Induction in an inflating loop in constant B?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on calculating induced voltage in a conductive wire loop moving in a constant magnetic field. One viewpoint argues that since the magnetic field is constant, there is no electric field or voltage induced. However, two methods for calculating induced voltage are presented: one using the magnetic force on charges and the other applying Faraday's law of induction. The debate questions the validity of using Faraday's law in this scenario, as it typically applies to fixed loops with changing magnetic fields. Ultimately, it is suggested that the induced voltage in a moving loop can be understood as resulting from a fictional electric field that performs the same work on a charge.
Lojzek
Messages
246
Reaction score
1
A loop is made from a conductive wire. The wire moves, so the area inside the loop is time dependent: S=S(t)
There is a constant homogeneus magnetic field B directed perpendicular to the wire and we are supposed to calculate induced voltage.

In my opinion there is no electric field and no voltage, since there field B is
constant. However there is a magnetic force experienced by charges moving in magnetic field:

Method 1:

F=e*B*v

If this force is integrated over the loop to gain work on a charge e after 1 circle, we get:

A=-e*B*dS/dt


The proposed solution used Faraday's law of induction:

Method 2:

U=-dfi/dt=-d(B*S)/dt=-B*dS/dt

I think that this is a misuse of the law, since corresponding Maxwell's equation can be
used only for fixed loop, but changing magnetic field. However the work gained by a charge completing one circle is exactly the same as with previous method:

A=e*U=-e*B*dS/dt

My question is:

Is the method 2 really incorrect? If yes, why is the work the same? If no, how do we prove that Faraday's law can be used in case of constant B and changing loop area?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Faraday's works for any change in the flux.
For constant B and changing area, it is often derived for a rectangle in elementary texts.
It is derived for an arbitrary change in the area in more advanced texts.
 
I found some related texts and I hope I understand the problem now: it seems that
in case of the moving loop the "induced voltage" is not an integral of a real electric field, but an integral of a fictional electric field, that would do the same work on a circling charge.
 
I'm working through something and want to make sure I understand the physics. In a system with three wave components at 120° phase separation, the total energy calculation depends on how we treat them: If coherent (add amplitudes first, then square): E = (A₁ + A₂ + A₃)² = 0 If independent (square each, then add): E = A₁² + A₂² + A₃² = 3/2 = constant In three-phase electrical systems, we treat the phases as independent — total power is sum of individual powers. In light interference...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
625