0
\$\begingroup\$

I am doing some problems in linear and nonlinear circuit analysis, so I have a question...why is the voltage on an inductor represented as \$V=L\frac{di}{dt}\$ instead of \$V=-L\frac{di}{dt}\$, I know \$-L\frac{di}{dt}\$ is back EMF, but why is voltage written without the minus? Can someone explain?

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Can you provide a link to the source? Add a diagram too if possible. \$\endgroup\$
    – AJN
    Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 19:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ If current is decreasing then \$\frac{di}{dt}\$ is negative. As per Andy’s answer, no minus sign needed in the formula as it is inherently in the \$\frac{di}{dt}\$. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 20:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also, welcome to EE StackExchange. Making your post easily readable will help get good responses. Use MathJax to format equations nicely. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 20:13

1 Answer 1

2
\$\begingroup\$

When you apply a voltage across an inductor, the formula that describes the current flow is this: -

$$V_{APPLIED} = L\cdot\dfrac{di}{dt}$$

So, with 1 volt applied to a 1 henry inductor, the result is a current rising at 1 amp per second. No negative signs were harmed in this formula!

When you induce a voltage (with a changing flux) you put a negative sign in front of the voltage formula to remind us that any current drawn from the terminals will be in a direction that tends to reduce the flux that initially induced the voltage.


Given the comments below and the misconceptions about back-emf I have decided to add a few more words about back-emf. What some folk levitate towards is the belief that the back-emf causes the inductor current to ramp up. This is naïve. Consider a pure inductor with 1 volt applied across its terminals. A back-emf of 1 volt is produced and this appears to suggest that current can never flow. However, appearances can be deceptive because we know that current does flow. So, back-emf is a red herring - it exists but it doesn't stop current flowing as per the relationship described earlier in my answer.

But, this seems to be at odds with the back-emf exactly equalling the applied emf. But, consider what is happening; the back-emf and the applied voltage are both constant values and, they are across a zero ohm impedance hence, the current cannot be defined other than saying: -

$$\boxed{\text{The current is: }\hspace{1cm}\dfrac{0}{0}}$$

Why did I say that the impedance is zero?

Answer: it's an inductor and, the back-emf is induced in series with that inductor hence, with the applied voltage and back-emf voltage being equal, there is 0 volts across the "true" inductance. Zero volts means zero spectral content across that inductor and, it therefore has to be represented by 0 ohms.

In other words, you cannot use the value of applied voltage and back-emf to calculate the current through the inductor. The current rising or falling delivers the back-emf and that's it.

\$\endgroup\$
14
  • \$\begingroup\$ That is not correct.You forgot Lenz's law and I don't think it is a correct way to explain this. \$\endgroup\$
    – Se1fie
    Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 18:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ok, but, current increases slow, that slow increasing is because of negative voltage induced by changing magnetic flux...I would be very grateful if You can explain a little bit deeper... \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 18:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Se1fie in what respect is it incorrect? \$\endgroup\$
    – Andy aka
    Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 18:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ Andy the change in current flowing through an inductor creates a back EMF not the other way around. \$\endgroup\$
    – Se1fie
    Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 18:57
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @MatijaStankovic the back-emf is irrelevant - it's a red herring in these circumstances - the back-emf is in opposition to the applied voltage and, it has exactly the same value for a pure inductor so, on that basis might you be inclined to believe that no current can flow? \$\endgroup\$
    – Andy aka
    Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 19:17

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.