Contradiction in formula for motional EMF

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the apparent contradiction in the formula for motional electromotive force (EMF) when applied to a rotating disk of radius 'a'. The formula is given as $$\oint({\bf{v}}\times{\bf{B}})d{\bf{l}}=-\frac{d}{dt}\int{{\bf{B}}\cdot{\bf{\hat{n}}}da}$$. The calculations reveal that using the velocity and magnetic field yields $$\frac{1}{2}B\omega a^2$$, while applying the double integral approach results in $$-\frac{1}{2}B\omega a^2$$, highlighting a sign discrepancy. The discussion concludes that the orientation of the area element 'da' must be considered, particularly noting that for a counterclockwise rotation, 'da' should indeed be negative.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electromagnetism concepts, specifically motional EMF.
  • Familiarity with vector calculus, including cross products and integrals.
  • Knowledge of rotational dynamics and angular velocity.
  • Basic comprehension of magnetic fields and their interactions with moving charges.
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of motional EMF in different geometries, focusing on rotating systems.
  • Study the implications of orientation in surface integrals in electromagnetism.
  • Explore the Feynman Lectures on Physics, particularly the section on electromagnetism for deeper insights.
  • Investigate the mathematical treatment of vector fields and their physical interpretations in rotating frames.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying electromagnetism and rotational dynamics, as well as educators seeking to clarify the concept of motional EMF in practical applications.

masteralien
Messages
36
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
There seems to be a contradiction in the sign of the motional EMF for a spinning disk depending in the formula used
The formula for motional EMF is
$$\oint({\bf{v}}\times{\bf{B}})d{\bf{l}}=-\frac{d}{dt}\int{{\bf{B}}\cdot{\bf{\hat{n}}}da}$$However applying this for a rotating disk of radius a there seems to be a sign contradiction
$${\bf{v}}\times{\bf{B}}=\omega s{\bf{\hat{\varphi}}}\times B{\bf{\hat{z}}}=B\omega s {\bf{\hat{s}}}$$

$$\int^{a}_0{B\omega s}ds=\frac{1}{2}B\omega a^2$$Now doing it with the Double Integral by moving the derivative inside
$$
-\frac{d}{dt}\int^{2\pi}_0\int^{a}_0{Bsdsd\varphi}$$

$$\\\frac{d\varphi}{dt}=\omega$$

$$\\-\int^{a}_0{B\omega sds}=-\frac{1}{2}B\omega a^2$$

These expressions are similar but have the opposite sign why is this.

My question is why is there this contradiction here did I do something wrong like these formulas should be the same.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I take your OP illustrated in https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_17.html as 

1702169651553.png


Where is the area a or da of your RHS in this figure ?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K