[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

# Re: [Faraday's law ?]

- To: femm@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: Re: [Faraday's law ?]
- From: "David Meeker" <dcm3c@aol.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 13:48:00 -0000
- In-reply-to: <F46QVuRWCy7rjcxtniF0000331b@hotmail.com>
- User-agent: eGroups-EW/0.82

    --- In femm@y..., "you se-ho" <sxy28@h...> wrote:
    > Let's say there is one thin conductor whose current
    > is time-varying and there is conductor loop whose
    > conductivity is high (i.e good conductor), then
    > Faraday's law says there is induced emf and current
    > in the passive loop. Current is time-varying (let's
    > say as always sinusoid), to get the emf voltage, we
    > need to calculate d(flux)/dt. Therefore in the
    > expression there is always frequency term. HERE IS
    > MY QUESTION. Does it mean induced (magnitude of)
    > current is linear function of source frequency ? I
    > think answer is NO because if it is true, the induced
    > current can be higher than source current. If
    > somebody knows anything, I would like to here any
    > explanation. Books, papers Ok, too.

    Consider a case where you've got a "source" loop where the current is
    controlled so that you have a constant current amplitude regardless of
    frequency, and a "passive" closed loop. Assume that any skin effects
    in the "passive" loop are negligible for the frequency of interest.
    Then, you can write an electric circuit equation for the passive loop
    that looks like:

    L dip/dt - M disrc/dt + R ip = 0

    where ip is the passive loop current and isrc is the source current.
    L is the self-inductance of the passive loop, M is the mutual
    inductance between the source and passive loops, and R is the
    resistance of the passive loop. The (M disrc/dt) part is the voltage
    that is induced in the loop--the induced _voltage_ is proportional to
    frequency because the derivative. However, the impedance of the
    passive loop increases with frequency, balancing out the increase in
    voltage with respect to frequency and limiting the current that flows
    in the passive loop.

    At "high enough" frequencies, we could neglect the resistance all
    together, because this impedance becomes very small in comparison to
    the inductance at high frequencies. Then, we just have:

    L dip/dt - M disrc/dt = 0

    which we could integrate to yield:

    L ip - M isrc = 0

    and re-arrange to get:

    ip = (M/L) isrc

    so that the current in the passive loop goes to a constant level as
    the frequency increases. The "physical" interpretation is that as you
    increase the frequency, the flux produced by the current in the
    passive coil becomes equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to
    the flux that links the loop from the "source" loop, so the net flux
    linking the passive loop goes to zero.

    Dave Meeker
    --
    http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/dcm3c

- References:
  - [Faraday's law ?]
    - From: "you se-ho" <sxy28@hotmail.com>

- Prev by Date: [Faraday's law ?]
- Next by Date: Re: [femm] [Faraday's law ?]
- Previous by thread: [Faraday's law ?]
- Next by thread: Re: [femm] [Faraday's law ?]
- Index(es):
  - Date
  - Thread