
#109
Mar610, 04:46 PM

P: 185

Maybe I can illustrate the OP's point. The claim is that there are two ways to create an emf due to what we perceive as "flux changing". One way was termed to be "transformer induced emf" and the other was "motional emf". The OP is not arguing against both of these phenomena, he is merely saying that the reasons given are wrong. (The transformer induced emf is due to the changing MAGNITUDE of the B field, not the area change, the area change is a motion, and so is a motional part!) So, the mix up seems to be that people are attributing the wrong thing to what actually causes the emf. The argument that Feynman makes is to show that there are actually two ways, and one can't be derived from the other. He attempts to show two systems, one where motional emf is the ONLY one to blame, and one where transformer induced emf is the ONLY thing to blame. Thus, showing that the effects are not derivable from the other. In other words, there are times where an emf is induced and there is not a motional emf, and there are times where there is no flux changing yet an emf is still induced.
The big mix up is this, sometimes you have a changing flux due to area change (but with no B magnitude change) and people say, yeah that is due to the changing flux. But whent hey say "it is due to the changing flux" they are really thinking "it is due to the transformer induced emf effect". That is the problem, there is a breakdown in the language. Yes, there is a changing flux, but changing flux does not necessarily mean it is the transformer effect. Anytime the B field magnitude stays the same and the area changes, that is the motional effect, and when the area stays the same but the magnitude within it changes, that is the transformer effect. Now, you can imagine a situation where the magnitude of the B field and the inflicted area changes, so you have both effects. For instance, a square ring of conducting wire is forced into a changing (magnitude) B field, then you have both effects. Ok, so much for the confusion part, now the real question is...was Feynman right? Or, can you actually derive one from the other. I have always had the opinion that he was wrong. My opinion is that the effects are all motional but there are times where separating the total effect into supposed orthogonal effects helps. In the real world, where one convinces themselves that the transformer effect is a real effect, the soleniods are not infinite, and so the wire that you wrap around it to test the effect, is impinged by moving B field lines. But, my opinion is moot for this specific topic. 



#110
Mar610, 07:17 PM

P: 370

Let's say we start with the point form of Faraday's Law as stated by Maxwell. [tex] \nabla \times E = {{\partial B}\over{\partial t}}[/tex] Does anybody doubt this form of Faraday's Law? When I read the title of this thread, it struck me that it was this basic law that was being questioned. This is the form of Faraday's Law that is taught in classical EM field theory, and it has held up with the developments of special relativity and general relativity, with suitable formulation in the context of differential geometry. It will obviously break down in the quantum regime, as does all classical physics, including GR. If we agree on this, should we not be able to derive an integral version of the equation valid for both constant surfaces and time varying surfaces? And, with both/either version, shouldn't we be able to describe both "transformer EMF" and "motional EMF"? Of course, there are other Maxwell equations to draw on in solving any problem. Once we solve for the field solutions and charge distribution and current density, we basically have everything we need to know. It's not always easy to find these solutions, but they can be found in principle. As far as potentials, there are clear definitions of the scalar potential and the vector potential, in terms of the electric and magnetic fields. What am I missing here? 



#111
Mar610, 07:20 PM

PF Gold
P: 1,369

hmmm... Let's start over. premise: E=d[tex]\Phi[/tex] /dt is wrong. hmmm...... Perhaps this belongs in the philosophy forum. 



