance is not restricted to resistors. That's common knowledge, because none of our components are ideal, they have a blend of all those characteristics.

Only in an ideal world can we have ideal scenarios. Most here seem to know that capacitors leak, everything has some inductance and resistance is ever present. It is the degree to which a characteristic of a component contributes to a particular phenomena that we determine its practical purposes and what we expect it cause to happen in a circuit.

If I asked any electronics buff to give me an inductor, he is not going to hand me a capacitor or resistor and say this will do the same thing. Because he knows that each component is specifically designed to enhance one electrical characteristic and minimize the others.

Resistance is ever an present phenomenon, in both steady and changing fields in a circuit, while CEMF is an emergent force that manifests only with changes in electrical/magnetic fields, and disappears in steady unchanging fields. Resistance and CEMF are not the same thing.

I am in no way,shape,or form,going to bow down to your stupidity,and waste my time on something that should be common knowledge to you--as it is with everyone else here.
And to think,you thought you had the smarts to give EMJ a hard time on his understandings about inductors and coils--and me for that matter.

You are just a transparent faker and a bluffer Brad.  The simple truth is that you can't show anything to back up your claim at all.  So you are just doing the chicken chicken dance right now.

It's all FAKE on your part now Brad, everything you are saying is transparently FAKE.  The proverbial chicken on a hot plate doing a dance to stop his feet from burning.

Yea--good one MH--only we do not have a loop,we have a coil attached to a voltage supply.

Brad

You are a bloody electronics rocket scientist Brad.

I agree. No potential difference, No current flow.

No, the device connected to the EMF source is the same device that manifests the CEMF.

There is no such thing as the EMF source connected to the CEMF source connected to the device.  That is the only possible way to have no potential difference.

i.e.;  <EMF> --> <CEMF> -->  <Device>

The above is NOT what is happening.

This is what you have:  The EMF source connected to the device.  At the same time the device itself is the source of the CEMF.

i.e.; <EMF> --> <Device>

Where <Device>  is also the source of the <CEMF> at the same time.

i.e.;  <EMF> --> <Device/CEMF>

PW:

I can try to find something later.

If you have a battery EMF source facing an equal battery CEMF source then obviously no current flows.  The same thing would apply if you had a capacitor.

However, if you have a battery EMF source facing a resistor or an inductor acting as a CEMF source then current flows.

There are four cases stated above.  In all four cases if you walk around the loop with your voltmeter, you see the EMF source, and then you move your probes and you see the voltage drop associated with the CEMF source.

You can't tell just with your voltage probes if the source of the CEMF is a battery, a capacitor, a resistor, or an inductor.  The only thing that you know is that your voltage probes are detecting the presence of a CEMF source.

Note that you have no interest at all to find out if current is flowing or not, you are just looking for the presence of a device that manifests CEMF.  Indeed, some components stop the current flow when the CEMF is equal to the EMF.  But others do not stop the current flow, even though they manifest equal and opposite CEMF.

Yes, it's a "black box type" of discussion, but usually that's how concepts are introduced at a very basic level.

Surfing the web I found an MIT pdf covering Faraday's Law.

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/materials/StudyGuide/guide10.pdf

Look at the attached page capture.  Look familiar?  How absolutely mind-blowing, the B field changes in time and has a trapezoidal waveform.  They must be breaking the rules.

Brad:

I can see you reacting to my previous posting to PW with a lot of nonsensical trash talk about me.  Let me save you the trouble and let's look at a nice chunk of it:

<<<
And to think,you thought you had the smarts to give EMJ a hard time on his understandings about inductors and coils--and me for that matter.   <-- This one sounds like a rude insult.
I dont know what planet you are on,or if you fell into a drum of coolaid,and drank your way out,but if the CEMF was equal and opposite to the EMF,then the total voltage across the inductors terminals would be 0v,and no current would flow.
You have yourself a great time MH,but i am done with your repeated stupidity,and re-writing of physics.  <-- this one sounds like a rude insult
I think you are a little lost when it comes to understanding what CEMF is in an inductor-or anything for that matter.   <-- This one sounds like a rude insult
You do know that  CEMF is a function of reactance, not of resistance,and so i do not know what all that garble about CEMF across a resistor was all about
Gee MH,you attack anyone that dose not agree with you.
Yep-you have finally lost your marbles.  <-- This one sounds like a rude insult
MH is just lost again.  <-- This one sounds like a rude insult
i think MH is having a bad day.
You are lost when you think that the total EMF is going to be converted only to a CEMF.
I think the agony here,is having to keep going over the same stuff an endless amount of times with you.
>>>

So there you go Brad, I have done your trash talking for you.

Now, let's get down to some serious business.

There are three quotes of yours below.  They are mind-blowing because they show that you sometimes still cannot master the most basic basics when it comes to electronics.  It's actually shocking to read your quotes below.  Sadly, these things seem to happen on a fairly consistent basis with you.  What's the point of trying to teach you stuff or discuss circuits with you when sometimes it looks like you missed the first eight weeks of your very first course in electronics, Electronics 001?

The fact that you made the statements below is indicating that you have some serious problems understanding and conceptualizing basic electronics concepts.

You are a moderate electronics hobbyist, and you like doing this stuff?  Then look at your quotes below and do whatever it takes to fix yourself and get yourself in shape so that you can talk sensibly and intelligently with your peers about electronics.  The onus is on you to do what it takes so that you at least have a mastery of all of the basic electronics concepts.

-------------------------------------

1a) There is no drop in voltage at all across the resistor,as the potential difference across the resistor is the very same as that supplied from the source--no drop in voltage.

1b) Using the word !voltage drop! across a single resistor with a voltage of 1 volt placed across it from a voltage source,is just bollocks talk.

2) Yea--good one MH--only we do not have a loop,we have a coil attached to a voltage supply.