Wow, you must be a genius. Totally blew my mind.

Glad to know

It was just an example how law can be perceived as violated when it really was not.

Yup, that is why experiments must be designed cleanly to avoid confounding factors.

As usual, you missed the point.
What i referred to was not an experiment.

An empirical measurement proving an expected result, such an Ohm's law, is an experiment, even if it is a small and simple one.

I just linked to a video of perfect 90° phase shift in closed aircore coil.
You claim coil without resistance would have 0 phase shift.
I leave it to you to prove your claim in objective, scientific manner.

I just posted 7 objections to this experiment.
Because of them it cannot be used to draw valid conclusions about the issue at hand.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/179374/is-current-in-superconductors-infinite-if-they-have-0-resistance-then-i-v-r-s
This guy put it nicely...

"In a superconductor, the current can keep flowing "forever" since there is no resistance. But since conductors have inductance (in fact, superconductors are used most often to create magnets like for an MRI scanner), applying a voltage would not (immediately) cause an infinite current to flow".

I agree and this is a scenario in which an external voltage source is applied to an inductive circuit. In other words, the inductor is energized by electric means.

"By turning on a very small (mW) heater, you can locally heat the superconducting loop so it becomes resistive. Now you can apply a voltage to the circuit - and it will preferentially send current around the superconducting part of the loop. The current will not be infinite though - for a given inductance L, the magnet will "ramp" as the current increases according to V=−LdI/dt"

I agree and even have done that feat, but this still is a scenario of the inductor being energized by electric means.


There is second way to energize a shorted superconducting coil. Namely it can be done by magnetic means like this:
1) Insert a permanent magnet into the bore of a coil made out of a an type2 alloy that becomes superconductive when cooled below its critical temperature, when the alloy is hot and not superconductive.
2) The bore is penetrated by the flux of the permanent magnet.
3) The current in the coil is zero
4) Cool that coil below its critical temperature (the coil becomes a superconductor)
5) The permanent magnet's flux penetrating the bore of the sc coil remains constant. It is not expelled as some noobs think.
6) The current in the sc coil is still zero because the flux penetrating it has not changed.
7) Remove the permanent magnet from the bore of the coil. This requires work. Attraction force over distance.
8 ) The sc coil senses the attempted change of flux and generates its own flux that keeps the flux in the bore constant. An ideal shorted coil is a perfect flux clamp.
9) It performs the feat in pt.8 by inducing a current in its winding which generates that flux of the coil.
10) That current circulates "forever" as long as the permanent magnet is kept away from the sc coil.


The current induced in the sc coil appears as fast as you can remove that permanent magnet.  There is no delay.

bla bla
An empirical measurement proving an expected result, such an Ohm's law, is an experiment, even if it is a small and simple one.

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

I just posted 7 objections to this experiment.
Because of them it cannot be used to draw valid conclusions about the issue at hand.

You are referring to already "debunked" video.

I agree and this is a scenario in which an external voltage source is applied to an inductive circuit. In other words, the inductor is energized by electric means.
I agree and even have done that feat, but this still is a scenario of the inductor being energized by electric means.


There is second way to energize a shorted superconducting coil. Namely it can be done by magnetic means like this:
1) Insert a permanent magnet into the bore of a coil made out of a an type2 alloy that becomes superconductive when cooled below its critical temperature, when the alloy is hot and not superconductive.
2) The bore is penetrated by the flux of the permanent magnet.
3) The current in the coil is zero
4) Cool that coil below its critical temperature (the coil becomes a superconductor)
5) The permanent magnet's flux penetrating the bore of the sc coil remains constant. It is not expelled as some noobs think.
6) The current in the sc coil is still zero because the flux penetrating it has not changed.
7) Remove the permanent magnet from the bore of the coil. This requires work. Attraction force over distance.
8 ) The sc coil senses the attempted change of flux and generates its own flux that keeps the flux in the bore constant. An ideal shorted coil is a perfect flux clamp.
9) It performs the feat in pt.8 by inducing a current in its winding which generates that flux of the coil.
10) That current circulates "forever" as long as the permanent magnet is kept away from the sc coil.


The current induced in the sc coil appears as fast as you can remove that permanent magnet.  There is no delay.

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

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.

You are comparing the aberration in the voltage waveform to the peak in the current waveform which is not truly accurate.

I agree and I missed it in the list of my objections to this experiment.

Already addressed this above, if you were right Heins' motor could not work.

I did too, just in the previous post.
I am replying to the messages of this thread sequentially without reading ahead.

Also what they say about sc at stackexchange.

Please post a link and a pointer to the message which you find noteworthy and I will read it and comment on it.

I am not familiar with the Heins' delayed lenz motor. I don't even know whether it works or not.
However when I read "motor" that makes me think that the coils of that motor are energized by electric means.  If they are energized in that manner then I would expect there to be a delay between the application of external voltage to the coils of this motor and the current which develops as a result of this application.

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

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.

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

No, you didn't miss anything.

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.