#112
Mar710, 11:16 AM

P: 370

First, let me write out my interpretation of the equation you are referring to above. This is a direct interpretation of your words and the equation E = d(phi)/dt. [tex] \ointop_{\partial S} (E+v \times B) \cdot dl={{d}\over{dt}}\Biggl(\int_S B \cdot ds\Biggr) [/tex] This seems to be what you mean. If it is, and if you are saying that this equation is not correct, then I agree  it is not correct. As far as I can tell, this is not a proper representation of Faraday's Law. Is this basically what we are debating here? Above, I wrote a different equation as follows: [tex] \int (E+v \times B) \cdot dl=\int {{dB}\over{dt}}\cdot ds [/tex] This is a version that I pulled from memory as being valid for a moving surface with velocity [tex]v[/tex]. The inclusion of [tex]v \times B[/tex] was not intended to help represent the EMF, but to capture the effects of surface movement. As I mentioned above, I'm not confident that this formula is correct, but I'd like to not even address that issue since it just detracts from the central premise of the thread. I'll quote the proper integral form of Faraday's Law from the book "Foundations of Classical Electrodynamics", by F.W. Hehl and Y. N. Ovukhov. It is equation I.4 on page 6. [tex] \ointop_{\partial S} E \cdot dl={{d}\over{dt}}\Biggl(\int_S B \cdot ds\Biggr) [/tex] Clearly the equations are different. Please acknowledge whether you agree with the above comments, or provide any necessary corrections. If the above is correct, we are really debating whether a particular equation is a correct representation of Faraday's Law, not whether Faraday's Law is correct. Is this a fair statement? 



#113
Mar710, 01:14 PM

P: 185





#114
Mar710, 07:51 PM

P: 997

curl E = dB/dt. The HG and FLM are in perfect agreement. FLM can be stated in plain English as: The rotation (or "curl" if you prefer) of E equals the negative of the time derivative of the flux density. Keep in mind that this is a vector equation, and in analyzing the HG and FLM, we must stay in the vector mindset. We cannot understand what is going on if we think in scalar terms. Fair enough? According to FLM, an HG has a dB/dt that equals zero. Thus we can conclude that in an HG we will encounter zero electric field rotation. The HG works by spinning the disk in between 2 magnetic poles (N & S) and the electrons in the disk, free electrons as the disk is metal, are subjected to Lorentz force. The B field is static, normal to the surface of the spinning disk, and the electron velocity is tangential to the circular motion. Hence the Lorentz force, F = q(u X B) points radially. Thus charges will separate towards the center and periphery. The E field is F/q = E. This E field is due to discrete charged particles. The E lines start on a +ve charge and end on a ve charge. This type of E field has no rotation/curl. The curl of E, in the HG case, is exactly zero!!! But, the magnitude of E, E, is nonzero. Hence the induced current per J = sigma*E, is also nonzero as well. The "paradox" is merely as follows. Often, we prefer to think in scalar terms than vectors because it is easier to do so. In conventional motors, generators, & transformers, if the flux is static, of course the curl of E is zero. But the magnitude of E is also zero. If curl E = 0, then either E = 0, or E is nonsolenoidal. That is, E is nonzero, but the curl is zero due to absence of rotation. In the case of motors, generators, & xfmrs, the magnitude is zero for the E field when the flux is static. Of course a vector with zero magnitude will also have zero curl. So, in these cases, we can use the simplified scalar form of FL, which is: v = N*d(phi)/dt, where phi = Ac*B, Ac = area of cross section of loop, B = flux density. But in the HG case, the scalar simplified version does not work. Here, d(phi)/dt is zero, but v is nonzero. But the vector form is perfectly correct. The vector form of FLM predicts that E has zero curl. It does not predict an E field of zero magnitude. Thus the full vector form of FLM agrees perfectly with the HG behavior. No paradox here at all. FLM is valid law. It's too easy. No debate at all. Next you call me on the carpet for not knowing that E & B are related but not causal!!! Dude, get serious! Have you examined my posting history. For a decade of posting on this and similar forums? I've been stating forever the same thing. Many have told me and others about causality, this causes that, and my response has always been, w/o exception, that electric and magnetic fields, under timevarying conditions, cannot exist independently. Neither can be stated as the cause of the other. You're preaching to the choir! Regarding your loop experiment, you don't state whether we're measuring current or voltage, a picture/sketch would help, etc. I would say that if you place a magnet in the loop, then remove it, the change in flux takes place for a fraction of a second, but is visible on a scope. By the time you remove the magnet, and then throw the switch, the transient has already passed. To do such a test, I'd recommend measuring voltage under open circuit conditions, and current when short circuited. You can obtain usable readings that way. So take a simple 2 cm X 2 cm square loop, 1 mm high. Let's keep it open with a small gap, and connect a DVM across the terminals. Place a magnet w/ surface 2 cm X 2 cm flush w/ the loop. Now remove it quickly. If "quickly" is 0.05 seconds, what is the transient voltage? For a good magnet, B = 1.0 tesla, and phi = Ac*B. Ac is 2 cm X 2 cm = 4 cc, or 4e4 m^3. Thus v = d(phi)/dt = (1.0)*(4e4)/(0.05) = 8.0 millivolt. A good DMM with a peak hold can measure this as it is 0.05 seconds in duration. A scope w/ digital storage would work very well. Anyone can verify what I've stated. Finally, Feynmann stated that the "flux rule" is not always valid. He calls it the flux rule, I call it the simplified scalar form, but we agree that with the HG we cannot assume that zero curl means zero magnitude. Usually it does, but not with the HG. You bluff and bluster like you hold 4 aces, and your post is less than a pair of deuces. Seriously, you present nothing but fluff and claptrap. Nothing you said remotely challenges FLM. If I've erred, please point it out using valid scientific reasoning. You talk down to me like I'm a high school grad, and you're a Ph.D. Do you understand the difference between rotational & nonrotational E fields? Do you fully appreciate Lorentz force? I'm not here to "win an argument". I always want to learn new things, and I don't believe that every law currently adhered to is forever immutable. But to knock down FLM, it will take more than what the critics have presented here. FLM cannot be refuted right now at this time. Maybe later, maybe, but not at this moment. Peace and best regards to all. Claude 



