I would agree.
Good question. If you read that web page it tells you that the induced cemf is proportional to the number of turns in the coil. (you should read the link provided, it does explain everything).

Yes,i read that page some time ago,and reviewed it again after your post with the link to it.]

Quote: The reduction of current flow in a circuit due to induction is called inductive reactance. By taking a closer look at a coil of wire and applying Lenz's law, it can be seen how inductance reduces the flow of current in the circuit. In the image below, the direction of the primary current is shown in red, and the magnetic field generated by the current is shown in blue. The direction of the magnetic field can be determined by taking your right hand and pointing your thumb in the direction of the current. Your fingers will then point in the direction of the magnetic field. It can be seen that the magnetic field from one loop of the wire will cut across the other loops in the coil and this will induce current flow (shown in green) in the circuit. According to Lenz's law, the induced current must flow in the opposite direction of the primary current. The induced current working against the primary current results in a reduction of current flow in the circuit.

It should be noted that the inductive reactance will increase if the number of winds in the coil is increased since the magnetic field from one coil will have more coils to interact with.

This still dose not explain as to where the loss is--why the  CEMF is not equal to the induced EMF.
If the CEMF and EMF were of the same amount,then the current that flows in opposition to that which created it,would be of the same value,and no current would flow.
So where is this loss?
Could it be that some is due to the actual resistance value of the coil,and/or the fact that the outer windings and inner windings do not cut through as many other windings as those in the center of the coil do.
What i mean is,is this loss due to incomplete total flux linkage within the inductor?.

Just on that note.
MH has just said that the CEMF is equal to the EMF that created it.
Your thoughts on this?


Brad

PW

My short answer would be "geometry", with regard to flux cutting/coupling...

Ah,just read your post PW,as i just finished posting my last one.
Seems we are on the same page here.

Consider a given length of conductor (wire).  Stretched out straight it has a certain, lowest value of inductance.  Coiled up it has more inductance.  Change the diameter and/or spacing of the coiled turns and the inductance changes.  In any configuration, changing the size and shape of the conductor's cross section also changes the inductance.

Yes,i agree with all this.
So if we could achieve this perfect coupling/flux cutting,then the CEMF should be equal to the EMF that created it. In this case,no current would flow?


Brad

This still dose not explain as to where the loss is--why the  CEMF is not equal to the induced EMF.
If the CEMF and EMF were of the same amount,then the current that flows in opposition to that which created it,would be of the same value,and no current would flow.
So where is this loss?
Could it be that some is due to the actual resistance value of the coil,and/or the fact that the outer windings and inner windings do not cut through as many other windings as those in the center of the coil do.
What i mean is,is this loss due to incomplete total flux linkage within the inductor?.

I think you have the basic concept, yes. Again, the fundamental frequency and the harmonic content influences how the inductor reacts. The higher the inductance, the higher the induced cemf for a given frequency. At some point (either relatively large L or high frequencies) the cemf will equal the applied voltage (or it may be more correct to say the induced current will equal the applied current) and the net resulting current will be minimal.

Just on that note.
MH has just said that the CEMF is equal to the EMF that created it.
Your thoughts on this?

I'll let MH explain that.

This has to be the lowest, most ignorant, vile and despicable posting I have ever read here on O.U.com, and believe me, that is really saying something.  You have set a new low.  I used to have some respect for your knowledge Sir, but no longer.

You have just singlehandedly redefined the word scumbag.

Nice going.

Judging from all of the emails, and postings, I am not alone in my assessment.

Bill

Take a chill pill Bill.  If you recall MarkE was not exactly impressed when Chet wanted to organize a test for the infamous GDS Generator.  I am sure many other things helped him formulate his opinion.  All that Chet has been doing has been acting like a spoiled over unity brat filled with attitude.  Having him know how a former respected member of the forum sized him up was appropriate since he wouldn't stop acting like a spoiled brat that didn't get his cookies.  He can have his resonance fetish without trying to ruin my perfectly good discussion about true resonance.  The ignorance enforcer boy got a well-deserved smack-down.  Citing MarkE's opinion was not so "low, ignorant, vile and despicable."  You are over dramatizing the situation.

