Need help with a thought experiment about a Faraday generator

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a thought experiment involving a Faraday generator and the implications of using multiple MOSFETs to simulate the action of a rotating brush without physical movement. The original poster understands the principles of Lenz's law and current generation but questions the feasibility of generating energy through rapid switching of MOSFETs around a stationary disc. A key point raised is that simply switching the MOSFETs does not create a Lorentz force on the charges in the disc, as they are not moving through the magnetic field, which is essential for current generation. The conclusion emphasizes that this method would not yield additional energy and does not violate fundamental physics laws. Understanding the necessity of charge movement in a magnetic field is crucial to resolving the paradox presented.
girts
Messages
185
Reaction score
22
Hi, I arrived at a paradox today which I cannot explain myself. I was watching some physics videos on youtube and among them some were about lenz law and faraday disc workings.
Now I know and understand the classical examples of why there is current generated when the magnet moves together with the disc and otherwise, I can even understand that there is also current generated if the disc, magnet stay stationary but only the current collecting brushes are moved, and then even just one of them - the perimeter outer one as the one on the rotor shaft can be left stationary since at the midpoint of the disc there is no force on the electrons and then the force increases as we move more to the perimeter.

So technically if we take the load and the perimeter brush, we can rotate the perimeter brush around the disc perimeter or circumference and leave the other brush at the center stationary and we would have current through our load , because as we move the outer brush an imaginative wire is dragged around a uniform B field which exerts a force on the electrons in the wire or in this case in the shortest path between the middle of the disc and the outer circumference brush.
Now I would like to explain the part which I don't understand and which I though up myself today.
What happens if we substitute the circumference brush contact with multiple closely spaced individual contacts that are attached to an array of switches (MOSFETS) and now we attach the mosfets to a driver signal which makes them turn on and off one after another so that they turn on and off going in a circular path around the disc, we would switch them on and off in such a manner that at all times there is atleast two mosfets switched on simultaneously and as the previous one is switched off the next one after the one that is still on is switched on.
This action would essentially resemble a carbon contact brush moving around the disc circumference only here there would be no physical movement, but still our imaginative wire which is the shortest path of resistance between the center and the rim would be there formed through the constant switching of the mosfets.

The problem here is that switching mosfets on and off requires very little power compared to the power generated in a rotating copper disc in a uniform B field so this would imply that we could get extra energy out and essentially brake some fundamental laws of physics, so please explain me the best you can why this doesn't work, I'm really curious where my thinking goes black here?thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
Physics news on Phys.org
The issue is in this statement
girts said:
So technically if we take the load and the perimeter brush, we can rotate the perimeter brush around the disc perimeter or circumference and leave the other brush at the center stationary and we would have current through our load
This will not generate a current since the charges in the disk are not moving through the magnetic field and thus experience no Lorentz force.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
557
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
13K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K