Understanding Induced Current and EMF in Electromagnetic Induction

[jsmith613]

Make sense? I hope I helped.
Claude

How can the polarity suddenly switch direction.. all previous posts seem to suggest the emf CAN exist without the current??

 

[sophiecentaur]

I'm not sure whether this needs clearing up but, for the original falling magnet situation: The RH rule, as we first come to it, is about a wire with two ends across which you measure an emf. When you have a loop or a tube the situation is a bit different. The direction of the induced emf is around the circumference of the loop (a short circuited ring) rather than along the length of the tube (Motion, EMF and Field are all at right angles). The emf and hence the current around the circumference will vary along the length of the tube - having maxima, clockwise and anticlockwise at the places where the poles happen to be passing. The maximum magnitude of the current will depend on the resistivity of the metal tube.

 

[cabraham]

How can the polarity suddenly switch direction.. all previous posts seem to suggest the emf CAN exist without the current??

If the signal generator driving the antenna is ac sine curve, it switches direction every half period. An antenna only works at ac, and high frequency. At dc and/or too low a frequency it is ineffective.

In ac domain, emf CANNOT exist w/o some amount of current. A displacement current exists if the path is open due to capacitance. If the frequency is very low, the current is very low, nanoamp, picoamp, or even less. As frequency increases so does the displacement current. It's called displacement because the path is open, it doesn't circulate in a full loop.

But during the transit through a length of conductor, it behaves just like conduction current. An H field encircles the wire regardless whether it is displacement or conduction current.

An emf induced by a time-changing field is time-changing itself, unless the magnetic field is an infinite ramp, quite rare. The emf is produced by moving charges through the conductor. Lorentz force provides the nmeans of moving said charges. As the charges move, the emf develops. But charges have to move to generate emf, which defines current. To get an emf you need to displace charges which is a current. Again, if the frequency is really tiny, like 0.003 Hz, the current is very small, but the emf wouldn't be without this tiny current.

In time changing conditions, current and voltage cannot exist separately. Likewise for E & H.

Claude

 

[jsmith613]

...

Claude

it seems you missed the point of the question.
I was not referrering to a radio signal
I was referring to the car moving in a magnetic field where the mag field is CONSTANT
hence the cutting of the flux induces emf...surely in this situation no current would flow but an emf would still exits?

 

[sophiecentaur]

the EMF induced in the tube?
if I drop a magnet into the tube for the entire time the magnet is in the tube, won't the net emf be zero and hence our graph would have a curved ends with a long flat bit in between
a little bit (but not exactly like:)

/\_________________
........\/

Ignore the ... they are there just to position the V

(this is an emf-time graph)

I have just re-read this. What did you mean by "in the tube"? The emf will be different at all points on the tube. The Mean EMF (in time and distance) will be zero, of course - or there would be an endless DC component.

We know there is a braking effect (practical evidence) and this 'proves' that the current must be different at all parts of the tube. Why? Because a field that attracts the N pole must be the opposite to a field that attracts the S pole. As it falls, the magnet must be encountering this arrangement of fields all the way down so the induced field must be 'chasing' the magnet and this will involve currents changing (in time and position) as it falls. The EMF to produce these currents must be just right to ensure this happens.

 

[sophiecentaur]

it seems you missed the point of the question.
I was not referrering to a radio signal
I was referring to the car moving in a magnetic field where the mag field is CONSTANT
hence the cutting of the flux induces emf...surely in this situation no current would flow but an emf would still exits?

This is correct but does not contradict anything that has been written. d∅/dt is constant in this case (as the car moves steadily through the field) so the EMF will be constant and no current would flow (load = ∞Ω).
IFFF you actually tried to connect between the ends of your car aerial, to measure or get power, you would be introducing another conductor with an EMF exactly the same as the Aerial so no current would flow. The 'line integral' around the circuit would be zero so your arrangement cannot be used as a source of DC.

 

[jsmith613]

I have just re-read this. What did you mean by "in the tube"? The emf will be different at all points on the tube. The Mean EMF (in time and distance) will be zero, of course - or there would be an endless DC component.

I mean as it is falling through the tube
two currents, in different directions, will be produced
hence cancelling - net emf is zero so graph should look like:

/\_________________
........\/
right??