#115
Mar810, 01:03 AM

P: 133

The correct description would be to start with the magnet under the meter and the short across the center of the rectangle closed. That metered half of the rectangle represents our area over which we integrate the B field to get the flux. It has a large (DC) value. Now open the center divider switch and slide the magnet to the other end of the rectangle, but not outside of the large rectangle. Since the circuit now is just the large rectangular loop and the magnet stays inside the loop there is NO change in flux. At no time during any of these operations does the flux change or the meter move! Now close the center link again. At this point we are left with our original half loop circuit but with no magnet in it so the flux there is now zero. Hence flux has changed over some period of time from Phi to zero and a dPhi/dt exits. You do not need to remove the magnet completely from the second half of the large loop. That is irrelevant. So the bottom line is we have a flux changing in time with no induced voltage from it. The Flux rule (often referred to as Faraday's Law) fails. Feynman points out that the problem is that the flux rule often fails when the actual CONFIGURATION of the apparatus is changing with time. That is certainly the case here! OK? I also forgot to mention that if you have a second switch that opens the part of the divided loop away from the meter (where the magnet ends up) If you open that switch you actually CAN totally remove the magnet at the end. Meter never moves or jumps. If you think about the above experiment you can derive that the "rocking plates" perform an operation exactly the same as that described above only in a repeated microincrementing way. 



#116
Mar810, 01:47 AM

P: 133

OK. Now let us define our differences. You say that E can be created by a changing B field. Which stated another way is that you assert that the above equation is CAUSAL. In other words that B can actually cause E. I on the other hand have asserted that the above equation while CORRECT, is nonetheless NOT CAUSAL. What I'm saying is that while The curl of E does indeed EQUAL dB/dt each side does NOT cause the other side. One way this can be proved is to understand that the above equation all happens at the SAME time. The principle of causality is that things that happen at the same time cannot cause each other! Why? Because according to relativity (and all experiments to date) information or energy cannot travel faster than the speed of light. "Action at a distance" does not happen creating the principle. Thus I am saying that your description is completely wrong! But let me emphasize that this is not so much "my" theory. I am only describing here the work of Oleg Jefimenko. His mathematical proofs of this are straightforward and easy to understand. I won't attempt to lecture on them here, but they can easily be found in his book "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation" pages 610. He concludes as follows on page 10. "It is now clear that the two terms of Maxwell's equation (above) Curl E and dB/dt do indeed have the same common cause: The changing electric current density J." Hence he concludes that both E and B are created by a current that is the source of BOTH and that is why they are related to each other not because they cause each other. On Page 16 he concludes: " There is a widespread belief that timevariable electric and magnetic fields can cause each other. The analysis of Maxwell's equations presented above does not support this belief. It is true that whenever there exists a timevariable electric field there also exists a timevariable magnetic field... But as we have seen, Neither Maxwell's equations nor their solutions indicate an existence of causal links between electric and magnetic fields." In a reference he points out this is not a new idea. Please note that (the late?) Oleg Jefimenko, a professor at West Virginia University, was the author of an excellent textbook on Electricity and Magnetism and certainly does not fall under the "kook" guidelines of forbidden discussions. If there is doubt with regard to his conclusions, then I would suggest the appropriate response would be to examine his work and show the errors in his equations and derivation. I think we'd all be interested in seeing that! 



