Register to reply

Faraday's Law Is False!

by MS La Moreaux
Tags: faraday
Share this thread:
Prologue
#109
Mar6-10, 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.
elect_eng
#110
Mar6-10, 07:17 PM
P: 370
Quote Quote by Prologue View Post
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.
That is a very good summary. Thank you!

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?
OmCheeto
#111
Mar6-10, 07:20 PM
PF Gold
OmCheeto's Avatar
P: 1,420
Quote Quote by Prologue View Post
That is the problem, there is a breakdown in the language.
Language? Is this entire thread an arguement of semantics? In the Physics area of the forum? Should we move this thread to the Social Sciences under Linguistics section?

hmmm...

Let's start over.

premise: E=-d[tex]\Phi[/tex] /dt is wrong.

Quote Quote by MS La Moreaux View Post
FL is based on observed data.
Game over. Thread closed. What laws are not based on observed data?
The problem with it has nothing to do with inability to measure small enough values.
What?

There are three problems that come to mind at the moment. 1. There are counter examples where it does not work at all.
And they are?

2. There is no way to incorporated two independent principles into one term of an equation.
Sounds like semantics again. But I'm a linguistic idiot. Let's see if I can figure this out:
Quote Quote by wiki
The term law is often used to refer to universal principles

A principle is one of several things: (a) a descriptive comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption; (b) a normative rule or code of conduct, and (c) a law or fact of nature underlying the working of an artificial device.
so a law is a principle and a principle is a law. ie Law = Principle. Therefore there's no way to incorporate two laws into one term of an equation. So the laws of physics have to all have separate equations.

3. There is no principle upon which it is based.
So laws have to be based on laws?

It is just an ad hoc formulation, like Bode's Law, which works for admittedly most cases, but is just an accident of geometry and math. It is an engineering convenience but is superfluous as a law. It adds nothing to our understanding as the principles of motional EMF and transformer EMF cover every possible case.

Mike
Our understanding of the universe comes from observation. We build mathematical models to describe these observations. There is nothing to understand beyond the reality of the observed.

hmmm......

Perhaps this belongs in the philosophy forum.
elect_eng
#112
Mar7-10, 11:16 AM
P: 370
Quote Quote by MS La Moreaux View Post
elect_eng,

If the righthand side of your equation is replaced by the symbol for EMF, the equation will be Lorentz's, which is correct. The version of Faraday's Law which is the subject of this thread is E = -d(phi)/dt, where the left side is EMF and phi is the magnetic flux.

Mike
Over morning coffee, I had a revelation about these comments.

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?
Prologue
#113
Mar7-10, 01:14 PM
P: 185
Quote Quote by elect_eng View Post
...

[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?
I like your thinking there. You have an electric field and then you have an 'induced' electric field (from the motional magnetic effects). I can't really say for sure that the equation containing vxB is 100% correct, but I think it is damn close. This moving surface business is always a problem for me, how do you do a closed loop when it is moving? Is it instantaneous, etc? I can't say for sure, but it is sounding better. Thanks for the attempt at a quantitative (with formulas) approach to this tricky discussion. I'll try to do some math and see what sticks out to me.
cabraham
#114
Mar7-10, 07:51 PM
P: 1,035
Quote Quote by bjacoby View Post
Hey, Claude, don't say dumb things and then run off! Where did you ever get the idea that somehow "credentials" are needed to topple Faraday's law? And where did you ever get the idea that real science is only done by spending vast sums of taxpayer money? Are you getting your paycheck from the government or something? And why wouldn't 32 years of engineering background qualify you to challenge Faraday? Hey, you live in the 21st century and Faraday, though smart, didn't know squat compared to you!

The truth is (and I sure hope you are not spreading your errors among the young) that science is done with the MIND! It all starts between the ears. I don't care how much money you spend, if you can't think it won't be science!

And the truth is that Faraday's law as typically stated IS wrong (but interestingly NOT wrong according to how Faraday stated it!). Does anyone here understand how the rocking plates work? Why doesn't the changing flux give a voltage? Here, I'll explain it to you guys. Here's the equivalent idea and one more case where Faraday's supposed law is invalid.

Imagine a large rectangular loop of wire with a meter in the circuit. Imagine a magnet putting a local flux through an area in the end of the loop near the meter. Imagine a wire and a switch connecting the sides of this loop that when thrown cuts it into two loops. Now move the magnet to the other end of the large loop (nothing happens as flux enclosed in loop has not changed). Now close the shorting switch. Remove the magnet. Open the switch. Voila. The flux has gone from max to zero and the meter does not move! Faraday is invalid!