 

[jsmith613]

This is correct but does not contradict anything that has been written. d∅/dt is constant in this case (as the car moves steadily through the field) so the EMF will be constant and no current would flow (load = ∞Ω).
IFFF you actually tried to connect between the ends of your car aerial, to measure or get power, you would be introducing another conductor with an EMF exactly the same as the Aerial so no current would flow. The 'line integral' around the circuit would be zero so your arrangement cannot be used as a source of DC.

thanks for this :)

 

[sophiecentaur]

I mean as it is falling through the tube
two currents, in different directions, will be produced
hence cancelling - net emf is zero so graph should look like:

/\_________________
........\/
right??

How are these two currents "cancelling"? They are in different places and at anyone time. It's like saying AC 'cancels' because there are as many positives as negatives. I still don't think you have the right picture of what's going on. Currents are flowing all over this tube in different directions and they are all changing in time. There is no one, single, value of current. You could produce a similar effect if your tube were to be replaced by a series of insulated copper rings, fixed one on top of another.

Have you heard of 'eddy currents' which are induced in iron cores of motors and transformers? They are the same phenomenon as in the tube. By laminating the core, you introduce insulating layers between the leaves of the core and eliminate / reduce these eddy currents. If you milled a slot down one side of the tube, the EMFs would still be induced but currents wouldn't flow so the magnet would fall unimpeded.

 

[jsmith613]

How are these two currents "cancelling"? They are in different places and at anyone time. It's like saying AC 'cancels' because there are as many positives as negatives. I still don't think you have the right picture of what's going on. Currents are flowing all over this tube in different directions and they are all changing in time. There is no one, single, value of current. You could produce a similar effect if your tube were to be replaced by a series of insulated copper rings, fixed one on top of another.

Have you heard of 'eddy currents' which are induced in iron cores of motors and transformers? They are the same phenomenon as in the tube. By laminating the core, you introduce insulating layers between the leaves of the core and eliminate / reduce these eddy currents. If you milled a slot down one side of the tube, the EMFs would still be induced but currents wouldn't flow so the magnet would fall unimpeded.

when the magnet falls let's say it falls with north pole first:

the entire magnet is in the tube so:

the bottom of the magnet is increases the flux for the tube (imagine the tube as circlets of wire) beneath it. so a current is induced to repel the magnet (upward). for this to happen it needs to be a north pole so current = anticlockwise

the top of the magnet is falling away and the tube needs to create a north pole (downard) so the current flows clockwise.
thus the NET current is 0 hence the net emf should be zero too, no?

 

[sophiecentaur]

But what do you mean by "net"?

 

[cabraham]

it seems you missed the point of the question.
I was not referrering to a radio signal
I was referring to the car moving in a magnetic field where the mag field is CONSTANT
hence the cutting of the flux induces emf...surely in this situation no current would flow but an emf would still exits?

A car is a conductor. How can an emf exist across the ends of a conductor, or any portion thereof, without current? In order to rearrange charges to obtain emf, the charges must move, which is current. When the charges accumulate at the conductor-air boundary they present an E field which opposes the generated E field. Current will diminish due to the cancellation of E fields. There is a current when the car enters the magnetic field, then another current of opposite polarity when the car exits.

Since the loop is open, there is no sustained conduction current. The key to understanding is to consider all laws, not just Faraday, or Ampere, or Ohm, Lorentz, or CEL (conservation of energy), but all together. All are in effect and are upheld. In order for there to be an emf on the car, charges moved through a finite resistance. Ohm, Ampere, Faraday, Lorentz & CEL all apply here.

Lorentz has not been covered but it applies. An electron in the car body feels a Lorentz force F = -q*(E + (uXB)), where "-q" is the charge on the electron, u is velocity, and E is electric field intensity, B is magnetic flux density. This force results in the electron being moved. That is current. Electrons transit towards one end of the car, holes accumulate at the other end. A potential difference develops due to this charge motion. Charge motion, is of course, referred to as "current". The developed emf is sustained as long as the car is immersed in the magnetic field. The current is not.

The current takes place while the voltage is changing. When the voltage is static, no current exists. Then upon exiting the magnetic field, the current exists as the voltage is decreasing back towards zero. The car is a capacitor.

