Need Help Here :) (1 Viewer)

[someth1ng]

I just realised that the correct way to do it is:

The change of flux is equal to emf which is proportional to current. Doubling the loops means would the area which equates to doubles the change of flux.

emf = n delta(BA)/delta(t)

 

[barbernator]

I just realised that the correct way to do it is:

The change of flux is equal to emf which is proportional to current. Doubling the loops means would the area which equates to doubles the change of flux.

emf = n delta(BA)/delta(t)

awesome

 

[Fizzy_Cyst]

I just realised that the correct way to do it is:

The change of flux is equal to emf which is proportional to current. Doubling the loops means would the area which equates to doubles the change of flux.

emf = n delta(BA)/delta(t)

Fair enough EMF would be 4x, (2x due to magnets and 2x due to coil), but if you now have twice the length of coil, wouldnt resistance of the coil then be doubled, as resistance is proportional to length? Therefore effectively cancelling out the doubling of the EMF?

 

[someth1ng]

Fair enough EMF would be 4x, (2x due to magnets and 2x due to coil), but if you now have twice the length of coil, wouldn't resistance of the coil then be doubled, as resistance is proportional to length? Therefore effectively cancelling out the doubling of the EMF?

Ummm, I dunno if you're just trying to mind fuck me or being totally serious (LOL) because, isn't it assumed that resistance isn't included when doing these calculations?

 

[Shadowless]

i came
i understood
i saw Fizzy's post