But the error that makes Faraday's law misinterpreted is that one assumes that a changing magnetic field (flux) causes an induced E field. (An E field in a conductor creates a current) Sorry, the equation Curl E = -db/dt or as often stated EMF = -dB/dt are TRUE relations but they are not CAUSAL relations!

You need to understand what that means. It means that while the value of an induced E and a magnetic field are RELATED they DO NOT cause each other. Hence a voltage is NOT repeat NOT created by a changing magnetic field! If one examines the causality of Maxwell's equations one finds that BOTH magnetic and electric fields are BOTH created by ONLY by charges and their motions (currents). Hence an induced EMF is created by a current somewhere as it's source. And that current ALSO creates a magnetic field. BOTH are related (as they come from the same source) by Faraday's law in many cases, but the changing magnetic field is NOT causing the EMF! Indeed even in the case of moving magnets one can show that the EMF is created by the moving atomic CURRENTS that create the fields of the permanent magnets.

Hence, as Feynman clearly states, Faraday's law is NOT valid for all cases. In cases for example where the configuration of our setup is changing (our switching example) it simply does not work. It didn't work in Faraday's time either as proved by the generator bearing his name! Which is why Faraday NEVER said that a changing magnetic field induces an EMF. He said that a changing CURRENT can induce another current nearby! Obviously even though Faraday didn't have much of a clue, he still knew more about the subject than all the "modern" physicists with their PhDs, money, accelerators and scanning microscopes! OK?
First I'll adress the HG. The law of Faraday per Maxwell, i.e. "FLM", is given as :

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 non-zero. Hence the induced current per J = sigma*E, is also non-zero 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 non-solenoidal. That is, |E| is non-zero, 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 non-zero. 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 time-varying 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 4e-4 m^3. Thus |v| = d(phi)/dt = (1.0)*(4e-4)/(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 & non-rotational 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
bjacoby
#115
Mar8-10, 01:03 AM
P: 132
Quote Quote by Per Oni View Post
It depends on the size of your short circuit and the sensitivity of your meter whether there’s a deflection. According to Ohms law if your short circuit has a resistance (it has) and a current flows through the short (it does) there will be a voltage across the meter. By the way the current in the short is normally called an eddy current.

Disconnecting the meter temporarily, while you remove the magnet will prove your point as well?
You are correct. I just went an checked the description and I made a mistake in describing the experiment.

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 micro-incrementing way.
bjacoby
#116
Mar8-10, 01:47 AM
P: 132
Quote Quote by Vanadium 50 View Post
That is completely wrong. An electric field can be created by a changing magnetic field.
You are saying that an Electric field can be created by a changing magnetic field. Just to be careful about this, let me note that we are NOT talking here about the apparent "measurements" that appear when they are made in a frame in motion with respect to some other set of measurements. We are indeed talking about an equation such as the commonly written form of Maxwell's equation that says Curl E = -dB/dt. Am I correct in this?

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 6-10. 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 time-variable 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 time-variable electric field there also exists a time-variable 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!
diagopod
#117
Mar8-10, 11:59 AM
P: 98
Quote Quote by bjacoby View Post
"Neither Maxwell's equations nor their solutions indicate an existence of causal links between electric and magnetic fields."
This appeals to me b/c it helps me visualize the perfectly symmetrical (in terms of amplitude) propagation of the E and B aspects of an e.m. wave, where one aspect does not seem to lead the other. What I have a hard time picturing though is how, for example, in shoving a magnet through a wire one does not cause an emf, or circulating E-field, but rather that the emf, or new E-field, happens at the same time as the changing magnetic field? Under the interpretation above, would it be more correct to say that the act of shoving the magnet through the wire-loop itself is the cause, and the effect is two-fold: a changing magnetic field and a new electric field? Either way, hope to learn more as you and others chime in on this concept.
Per Oni
#118
Mar8-10, 02:19 PM
P: 262
Quote Quote by bjacoby View Post
You are correct. I just went an checked the description and I made a mistake in describing the experiment.

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.
DC stands for Direct Current?