Pretty straightforward. Anything I missed?

Claude

 

[sophiecentaur]

You are right in saying that it's all the Laws together that should be considered if you want to cover all cases.
I think that the models being used here are too mixed to come to a conclusion. If we're talking about a wire moving through a field then an EMF, initially, will cause some displacement of charges. (If the resistance of the wire were approaching, the current, however, would be near zero but the EMF would be the same. This emf is the sum of all elemental EMFs along the wire and the amount of current flowing will depend upon the capacity between the 'two halves' of the wire and the resistance. Eventually, current will stop and the PD across the ends will reach a steady state. That is the EMF that is referred to when discussing a transformer, for instance and the EMF is there even though the current has stopped flowing. A battery EMF is specifically defined as the PD with no current being taken.
I think we / you have stated all the facts. It remains to explain just how they apply in each new circumstance. There is a bit of chicken and egg with this topic.

 

[cabraham]

You are right in saying that it's all the Laws together that should be considered if you want to cover all cases.
I think that the models being used here are too mixed to come to a conclusion. If we're talking about a wire moving through a field then an EMF, initially, will cause some displacement of charges. (If the resistance of the wire were approaching, the current, however, would be near zero but the EMF would be the same. This emf is the sum of all elemental EMFs along the wire and the amount of current flowing will depend upon the capacity between the 'two halves' of the wire and the resistance. Eventually, current will stop and the PD across the ends will reach a steady state. That is the EMF that is referred to when discussing a transformer, for instance and the EMF is there even though the current has stopped flowing. A battery EMF is specifically defined as the PD with no current being taken.
I think we / you have stated all the facts. It remains to explain just how they apply in each new circumstance. There is a bit of chicken and egg with this topic.

Refer to bold print. I have trouble believing that the displacement of charges is "caused" by the emf. The emf is initially zero. Let's define what we mean by "emf". I assume we mean the potential difference between the front and back of the car, measured by placing voltmeter probes on the front grill, and back trunk lid.

The Lorentz force begins moving charges while the VM still reads zero. After charges reach the trunk and hood, the VM shows non-zero value, increasing as the car further enters the B field. How can the emf be the cause of the displacement current? The emf builds up as a result of charges being displaced. The car is a capacitor. In a capacitor, I leads V, per "Eli the ice man".

I agree with you about the chickens and eggs part. E & B, I & V, under dynamic conditions, cannot exist separately. Only static conditions allow one to exist w/o the other.

In a transformer, powered by an ac source, current never stops at all. As long as a sine curve voltage is at the primary terminals, an exciting current is in the primary, and a displacement current is in the secondary. Even unloaded the secondary has to carry a current. This displacement current is a cosine if the secondary voltage is a sine. It does not stop. An open secondary still has a capacitance.

It cannot be otherwise.

Claude

 

[jsmith613]

But what do you mean by "net"?

well there will be zero overall emf as per the graph?

so the graph would look like:

 

[jsmith613]

...
Claude

thanks for such a brilliant explanation. would it also, then, be correct to say that if the conductor changed speed there would be a current lasting for a short time before dying down (and the emf reamining constant?)

 

[sophiecentaur]

I guess my point is that, even with no wire there, if you move your observation point through the magnetic field then there is an emf. As the resistance is infinite then there is no current but the emf would still be there because the flux is still being cut by your wire probe. Here's the thing, then. If you had two wires of equal dimensions (same capacity) and different resistivities, instantly starting to move at the same speed through the field, what you are implying, I think, is that the rate of change of measured PD wouldn't just be proportional to resistivity (i.e. not proportional to the induced EMF from dΦ/dt). I am implying that it would just be proportional to RC. This all seem like straightforward bookwork and I can't see where the current is necessarily the primary factor. Don't we always say "induced emf" in these problems?

If we're talking in terms of steady state for this wire / car then the EMF / PD will still be there but the current will have stopped flowing long ago. If the EMF were not there, the charge would leak back into place - so it must still be there. (I think that's a QED, actually)

 

[cabraham]

I guess my point is that, even with no wire there, if you move your observation point through the magnetic field then there is an emf. As the resistance is infinite then there is no current but the emf would still be there because the flux is still being cut by your wire probe. Here's the thing, then. If you had two wires of equal dimensions (same capacity) and different resistivities, instantly starting to move at the same speed through the field, what you are implying, I think, is that the rate of change of measured PD wouldn't just be proportional to resistivity (i.e. not proportional to the induced EMF from dΦ/dt). I am implying that it would just be proportional to RC. This all seem like straightforward bookwork and I can't see where the current is necessarily the primary factor. Don't we always say "induced emf" in these problems?

