Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Can it be proved using the concept of induced emf that power supplied at the primary coil equals power consumed at the secondary. I tried following. Let primary coil be called 1 and secondary be called 2. Assuming there is no resistance in the primary and a purely resistive load on the secondary. Kirchoff's eqns for the two coils are:



Multiplying 1st eqn by $I_1$ and 2nd by $I_2$ and adding the two eqns one gets$V_1I_1-L_1I_1dI_1/dt+MI_1dI_2/dt+MI_2dI_1/dt-L_2I_2dI_2/dt-I_2^2R=0$

$L_1I_1dI_1/dt$ represents rate of change of energy of magnetic field due to coil 1 $L_2I_2dI_2/dt$ represents rate of change of energy of magnetic field due to coil 2 $I_2^2R$ represents power dissipated in the resistor. The sum of these three terms should equal $V_1I_1$. but I am getting the extra term of $MI_1dI_2/dt+MI_2dI_1/dt$. Can anybody help me out.

share|improve this question
Sorry if this is obvious, but what is $M$? Also does it help that $M I_1 dI_2/dt + M I_2 dI_1/dt = M d/dt (I_1 I_2)$? –  Neuneck May 17 '13 at 6:29
M is the mutual inductance of the two coils. No that does not help. –  SUper May 17 '13 at 9:21
@SUper: this just proves that the rate of change of magnetic energy is also dependent on the other coil, I can't find anything wrong with it as if the potential of both coil are dependent on each other, it shouldn't be a big deal that even their energies or powers are interrelated! –  Rijul Gupta Apr 29 at 15:09
add comment

2 Answers 2

Everything is almost ok.

The first problem is that if you analyse transient states, you should use lower case letters like $i$ and $u$ for variables.

Henceforth I keep lowercase.

If you agree that $$Mi_1\frac{di_2}{dt}+Mi_2\frac{di_1}{dt} = M\frac{d}{dt}\left(i_1 i_2\right)$$ and know that $M$ unit is the same as $L$, this factor is representing energy that was stored in magnetic field of both coils.

You must not omit this factor. For example, if you turn $v_1$ off, there still flows current because the energy was stored. It will be dissipated on the resistor.

Considering the AC (sinusoidal currents) this element is responsible for taking so called reactive power by transformer. If you solve your equations in complex space (so we are now using capital letters), then you will see, that this has imaginary unit $j$ before, so cannot be compared to $I^2 R$. So $U_1 I_1 \neq I_2^2 R$ but $U_1 I_1 cos \phi = I_2^2 R$.

You cannot say $i_2^2 R$ is power of the circuit. The power in AC is $I_2^2 R$ where $I_2$ is an rms value of current, defined as ... Er, please look here I'm not good in this formatting stuff, sorry.

Usually, however, the reactance that is related to mutual inductance $\omega M$ is very large if compared to $\omega L$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Assuming you've done the math right, this is true.

Instantaneous power supplied = rate of energy stored in magnetic field + rate of energy dissipated in resistor.

For low frequencies, you can neglect radiation. So most of the magnetic field energy is conservative, meaning that it is typically returned to the circuit. Just like how you may take a loan from a bank and return it at a later time(without interest!).

So, on an average:

Average power supplied = average rate of energy dissipation in resistor.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.