#117
Mar810, 11:59 AM

P: 98





#118
Mar810, 02:19 PM

P: 262

The rocking plates are at all times in good electrical contact with each other. As I said before: eddy currents are created in the short circuits in the rocking plates, which prevent the meter from registering the proper value, exactly what happened in your earlier example. The 2 rocking plates are in fact 2 sectors of circles. Imagine completing the full circles. This way you get 2 homopolar generator disks which are in electrical contact, each spinning in the opposite direction. Now install an uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the disks. Opposite spinning results with one disk producing a +ve voltage at the rim and the other a +ve voltage at its centre. Will there be an emf generated between the 2 centres? 



#119
Mar810, 03:06 PM

P: 133

Now your case of the moving magnet is more complex but works by the same ideas. The assumption is that ALL magnetic fields are caused by currents. In a permanent magnet it is supposedly the electrons circulating around the atoms that are the source current. It can be shown that the distributed magnetic dipole moment in the material is equivalent to a surface current around the outside of the magnet (currents cancel except at the surface). Thus, even with a permanent magnet the source of the magnetic field is a current and one then needs to show that that same current is ALSO the source of the induced electric fields. This can be done. I"m not going to do it here, but it can be shown that a moving current even at constant velocity actually induces not only magnetic field but also an electric field about itself that is related to the velocity of one frame with respect to the other. [One frame being the magnet and the other being the coil]. In such a case the E field generated by the frame differences can once again be shown to be the result of the CURRENT as is the magnetic fields generated. By the same reasoning we again note that the current is the source and although one can find that the VALUE of the induced E field is given by V x B it is not CAUSED by B! 



#120
Mar810, 03:21 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,562

[tex]\Phi = BA[/tex] and so its derivative with respect to time is [tex]\frac{d \Phi}{dt} = A \frac{dB}{dt} + B \frac{dA}{dt}[/tex] When the switch is opened or closed, the area of the loop changes, and therefore there is a nonzero change in flux! In fact, the faster the switch is opened or closed, the higher the value of [itex]dA/dt[/itex], and hence the higher the EMF generated. In the ideal case of opening or closing the switch infinitely fast, the EMF will be a delta function (spike), and the needle will quickly flick to one side and back. 



#121
Mar810, 03:31 PM

P: 133

You are trying too hard to bring practical details into this "thought experiment". Just wire the apparatus a different way! make the center "switch" a simple copper bar that bolts across the other larger rectangle. Make the magnet a compact pole that has little fringing. Now once the link is removed I can slide the magnet to the other end with virtually no induced voltages. The fact that there may be some teenytiny voltage induced somewhere is not important in the light of our primary conclusion which is that there has been a HUGE flux change in our first loop with NO (or very little) change on the meter. The Flux rule on the other hand predicts a LARGE change (which is seen in most cases). To understand the rocking plates. Look at the circuit of the plates as the area we are calculating flux over. The area changes because the contact point between the two plates changes. See Feynman Fig. 173. Draw straight lines from the pivots on the two plates to the contact point. See how they form an expanding triangle? That represents a HUGE flux change. So why does the flux rule fail? Suppose if you will that the plates contact not in a single point but in two points that are very closely spaced. Now you have TWO circuits through the plated. As you rock the plates inward the inner circuit breaks and the new outer one makes contact. If we assume that the outer one makes contact BEFORE the inner one breaks we have a situation exactly like our switched loops above. The plates are making microsteps by switching between the two "circuits". Feynman doesn't bother to explain this in his book but you can see with a bit of thought that it's true. 