If we're talking in terms of steady state for this wire / car then the EMF / PD will still be there but the current will have stopped flowing long ago. If the EMF were not there, the charge would leak back into place - so it must still be there. (I think that's a QED, actually)

How do you measure said emf with an instrument such as a VM? If there is no wire, how can there be an emf? There is an E field and B field, but for emf to be defined we must provide a specific path. A conductor is the said path in this example, namely the car. Does the car develop current/emf? Yes it does, and it is impossible to have either w/o the other. For the case of a static B field, the current is transient. As far as the emf continuing after the current stopped, that just happens to be a condition associated with this specific example.

If a superconducting closed loop is immersed in a magnetic field, and moved so that induction takes place, then the field is removed, a steady current remains in the loop, dc, with zero voltage/emf.

For an open, only displacement current can exist, but emf can remain indefinitely. For a short circuit, emf is needed during the transient when current is building up, but does not exist for dc steady state conditions.

The fact that the emf in the car case remains after the current has decayed is consistent with capacitive behavior. In a cap, remember that i(t) = C*dv(t)/dt. A steady unchanging v means that i = 0. For inductance, the reverse is true. The steady unchanging emf on the car does not require current to sustain itself, but did require current to establish itself.

As far as "don't we always say 'induced emf'" goes, well, I say induced current, or induced voltage, or induced current/voltage. I acknowledge that both are equally important. To say that emf is primary while current is secondary is a logical contradiction. The emf could not exist unless the Lorentz force first established a current by forcing charges to move.

Since current is absolutely needed to generate the emf, how can it be "secondary". Neither emf nor current is independent of the other. They are each equally as important, no more, no less than the other. To illustrate this, I suggest drawing a picture of the car entering the B field, locating the charges, drawing the Lorentz force vectors, and tracking the electron motion.

At the front grill and back bumper, the charges accumulate and their E field repulses incoming charges. Although the current has decayed, the Lorentz force is still there. It is Lorentz force that maintains the emf w/o the current. Lorentz force drives charges towards the 2 bumpers, and the E field due to charges built up at the bumpers counteracts said Lorentz force, resulting in equilibrium, per Mother Nature's well known tendency.

Anything else that needs to be covered can be discussed as well. I believe I've included all pertinent facts. Comments welcome.

Claude

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think this boils down to how we choose to see things. I am happy with an emf existing even though there is no current flowing. You are happy with the current needing to flow before the emf can be measured. But EMF has units of Joules/Coulomb which is independent of the number of coulombs that have actually flowed (Current times time). I get the same answer no matter how many Coulombs have flowed but you need some current to flow and are bringing in the microscopic (electrons) into your reasoning. That seems to be going somewhere that's not necessary. (Did Maxwell use electrons or even charges with mass?) I do follow what you say, though, and it's quite reasonable.

I say tomayto and you say tomarto.

 

[jsmith613]

I think this boils down to how we choose to see things. I am happy with an emf existing even though there is no current flowing. You are happy with the current needing to flow before the emf can be measured. But EMF has units of Joules/Coulomb which is independent of the number of coulombs that have actually flowed (Current times time). I get the same answer no matter how many Coulombs have flowed but you need some current to flow and are bringing in the microscopic (electrons) into your reasoning. That seems to be going somewhere that's not necessary. (Did Maxwell use electrons or even charges with mass?) I do follow what you say, though, and it's quite reasonable.

I say tomayto and you say tomarto.

just to go back to an earlier question. if the car speeds up will a current be induced for a fraction of a second before the new emf is established?

 

[sophiecentaur]

I dug out my old textbook (Panofski and Phillips) and found this passage, which, to me, suggests that the effect is there with or without a wire being present. That confirms my opinion that the emf is there without any current being needed.

