Talk:Lenz's law

vandalism!

Yes--Light current 21:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarity comment

This article needs some improvement. I am very baffled by it. Cheers. MyNameIsNotBob 09:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Did it explain why a current is induced in the first place? To me it only explained that if there IS a current then it cannot be in the direction where the field generated is in the same direction as the initial magnetic field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.74.106.209 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Can I please point out that Lenz Law is not actually stated as a formula on this page this seems to be quite a big oversight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.42.104 (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

contradiction

The definition, and whatever the italicized text is before it, both say that the field opposes the change in flux, and the direction of the current is determined by the direction of that field. The “explanation” contradicts this, saying the current opposes the change in flux, and doesn’t even mention the field. Which is it? —Frungi 04:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The field. Saying the current opposes the change in flux is just shorthand for saying that the field generated by the current opposes the change. Pfalstad 05:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn’t the current have its own direction? I thought the current went counter-clockwise around the field. —Frungi 13:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

-- is it the same as the Lenz rule? In Germany there´s more than a slight difference between a scientific law and a scientific rule! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.223.206 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen up you research more on induction it happens when magnets or coils are around each other the magnet absorb the force of there surrounding then the magnets send the power into the coils generating electricity which is induction I am a 12 yr. old and I know all that by hard research and my scince fair projects that are collage level and I am in the sixth grade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.249.113 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lenz's Law

Whoever wrote that introduction has entirely missed the point. Lenz's law is all about conservation of energy. It arises from the principle that induced effects are such as to oppose the cause that induces them. In EM induction it means that an induced electric current will be in a direction such that in isolation it would be generating a magnetic field that is opposite to the magnetic field which is involved in its cause, otherwise we could obtain perpetual motion.

Whoever wrote that introduction has emphasized a trivial consequence of the law at the expense of the law itself. Lenz's law is in fact perhaps the most fundamental law in the entire universe, and this article has belittled it into the realms of setting the direction of electric currents in a circuit. David Tombe (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen a statement of Lenz's law that resembles "in fact perhaps the most fundamental law in the entire universe". Most statements of Lenz's law simply explain the sign in Faraday's law and note that it has to be true otherwise it would break the law of conservation of energy. There's a typical example at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html#c2. Thus, AIUI, this article has an appropriate emphasis. Nh5h (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Charles

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      BY:BILLY MARK MALON 2011-2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.78.139 (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

Yes. Lens's law is more about the second law of thermodynamics than the first law. A passive circuit will lose energy through the friction of electrical resistance. An active circuit (with a power source) can generate a voltage in the opposite direction, so the law might not apply. More specifically, Lenz's law implied that in RLC circuits, RL and RC are positive. Gah4 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

To see what you get when you manage to violate Lenz's law with an active circuit, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI5Hk3iz6ts Gah4 (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The comment to which you are replying is 6-7 years old and may no longer apply. If you have a suggestion for the article, it would be best to start a new section at the bottom of the page and be clear about what you are suggesting and what part of the article it applies to.Constant314 (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Irrotational (conservative) forces?

These statements need to be developed, especially as the word "irrotational" does not appear on the linked page: "The law of conservation of energy relates exclusively to irrotational (conservative) forces. Lenz's Law extends the principles of energy conservation to situations that involve non-conservative forces in electromagnetism." The statements intriguingly suggest that Lenz's law extends the law of conservation of energy. If that is the case it would be nice to have an explanation and further references and a cross-link from the Conservation of Energy Page. Nh5h (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Charles

Yes, the irrotational/nonconservative bit is pretty much nonsense left over from the June 2009 edit, most of which has been edited out. Doing a little cleanup.Pstemari (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

mass is relevant?

"At first, this might seem impossible, but because the electron is much lighter than the proton..."

This seems a red herring. If it's a proton and anti-proton, they have the same mass but opposite charge. Is it then impossible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.64.191 (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Lenz' or Lenz's

Surely it should be the former, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.211 (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No. 86.129.19.88 (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes emf --> voltage

Recent changes of emf to voltage is ill-advised. Emf is the more specific term and more often encountered. Constant314 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

References to original work

The article direly misses references to the original works from Lenz, for the benefit of chronology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNegrello (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

spin

There is a recent edit related to currents in (presumably permanent) magnets. The field comes from the magnetic moment of electrons with spin, so in a certain sense it is the limit of a current loop as the radius goes to zero. When it is zero, you need more quantum mechanics than I can explain to show it, but in a QM sense, it is a current loop. As well as I know it, electrons are considered to have zero radius. But yes, it is probably best to leave it out of the article. Gah4 (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

aluminium and IUPAC

Not wanting to start an edit war on the article, it seems that the WP spelling is aluminium, as that is the IUPAC spelling. As well as I know, that is independent of the form of English for an article. Though since Lenz's law is from physics, maybe it should be IUPAP instead? Gah4 (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with avoiding an edit war. The existing article uses "meter" and "aluminum" which establishes American English. Maybe I missed something. However, I have no objection to changing the variety of English assuming a talk page consensus. Constant314 (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The claim in aluminium is that it is American English and IUPAC spelling. I think that means that it should be spelled that way in ACS journals, and other chemistry journals, while other words use usual American spelling. Sometimes there is discussion in the talk page, but it seems not right now. I think that means that links from other articles should use that spelling, too. Personally, either one is fine with me, but it seems that some chemistry people want to get it right. I have no idea how IUPAC does things. Gah4 (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If this was a chemistry article, IUPAP spelling might be compelling. I don't see a policy reason to change the spelling, whereas we do have a policy about not changing the spelling without a good reason.Constant314 (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, so then it would depend on what IUPAP says about it, if anything. Gah4 (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A good reason is consistency throughout the article. Different spellings throughout the article is frowned upon. 86.129.19.88 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the article has used "aluminium" since at least June 2008, so that use should prevail. This contradicts my earlier comments. Constant314 (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

Q: Does the opposing EMF in the coil have anything to do with energy transfer, say in a motor or generator?

A: Yes the net current through the motor is reduced, therefore, energy is also reduced.

Can you ask this as a suggestion to improve the article? It seems that it doesn't explain it well enough, if this is a question. Gah4 (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)