Counterexample to the Poynting theorem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proposed counterexample to the Poynting theorem involving a rectangular toroid ferrite with capacitor plates, questioning the implications of the Poynting vector in a scenario without free current and constant electromagnetic energy. Participants explore the validity of this counterexample and its relation to electromagnetic theory.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a scenario involving a toroidal ferrite and capacitor plates, suggesting it violates the Poynting theorem due to the Poynting vector's behavior.
  • Another participant speculates that the Poynting vector may only apply to propagating electromagnetic waves, implying that the lack of a propagating wave could be relevant.
  • A different participant references Feynman’s work, arguing that the energy flow is circulating and thus does not constitute a counterexample to the theorem.
  • Concerns are raised about the accuracy of the original problem statement or analysis, with a call for diagrams or mathematical proof to support claims.
  • Some participants assert that the Poynting vector is zero in the described configuration, questioning the validity of the counterexample.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of a toroidal wound solenoid carrying DC current as a related example, suggesting it aligns with the original scenario.
  • One participant emphasizes the impossibility of a configuration satisfying Maxwell’s equations while violating the Poynting theorem, seeking clarification on the proposed configuration's compliance with these equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the validity of the counterexample to the Poynting theorem, with no consensus reached on the interpretation of the scenario or its implications.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the assumptions made in the proposed configuration and its compliance with Maxwell’s equations. The discussion highlights the complexity of the relationship between the Poynting vector and the described electromagnetic setup.

goran d
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
The counter-example is as follows: We have a rectangular toroid ferrite(ring ferrite), magnetized in a closed loop around the ring. We put capacitor plates on top and bottom surfaces, with suitable direction. Now the Poynting vector points inwards or outwards. We look at a cylindrical surface passing through the middle of the thickness of the ring. There is surface integral of the Poynting vector! But there is no free current, and electromagnetic energy is constant. Which seems to violate the Poynting theorem. Any exmplanation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Very clever ! Just a guess=I'm no expert on the topic, is that the Poynting vector applies to electromagnetic wave propagation, and here there is no propagating wave.
 
Feynman talks about just this case. See Figure 27-6 in the attached link. What you have is a circulating energy flow. I think you have no way to prove that electromagnetic energy is not circulating around the ferrite ring, so it is not really a counterexample.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link
goran d said:
Which seems to violate the Poynting theorem.

That means either that your statement of the problem is wrong, or the analysis is wrong, or that you may misunderstand Poynting's Theorum.

Either post a link to your source, or show diagrams and your math coming to that conclusion. Otherwise, this thread may be deleted.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale and berkeman
Here is a diagram of what I mean by this description.
 

Attachments

anorlunda said:
or that you may misunderstand Poynting's Theorum.

It can't be that! It's a paradox, I tell you! A paradox!

As drawn, the Poynting vector is zero. The E field in a conductor is zero and the B field, as drawn, does not leave the iron.

I fear the next step will be the Yeahbuts. I stipulate that had he asked a different question he would get a different answer. But for what he actually drew, S is zero.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
It can't be that! It's a paradox, I tell you! A paradox!

As drawn, the Poynting vector is zero. The E field in a conductor is zero and the B field, as drawn, does not leave the iron.

I fear the next step will be the Yeahbuts. I stipulate that had he asked a different question he would get a different answer. But for what he actually drew, S is zero.

Ferrites are typically non-conductive, or at least very resistive. So I don't think you can conclude that E=0.
 
The case of a toroidal wound solenoid, without any core, carrying a DC current would follow the diagram of the OP, and would illustrate what the OP was trying to show.
 
Charles Link said:
he case of a toroidal wound solenoid, without any core, carrying a DC current

Our very first Yeahbut!
 
  • #10
goran d said:
Here is a diagram of what I mean by this description.
It appears that you have ignored what @phyzguy posted, and have not read his link... That's not conducive to a good discussion...
phyzguy said:
Feynman talks about just this case. See Figure 27-6 in the attached link. What you have is a circulating energy flow. I think you have no way to prove that electromagnetic energy is not circulating around the ferrite ring, so it is not really a counterexample.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link
  • #11
It is not possible for a source/field configuration to both satisfy Maxwell’s equations and violate Poynting’s theorem. However, I must admit that in this case it isn’t clear to me which is the problem.

@goran d can you show that your proposed configuration satisfies Maxwell’s equations?
 
  • #12
Dale said:
It is not possible for a source/field configuration to both satisfy Maxwell’s equations and violate Poynting’s theorem. However, I must admit that in this case it isn’t clear to me which is the problem.

@goran d can you show that your proposed configuration satisfies Maxwell’s equations?
In the "link" supplied by @phyzguy in post 3, Feynman basically writes off the dilemma posed by the OP as a non-issue.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
12K
Replies
2
Views
3K