 

[jsmith613]

...

going back to the EMF qustion could you quickly look at post #85 and tell me if the diagram there seems correct

 

[sophiecentaur]

going back to the EMF qustion could you quickly look at post #85 and tell me if the diagram there seems correct

Sorry- I though I'd already replied. Must have killed that window without actually posting. The diagram shows what happens for a coil (not tube) and that the peak EMF is greater when the magnet is falling faster. The area under both of those humps would be the same aamof. There is no current (scope is high impedance) so virtually no braking effect in this case.

Are you confusing the two situations or is this just 'for interest'?

 

[jsmith613]

Sorry- I though I'd already replied. Must have killed that window without actually posting. The diagram shows what happens for a coil (not tube) and that the peak EMF is greater when the magnet is falling faster. The area under both of those humps would be the same aamof. There is no current (scope is high impedance) so virtually no braking effect in this case.

Are you confusing the two situations or is this just 'for interest'?

most probably confusing the two!
i would have thought that it would be the same in both so simple said tube!

in the tube I would therefore presume the copper circlets are independent of each other. therefore the currents coult not cancel
here however it is one long coil so they are all interlinked and the two opposite currents DO cancel
right?

 

[sophiecentaur]

most probably confusing the two!
i would have thought that it would be the same in both so simple said tube!

in the tube I would therefore presume the copper circlets are independent of each other. therefore the currents coult not cancel
here however it is one long coil so they are all interlinked and the two opposite currents DO cancel
right?

I really don't understand what picture you have in your head. What currents "cancel". You are not using terms that I can understand. Do you mean that the mean current is zero?
When the magnet falls through a copper tube the currents are very high and vary, as I have already said, over time and distance.

 

[jsmith613]

I really don't understand what picture you have in your head. What currents "cancel". You are not using terms that I can understand. Do you mean that the mean current is zero?
When the magnet falls through a copper tube the currents are very high and vary, as I have already said, over time and distance.

hold on I will post a diagram...

see page 7...

 

[jsmith613]

see diagram

 

[cabraham]

I dug out my old textbook (Panofski and Phillips) and found this passage, which, to me, suggests that the effect is there with or without a wire being present. That confirms my opinion that the emf is there without any current being needed.

I disagree. The author presents his claim that E and B are there with or without a conductor. I agree with him so far. Then he writes the closed path line integral of E*dl, which is voltage, and relates it to B and area. But the integral E*dl, requires a specific path to have a value. It is a closed loop integral.

If the voltage is there in an imaginary closed loop in space, will charges in free space circulate in said loop? I don't think so. If a voltmeter, VM, were to have its probes placed in 2 points in empty space, would it read a non-zero voltage in the presence of a non-zero E field? What do you think?

The author correctly points out that E & B are there even in empty space. He then concludes that emf which is the integral of E*dl, must also be non-zero, which makes me wonder. In a physical conductor immersed in said fields, charges would move. In space they move, but not in a closed loop like they would in a conductor. Lorentz force is there, and the charges in free space do indeed move, but the path changes. The emf due to varying fields is path dependent. Since the path taken by free electrons in space differs from that taken in a conductor, the voltages are not equal.

To say that a voltage exists in free space can be supported by Maxwell et al. But I don't think it is the same value as the case w/ a conductor because electrons would move along a different path, and voltage value is path dependent. A CRT is an example. Two parallel plates have a charge, and an electron beam is projected between the plates. The electrons get attracted towards the positive plate and away from the negative plate.

In free space, at every point between the plates, it is safe to say there is indeed a potential. But the E field here is static. I've already stated that under static conditions, current can exist w/o voltage and vice-versa. This does not negate my earlier statement involving dynamic conditions.

Same problem, but the field between the plates is ac, sinusoidal for example. The sine curve plate voltage results in a sine curve E field. There is indeed a potential in between the plates, sine curve in nature. But the plates carry a current to maintain the sine E field. Free electrons in between the plates move back and forth, which is ac current.

Dynamic conditions, i.e. time-chaning, are different than static. No ac voltage exists w/o ac current. That is my point. In free space there can be a voltage w/o current, but only static, not dynamic.

As far as joules per coulomb goes, the voltage across the car, bumperto bumper, is the joules per coulomb of charge transported from bumper to bumper. If a resistor were connected across the bumpers, large in value so that its own current generates a B field too small to cancel the external B field, then the voltage is equal to the joules of energy per coulombs transported through said resistor.