#122
Mar810, 04:04 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,562

This paper explains Feynman's error in analyzing the rocking plates. It also discusses the other "paradoxes" you've mentioned:
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdona...72_1478_04.pdf The key point is that drawing straight lines from the pivots to the contact point is NOT the correct way to complete the circuit. The ambiguity arises because one is using extended conducting objects to form a circuit, rather than idealized, thin wires. Remember that at sufficiently low frequencies, current always travels on the surface of a conducting object, and does not penetrate. In fact, in an irregularlyshaped object, the current will be concentrated near regions of higher mean curvature; i.e., it will flow along the edges of the rocking plates, not along the faces. Hence the straight line paths in Feynman's drawing are not the path actually taken by the current. Edited to add: There have been a lot of confusing, irrelevant, and probably false statements in this thread, both in favor of and against Faraday's Law. I hope you will read the paper above by Frank Munley, which resolves all of these paradoxes squarely. Faraday's Law applies even to the homopolar generator, despite others' claims (and Wikipedia's claim) that one must resort to the Lorentz force law. In fact, one can prove mathematically that for circuits, Faraday's Law and the Lorentz force law are completely equivalent. The catch is that one has to provide a clear interpretation of these laws in the case of extended conducting objects. 



#123
Mar810, 05:12 PM

P: 370

So, in protest to the title of this thread, I'd like to yell out, "FARADAY's LAW IS TRUE!" 



#124
Mar810, 08:54 PM

P: 79

elect_eng,
You asked for correct equations. Maxwell's Law for transformer EMF is E =  [tex]\partial[/tex][tex]\Phi[/tex]/[tex]\partial[/tex]t, which is correct. The equation for motional EMF is E = (v x B) . l, which is correct. The Lorentz equation is EMF = [tex]\int[/tex] (e + v x B) . dl, which is correct. (Sorry, I do not have a complete handle on printing equatiions.) The first two, between them, cover every case of the two types of electromagnetic induction. The Lorentz equation covers both the above and is correct. Notice that the Maxwell law uses the partial derivative and not the ordinary. This eliminates the effect of motion. The equation for Faraday's Law that is the topic of this thread is the same as that Maxwell law with the exception that it uses the ordinary derivative rather than the partial. This broadening of the derivative is evidently for the purpose of including motional EMF, but it does not do so accurately. It works in most cases, but not all. FL is claimed to give the induced EMF, regardless of whether it is transformer EMF or motional EMF. This means that it would have to encompass motional EMF in every instance where motional EMF occurred. It fails to do this and is therefore false. [tex]\Phi[/tex] is magnetic flux. B is flux density. Mike 



#125
Mar810, 09:25 PM

P: 133

There is simply NO physical mechanism you can point to that can explain any induced EMF in the wires as a result of shorting and unshorting half a coil! No conductors are moving in a magnetic field, no currents are moving or changing. The bottom line is you are proving the flux rule is correct by starting with the assumption that it works! You have gone in a circle! 



#126
Mar810, 09:26 PM

P: 79

OmCheeto,
I said that FL is based on observed data, not that it correctly reflected all observed data. There is a difference. If you would read my posts in this thread, you would find two counterexamples. One is the homopolar generator and the other is a modified toroidal transformer with the secondary gradually unwound. I would say that physical laws tend to be quantitative, whereas physical principles are qualitative. It seems to me that the laws of physics all do have separated equations. Can you give an example of a true physical equation that contains two independent principles in a single term? I said that there is no principle upon which FL is based. This is not a case of a law being based upon a law; it is the case of a false equation posing as a law and having no foundation. FL is not a model of anything. Mike 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
If GUT are false, are stringbased unification also false?  Beyond the Standard Model  1  
true or false/correct if statement is false help  Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework  2  
I can't figure out if this statement is true or false, i said false  Calculus & Beyond Homework  4  
Faraday's Law Help?  Introductory Physics Homework  4  
Faraday's Law  Classical Physics  5 