Recent content by MS La Moreaux

What math? All the math that relates to this case is above. It is not about math. There is no problem with the math. I believe that we should all agree that the math is correct.

How are they conflicting? They are two principles both claiming to be responsible for the emf. That is equivalent to two people claiming to have authored a book, not being coauthors. I certainly believe that they are independent. One is based upon the definition of the magnetic field. I do...

Let me restate the problem. We have a circuit with an emf. We know the correct value of the emf. But there are two independent, conflicting, explanations for the emf. It seems obvious to me that one of them has to be wrong.

Yes, thank you Drakkith.

The LaTex guide states that I can practice using the "Preview" button. This button did not work for me. I did not want to post something using LaTex without seeing what it looks like. Math is not physics. Physics cannot be understood only in math terms. It involves concepts which can be...

Thank you berkeman for the LaTex and the diagram. I was unable to practice LaTex as described in the LaTex guide. Physicists seem to have trouble distinguishing math from physics. There is no issue with the math. The issue is with its interpretation. Here we have two identical results from...

Faraday's Law is emf = - d(phi)/dt = lvB, where l = length of the moving wire, v = its speed, phi = the magnetic flux linking the circuit, and B = the magnetic field intensity The motional emf is given by emf = lvB. The wire is moved by an external mechanical force. The number of magnetic...

Visualize a rectangular bare wire circuit with one side loose so that it can slide along the adjacent sides and thereby change the size of the circuit. There is a static magnetic field orthogonal to the plane of the circuit and linking the circuit. There will be a motional emf in the moving...

I was not asking what the induced emf was.

Thanks for the great diagram. You are thinking correctly. Upon further reflection, I was able to answer my question. There is an infinite number of simultaneous nonconductive portions of the closed path which includes the wire. As the magnet moves, it crosses one after another. Sometimes...

The laboratory frame. No, relative motion is not what matters. Change of Relative to the laboratory frame. Relative motion is not what counts. The Maxwell-Faraday Law does not address motion of the closed path.

When the magnet is situated so that the nonconductive part of the closed path passes through the hole in the magnet, the magnetic flux of the magnet links the closed path. When the magnet moves so that the portion of it that was inside the closed path crosses the closed path and ends up outside...

The wire segment does not move. How can I be any clearer?

Obviously, your level of understanding is not sufficient.

Yes. Motional emf is never the result of a flux change.