Is this clear? Do I need further clarification? BR.

Claude

 

[BruceW]

hmm. If we define emf as the closed-loop integral of E*dL then of course it is possible for an emf to exist even though there are no charges or currents.

 

[cabraham]

hmm. If we define emf as the closed-loop integral of E*dL then of course it is possible for an emf to exist even though there are no charges or currents.

But it becomes indeterminate. What is the value? What is the path of integration? When a conductor is present there is a definite path of integration meaning that we can compute a specific value. Without a conductor where is the path? How can we transport a charge along an arbitrary path without a conductor in place? Think about what you're saying.

Also, I've already explained that emf can exist w/o current, but only in the static case. For the dynamic case it can't happen. Feel free to offer an example if you believe currents and voltages can exist separately under dynamic conditions.

Claude

 

[sophiecentaur]

I disagree. The author presents his claim that E and B are there with or without a conductor. I agree with him so far. Then he writes the closed path line integral of E*dl, which is voltage, and relates it to B and area. But the integral E*dl, requires a specific path to have a value. It is a closed loop integral.

If the voltage is there in an imaginary closed loop in space, will charges in free space circulate in said loop? I don't think so. If a voltmeter, VM, were to have its probes placed in 2 points in empty space, would it read a non-zero voltage in the presence of a non-zero E field? What do you think?

The author correctly points out that E & B are there even in empty space. He then concludes that emf which is the integral of E*dl, must also be non-zero, which makes me wonder. In a physical conductor immersed in said fields, charges would move. In space they move, but not in a closed loop like they would in a conductor. Lorentz force is there, and the charges in free space do indeed move, but the path changes. The emf due to varying fields is path dependent. Since the path taken by free electrons in space differs from that taken in a conductor, the voltages are not equal.

To say that a voltage exists in free space can be supported by Maxwell et al. But I don't think it is the same value as the case w/ a conductor because electrons would move along a different path, and voltage value is path dependent. A CRT is an example. Two parallel plates have a charge, and an electron beam is projected between the plates. The electrons get attracted towards the positive plate and away from the negative plate.

In free space, at every point between the plates, it is safe to say there is indeed a potential. But the E field here is static. I've already stated that under static conditions, current can exist w/o voltage and vice-versa. This does not negate my earlier statement involving dynamic conditions.

Same problem, but the field between the plates is ac, sinusoidal for example. The sine curve plate voltage results in a sine curve E field. There is indeed a potential in between the plates, sine curve in nature. But the plates carry a current to maintain the sine E field. Free electrons in between the plates move back and forth, which is ac current.

Dynamic conditions, i.e. time-chaning, are different than static. No ac voltage exists w/o ac current. That is my point. In free space there can be a voltage w/o current, but only static, not dynamic.

As far as joules per coulomb goes, the voltage across the car, bumperto bumper, is the joules per coulomb of charge transported from bumper to bumper. If a resistor were connected across the bumpers, large in value so that its own current generates a B field too small to cancel the external B field, then the voltage is equal to the joules of energy per coulombs transported through said resistor.

Is this clear? Do I need further clarification? BR.

Claude

I think it would because there's a field there. A probe (infinite imdedance voltmeter) would register the appropriate voltage for the field strength and its length.

Because they have mass they would not follow any resulting curved field. I think introducing electrons is really a bad idea for this reason. It's only when in a metal (with almost zero speed,) that electrons will follow curved E field lines.
But DC is only the limit of decreasing frequency there can hardly be a step change in what happens when the current is not changing (in any case, there is no such thing as real DC because it was switched on at some time and will be switched off)

A resistor would also have an equal and opposite emf induced in it so no current would flow. I made this point before in a different context.

 

[cabraham]

I think it would because there's a field there. A probe (infinite imdedance voltmeter) would register the appropriate voltage for the field strength and its length.

Because they have mass they would not follow any resulting curved field. I think introducing electrons is really a bad idea for this reason. It's only when in a metal (with almost zero speed,) that electrons will follow curved E field lines.
But DC is only the limit of decreasing frequency there can hardly be a step change in what happens when the current is not changing (in any case, there is no such thing as real DC because it was switched on at some time and will be switched off)

A resistor would also have an equal and opposite emf induced in it so no current would flow. I made this point before in a different context.

