1
$\begingroup$

If you have a coil with self inductance: $$ \varepsilon= - L \frac{dI}{dt} $$

Then the current is lagging behind the voltage.

If you attach a AC source on the coil/inductor and have an AC power source, then at the highest current there is no internal resisting voltage produced bij the self inductor.

$$ V_{\text{produced by battery}} - \varepsilon =0 (?)$$

My question. Is there no net voltage over the inductor at any moment? I.e. the inductor will always perfectly cancel the voltage produced by the AC source? How do you calculate this?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I am confused by your diagram. Are you imagining ideal elements, so that neither the battery nor the inductor has any internal resistance? In that case the steady state would be infinite current in the loop you have drawn. You mention an AC power source. Is that also in parallel with your ideal DC battery and ideal inductor? Is your AC power source an ideal voltage source, or an ideal current source? $\endgroup$
    – rob
    Commented May 28, 2022 at 17:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @rob I think he means an AC source (mistakenly referred to as a battery), connected with an inductor. $\endgroup$
    – User123
    Commented May 28, 2022 at 17:40
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I mean AC source $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2022 at 18:55

3 Answers 3

1
$\begingroup$

In AC circuits "voltage on inductor" means difference of electric potential between the inductor's two terminals. In your example where ideal voltage source is driving the circuit with ideal inductor, drop of potential on inductor is determined by the voltage source. For the simplest AC source, it is sinusoidal function of time:

$$ V_0\sin \omega t, $$ where $V_0$ is amplitude and $\omega$ frequency of the source.

There is no cancellation of voltage. Cancellation can happen in the sense that in ideal inductor, induced EMF is cancelled by the potential drop. Why? In any inductor free of external forces, the induced EMF is $$ -L\frac{dI}{dt}. $$ Provided the inductor is ideal (made of zero resistance conductor, zero capacitance), potential drop is $$ L\frac{dI}{dt}. $$

These two forces act in opposite directions (hence the opposite sign) and have the same magnitude, so they cancel each other in the sense that there is no remaining electric field inside the conductor making up the ideal inductor.

In real inductor, this is no longer true, because there is some residual electric field inside the conductor and voltage isn't given by $LdI/dt$.

Voltage on inductor is only due to electrostatic component of electric field. On ideal inductor, this is zero only in special time instants when $dI/dt =0$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I'm talking about specifically in the ideal sense. Your comment confuses me because it says there is no cancellation of voltage but then afterwards you suggest that it is so. $\endgroup$ Commented May 29, 2022 at 7:13
  • $\begingroup$ There is no cancellation of voltage on any single component. There is cancellation in the sense that sum of all potential drops an all components in closed circuit is zero. $\endgroup$ Commented May 29, 2022 at 10:18
  • $\begingroup$ I think I am completely missing the point. Imagine if the voltage created by the AC source at any instant is $V$. Then at that moment of time the changing current through the ideal inductor will produce a induced EMF exactly opposite. $\varepsilon = - V$? $\endgroup$ Commented May 29, 2022 at 14:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @bananenheld Yes, in ideal inductor the induced EMF is such that it is equal in magnitude and opposite in its effect on mobile charges when compared to potential drop imposed by the AC voltage source. $\endgroup$ Commented May 29, 2022 at 18:43
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @Ján Lalinský $\endgroup$ Commented May 29, 2022 at 20:34
0
$\begingroup$

The standard Kirchoffs law does not hold. This is because there are changing magnetic fields.

Imagine I have a battery and an inductor, such that the inductance L is the inductance of the entire circuit.

Using faradays law:

$$\int \vec{E} \cdot \vec{dl} = -\frac{d \phi_{B}}{dt}$$

$$-V_{batt} + \epsilon_{wire} = -\frac{d \phi_{B}}{dt}$$

$$-V_{batt} + \epsilon_{wire} = - L \frac{dI}{dt}$$

$$ \epsilon_{wire} = V_{batt} - L \frac{dI}{dt}$$

Now, in general, $\epsilon_{wire}$ does not need to be zero.

Using the steady state approximation:

$$\epsilon_{wire} = IR$$

Our equation reduces to:

$$ IR = V_{batt} - L \frac{dI}{dt}$$

When $R=0, \epsilon_{wire} = 0$, and thus the potential across the inductor is zero.

You find that in order for this to be true.

$$V_{batt} = L \frac{dI}{dt}$$

Aka the contribution to the pd of the battery, cancels out the induced emf.

I would like to point out, that the validity of using ohms law here is not particularly rigourous

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ So this means that in an ideal situation without resistance my premise is true? That the voltage produced by the AC source is exactly getting cancelled inside the inductor? $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2022 at 18:56
  • $\begingroup$ @bananenheld Of course (using Kirchhoff's law, this would be just a corollary). $\endgroup$
    – User123
    Commented May 28, 2022 at 19:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Potential difference on an inductor is not given by $RI$. This implied variant of Ohm's law does not apply to inductors (or any other conductor that experience electromotive force other than potential drop). $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2022 at 20:59
0
$\begingroup$

There is a net voltage over the inductor most of the time.

Let's say that the AC source has a sinusoidal voltage: $$U=U_0\sin\omega t$$ Using Kirchhoff's law, the sum of the voltages is equal to zero: $$U_0\sin\omega t-L\frac{dI}{dt}=0$$ $$U_0\sin\omega t=L\frac{dI}{dt}$$ Separating the variables, $$U_0\sin\omega t\, dt=L\, dI$$ And integrating, $$\int U_0\sin\omega t\, dt=\int L\, dI$$ $$I+C=-\frac{U_0}{\omega L}\cos\omega t$$ Because of symmetry, the current amount needs to be symmetric over the $t$ axis, and $C=0$: $$I=-\frac{U_0}{\omega L}\cos\omega t=-\frac{1}{\omega L}U_0\sin\left(\omega t+\frac{\pi}{2}\right)$$ Therefore, the current really lags behind the voltage, and voltage across the inductor is nonzero, except at the moments of time when $\omega t=(2N+1)\frac \pi 2$.

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ Kirchoffs law does not technically hold here, as there are changing magnetic fields. $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2022 at 10:50
  • $\begingroup$ @jensenpaull A lumped model is assumed, see here. $\endgroup$
    – User123
    Commented May 28, 2022 at 13:46
  • $\begingroup$ Regardless, I have many doubts about that accepted answer. Which I might add, also points out its flaws. KLR is derived by $\nabla × \vec{E} = 0$, which is not the case here, just because you have lumped elements doesn't mean you shouldn't use the correct equations $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2022 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't the whole premise then right because of: $U - U_L=0$? The induced emf inside the inductor always perfectly cancels the emf produced by the battery. Translating this into math gives: $U_0 \sin{\omega t} - L \frac{dI}{dt}=0$ $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2022 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ Your "V' is not the voltage across the inductor, the voltage across the inductor is zero for this diagram. $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2022 at 16:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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