Actively trying to impugn a perfectly good discussion about the true scientific meaning of resonance because that disturbs your resonance fantasies, as well as continuously making false straw man arguments about someone and just being a general overall nuisance became a bit much hence the smack-down.

There is no damn reason in the world that Chet can't have his resonance fantasies, hopes and dreams while I discuss the actual meaning of true resonance and evaluate systems that may or may not be truly resonant - NONE.

Welcome???

I have to take several "breaks" from this forum from time to time as the non-productive "attitudes" and outright craziness this forum sometimes erodes into is sometimes difficult to take.  The last time I took a break for a while was just prior to this thread starting.  At that time I believe models depicting shorted inductors and GB's flat Earth thing all just became a bit too much...

Anyway, I recently went back to the beginning of this thread to re-read it and I see right on page 2 of this thread, a first (and only) time poster going by "Didymus" posed the following:
I don't believe anyone ever responded to this excellent post (correct me if I am wrong, perhaps I have not yet read far enough).  Apparently, this was Didymus' first, only, and last post on this forum.

How long has this forum been around?  10 or 15 years?

 

Perhaps we could all just ease up a bit on the emotional investments and show a bit more consideration for each other.

End of speech...

PW

Mmm
Seems you are right PW.
I normally read all post in a thread,unless i enter the thread after page 20 or around abouts,but seems i missed that one altogether-along with everyone else. He joined the day of the post,and has not posted since,and it is the only post he made here.

I can remember a time long ago when this forum seemed a bit more polite and respectful.  Heck even newbies, upon their first postings, were welcomed by members as they responded to their posts.

Yes,perhaps you are right,and i do feel bad about missing that post,although i do not know how i did,as he had the calculated answer up on the second page.


Brad

Anyway, I recently went back to the beginning of this thread to re-read it and I see right on page 2 of this thread, a first (and only) time poster going by "Didymus" posed the following:
I don't believe anyone ever responded to this excellent post (correct me if I am wrong, perhaps I have not yet read far enough).  Apparently, this was Didymus' first, only, and last post on this forum.

It is indeed an excellent posting.  Just look at the behavioural patterns and the answer is quite obvious.  That early in the game and Brad dismissed it as nonsense because he supposedly knew better.

Brad's very first posting, the original posting with no number, in the thread:

My answer to this question is--you cannot place an ideal voltage across an ideal inductor.
The reason being,at T=0,when the ideal voltage is placed across the ideal inductor,the current would rise instantly to a value of infinity.

It probably took about 100-200 postings to get him to budge just a little from that original position.

We can't rewrite history.

MileHigh

It is indeed an excellent posting.  Just look at the behavioural patterns and the answer is quite obvious.  That early in the game and Brad dismissed it as nonsense because he supposedly knew better.

Brad's very first posting, the original posting with no number, in the thread:

It probably took about 100-200 postings to get him to budge just a little from that original position.

We can't rewrite history.

MileHigh

And so you say that the CEMF is equal to the applied EMF,which would result in a total of 0 volts across your ideal coil that is suppose to have 4 volts across it from an ideal voltage source


Brad

And so you say that the CEMF is equal to the applied EMF,which would result in a total of 0 volts across your ideal coil that is suppose to have 4 volts across it from an ideal voltage source

Brad

This is the point where the seasoned violinist in the London Symphony Orchestra smashes his Stradivarius against the wall in a moment of extreme loss of composure.

The highest price paid for a Stradivarius violin is $16 million (£9.5 million). A rare viola made by the Italian artisan Antonio Stradivari in 1719 that will be sold by Sotheby's in a sealed bid auction in June is valued at $45 million (£27 million).