You insist, very aggressively, that my statement was incorrect even if I meant one electro-magnet. Well the case is simple enough, let's work it out. If it's non-resistive it's purely inductive, so v=-L*di/dt right? So if current i is constant, voltage v is zero, therefore consumed power i*v is zero, and so is consumed energy i*v*t. So as I said, "a non-resistive current loop would not consume any energy to keep the current going".
Now this may come as an even bigger surprise to you, but a pure inductance is in fact unable to consume _any energy at all_, even if current is not constant. It can store energy (1/2*L*i^2), it can transfer energy when mutual inductance is at play, but it just can't consume any. Resistance can consume energy, reactance can't, any textbook will tell you that. No offense as you like to say, but isn't this an excellent occasion to show us how gladly you admit being in error Paul? ;-) Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics ... > I am blunt, and make no apologies for it. When in > error I ***gladly*** admit such error. > Saving face IMHO it pitiful. > > I know about induced emf, my comment > > mentioned no other current loop around, in which > context it is 100% correct :) > I am sorry, but your statement was clear and > incorrect. Your quote, > --- > "You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, > true but that's only because the wires > are resistive. A non-resistive current loop would not > consume any energy to keep the > current going." > --- > You said, "electromagnets" Notice the "s," which > means plural. You know what? It does > not even matter if you meant one electro-magnet > because your statement is still incorrect. > Electro-magnets have induction, so you can't even > energize the thing without consuming > such energy. Of course there is wire resistance, but > there is also ***reactance***. > Right off the bat your statement is incorrect. > Second, we were clearly discussing two > electro-magnets accelerating toward each other.