Well, let's clarify what I mean by "current must exist when a dynamic voltage exists". Fields are by their very nature distributed throughout space. An E field generated by a circuit, extends towards infinity, likewise for H. Likewise, the integral of E*dl can be defined for any path in space.

In order for a dynamic E/H to exist, there must be a current somewhere, but not everywhere. This is important. Take a 2 wire transmission line. An E field exists between the wires, plus some fringing, and the H field encircles each wire, extending towards infinity. An E field exists in the space between the 2 wires. But the current is confined to the interior of the 2 wires.

Thus we can state that even under dynamic conditions, that if we confine our region of examination to a space in between the 2 wires, but excluding both wires, that we have E & H field present in said region. We can integrate around a closed path that does not include either wire or portion thereof. Hence one can say that there is a field and an emf in this narrow spatial region, and at the same time without a current. But remember that fields are omnipresent, but current is confined to a locale.

Outside of the wires, the influence of the current is felt in the form of fields, although the current is contained wholly within the wires. So a clarification is in order. An ac voltage in a region of space, requires the existence of ac current, but not necessarily in the same region in space. Obviously current is not present in every point in the universe, whereas E & H fields are.

Do you see what I'm getting at? In a specific spatial volume we have a dynamic E & H, but there is no current present in said volume. But there is a current nearby in the 2 wires. This current is what makes E & H possible. The emf is the integral of E over a specific closed path. But E cannot be unless current is present somewhere, but not necessarily in the region in question. The current in the 2 wire t-line is what gives rise to the proagation of E & H. That is my point. Since current is confined to a narrow region in space, while E, H, and emf are defined everywhere, most closed regions in space have E, H, & emf, without a current in the enclosed region.

I guess I should state my point as follows. A dynamic emf somewhere in space cannot exist unless there is also a current, but not necessarily in the same spatial region. Hopefully we can all agree on that.

As far as the probe registering the right voltage, I say wait a minute. The voltage value is path dependent. The voltage value displayed on the infinite impedance VM would depend on how the leads are arranged. In free space with dynamic fields present, the emf from point a to point b, is path dependent. Re-arrange the voltmeter leads and the displayed reading changes.

So in order to define the emf, one must configure the leads along a specific path in question. But in doing so we have introduced conductors, i.e. the test probe leads, into the picture. Like I said, attempting to define a free space emf w/o conductors is arbitrary and ambiguous. Frankly, it is pretty arbitrary to say that a region in space has an emf w/o defining a conductor with a specific shape.

I believe I've supported my position with solid facts. Anything unclear can be discussed further.

Claude

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think we are going round in circles here and I wonder how you have arrived at some of your opinions. I am very rusty about a lot of this but, when I re-read textbooks, it usually makes sense.

Regarding my high impedance probe. It takes the form of the shortest 'electric dipole' you can get away with and the smallest meter, in situ. Lead lengths are not considered here, although, connecting to a larger meter with a twisted wire feed at right angles to the conductor shouldn't affect things.

But I'm afraid we have hijacked this thread, which was initially about a more mundane problem, if I remember right.

 

[jsmith613]

I think we are going round in circles here and I wonder how you have arrived at some of your opinions. I am very rusty about a lot of this but, when I re-read textbooks, it usually makes sense.

Regarding my high impedance probe. It takes the form of the shortest 'electric dipole' you can get away with and the smallest meter, in situ. Lead lengths are not considered here, although, connecting to a larger meter with a twisted wire feed at right angles to the conductor shouldn't affect things.

But I'm afraid we have hijacked this thread, which was initially about a more mundane problem, if I remember right.

yes
despite how interesting your discussion is..it goes right over my head
I hate to kill a party but I was wondering if we could return to my question post #97
it is the diagram explaining what i was talking about

although I may have cracked it...I think what I am getting at is actually the NET emf is zero but a current still flows...is this a more accurate description of what is going on?

 

[sophiecentaur]

see diagram

This is your set up (just as I imagined) but I want to know where these currents you refer to are flowing (as you see it). This must involve you putting some arrows with labels on that diagram. I still can't see how you are thinking with this.