Talk:Lenz's law

Physics Start‑class High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

vandalism!

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

Clarity comment

This article needs some improvement. I am very baffled by it. Cheers. MyNam e IsNotBob 09:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

-- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]