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!
During the time you slide the magnet across the short with the centre divider switch open, there will still be a voltage generated, however with a very much reduced current. The value of this voltage is still U=BLV, where L is the length of the short. In this case the voltage will exist across the open contacts of the switch. Therefore an electric field of E=U/d will be generated, where d is the distance between the contacts. The switch acts now as a (small) capacitor.

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 micro-incrementing way.
No not at all.
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?
bjacoby
#119
Mar8-10, 03:06 PM
P: 132
Quote Quote by diagopod View Post
This appeals to me b/c it helps me visualize the perfectly symmetrical (in terms of amplitude) propagation of the E and B aspects of an e.m. wave, where one aspect does not seem to lead the other. What I have a hard time picturing though is how, for example, in shoving a magnet through a wire one does not cause an emf, or circulating E-field, but rather that the emf, or new E-field, happens at the same time as the changing magnetic field? Under the interpretation above, would it be more correct to say that the act of shoving the magnet through the wire-loop itself is the cause, and the effect is two-fold: a changing magnetic field and a new electric field? Either way, hope to learn more as you and others chime in on this concept.
You have the idea. The source of the "action" is a current (or charges). You need to separate in your mind a couple of cases to make it all more clear. Say one has a magnetic field created by a current in a wire (perhaps a solenoid). Faraday found that a current in one wire can induce another current in a second wire. In that case it is a varying current that induces the second current. An investigation of the causality of Maxwell shows that as well. Also a current produces a magnetic field about the current. If the current varies, the magnetic field varies. Now note the important feature here. BOTH the magnetic field AND the induced Electric Field (which is causing the second current) are propagating away from the source current at the speed of light. Now the important feature then is that these two things are EQUALLY "retarded". Hence they happen at the same time. Hence they can not be the cause of each other!

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!
Ben Niehoff
#120
Mar8-10, 03:21 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,587
Quote Quote by bjacoby View Post
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!
The meter will jump twice during this procedure: each time the switch is opened or closed! Remember that flux is the B field enclosed times the area,

[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.
bjacoby
#121
Mar8-10, 03:31 PM
P: 132
Quote Quote by Per Oni View Post
DC stands for Direct Current?

During the time you slide the magnet across the short with the centre divider switch open, there will still be a voltage generated, however with a very much reduced current. The value of this voltage is still U=BLV, where L is the length of the short. In this case the voltage will exist across the open contacts of the switch. Therefore an electric field of E=U/d will be generated, where d is the distance between the contacts. The switch acts now as a (small) capacitor.

No not at all.
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?
I used DC in the sense of Direct Current meaning not varying with time. I purposely used the term "DC" as a reminder that even in permanent magnets it is electron CURRENTS that cause the magnetic field.

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 teeny-tiny 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. 17-3. 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 micro-steps 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.
Ben Niehoff
#122
Mar8-10, 04:04 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,587
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 irregularly-shaped 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.
elect_eng
#123
Mar8-10, 05:12 PM
P: 370
Quote Quote by Ben Niehoff View Post
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.
Excellent! This clears everything up perfectly. I apologize for implying that one must resort to the Loretz force law to explain the Faraday disk. My own opinion was that the disk did not disobey Faraday's law, but that Faraday's Law did not explain the operation. I was wrong about that. This description by Frank Munley makes it crystal clear.

So, in protest to the title of this thread, I'd like to yell out,

"FARADAY's LAW IS TRUE!"
MS La Moreaux
#124
Mar8-10, 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
bjacoby
#125
Mar8-10, 09:25 PM
P: 132
Quote Quote by Ben Niehoff View Post
The meter will jump twice during this procedure: each time the switch is opened or closed! Remember that flux is the B field enclosed times the area,

[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.
Your mathematics is correct it just doesn't apply to the experiment in question! If you open and close the switch the area of the loop most assuredly is changing. But the meter does NOT "twitch". What is missing here is the difference between an EXPANDING loop which changes the flux by changing the area (as talked about in the excellent (but I believe basically incorrect) paper you referenced). If you have a thin wire and pull it out into a large loop you do indeed get a meter movement. The wire thus represents the line integral defining the area where an integration calculates the flux. Hence if you change the area the flux changes. But as Feynman notes in that case the apparatus while moving, is not changing configuration with time. In other words it is not "switching". I can assure you the switched loops, on the other hand, do NOT twitch the meter when switching from one loop size to another. You've got a great theory, but reality does not agree with you.

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!
MS La Moreaux
#126
Mar8-10, 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 counter-examples. 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 string-based 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