#### olgerm

Gold Member
There is a distinct physical effect in the rotational case which cannot be ignored.
This was not about disc breaking scenario, but about (rotational) faraday generator, when brushes rotate together with disc.

#### olgerm

Gold Member
How exactly depends on details (shape of pieces, properties of the material etc), but generally, EMF would smoothly go to zero if the disc breaks.

#### greswd

This was not about disc breaking scenario, but about (rotational) faraday generator, when brushes rotate together with disc.
I wasn't referring to the disc-breaking scenario. Also, I said that brushes or no brushes, the disc gets polarized.

#### greswd

How exactly depends on details (shape of pieces, properties of the material etc), but generally, EMF would smoothly go to zero if the disc breaks.
That's an interesting assumption. You see, as it breaks, its tangential velocity remains unchanged, and by the Lorentz force law, the force should not change.

#### olgerm

Gold Member
That's an interesting assumption. You see, as it breaks, its tangential velocity remains unchanged, and by the Lorentz force law, the force should not change.
• If pieces are very far EMF is not directed to center of disc, but crosswise to it.
• If distances get bigger polarizing effects get smaller.
• If magnet field is from a magnet behind disc, the B-field applied to pieces is very small, if pieces are far from the magnet.

#### greswd

• If magnet field is from a magnet behind disc, the B-field applied to pieces is very small, if pieces are far from the magnet.
Let's say its a huge magnet, with a wide magnetic field.

• If pieces are very far EMF is not directed to center of disc, but crosswise to it.
• If distances get bigger polarizing effects get smaller.
Then we assume near distances.

#### olgerm

Gold Member
we assume near distances.
after the disc breaks its pieces must get only füther and füther from each other as time passes. EMF is not directed to center of disc, but crosswise to it if time from breaking approaces infinity. polarizing effects lack to exist as time from breaking approaches infinity.

Last edited:

#### olgerm

Gold Member
why is only the angular velocity important when the Lorentz force is dependent on the linear velocity?
linear velocity is not important because if you change frame of reference all $\vec{E}$, $\vec{B}$ and $\vec{v}$ change in manner that frameinvariant quantities remain the same.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying
E,B,v are different in different frames of reference, but meaningful(frame invariant) claims same in all frames of reference. E,B,v are different in frames of reference, where linear generator is in rest and where it is moving, but whether it is generating power or not is same in both frames of reference.U is EMF.
In frame where linear generator is in rest:
$U=\oint(dl*(\vec{E}+\vec{v}\times \vec{B}))=\oint(dl*(\vec{0}+\vec{0}\times \vec{B}))=0$

In frame where linear generator is moving:
$U=\oint(dl*(\vec{E}+\vec{v}\times \vec{B}))=\oint(dl*\vec{E})+\oint(dl*(\vec{v}\times \vec{B}))=$
(because Maxwell's III equation)
$\oint(dl*(\vec{v}\times \vec{B}))-\frac{\partial \oint (dS*\vec{B})}{\partial t}$=
(beacause stokes theorem)
$\oint(dS*(rot(\vec{v}\times \vec{B})-\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}))= \oint(dS*(\vec{v}(\nabla \cdot \vec{B}) - \vec{B}(\nabla \cdot \vec{v}) + (\vec{B}\cdot \nabla)\vec{v} - (\vec{v}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B}-\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}))=$(because according to Maxwells II equation $div(B)=0$)
$\oint(dS*(\vec{B}(\nabla \cdot \vec{v}) + (\vec{B}\cdot \nabla)\vec{v} - (\vec{v}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B}-\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}))=$
(because the idea based on a rigid body moving lineary with constant speed $\forall_i(\frac{\partial v}{\partial x_i}=0)$)
$\oint(dS*(-(\vec{v}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B}-\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}))$
(beacuse we assume that all EM field is created by the magnet and magnetic field is soly determined by position of magnet, $B(t)=f(\vec{X_{magnet}}(t))$ time $\Delta t$ ago was $B(t-\Delta t)=f(\vec{X_{magnet}}(t-\Delta t))=f(\vec{X_{magnet}}(t)-\Delta t*v)$, it must be that $(\vec{v}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B}=\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}$)
$-2*\oint(dS*(\vec{v}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B})$

It should be 0 in both frames of reference, but I probably made a sign error somewhere.

Last edited:

#### artis

if the disc breaks into pieces then each individual piece effectively becomes a small linear faraday generator because even a single electron rotating above a homogeneous B field experiences the Lorentz force and would be deflected sideways and the same thing happens in a conducting element being dragged through a B field at 90 degree angle which is essentially the Faraday disc.

Again the physics to the best of my knowledge does not change whether in the rotational or linear scenario.

#### olgerm

Gold Member
if the disc breaks into pieces then each individual piece effectively becomes a small linear faraday generator because even a single electron rotating above a homogeneous B field experiences the Lorentz force and would be deflected sideways and the same thing happens in a conducting element being dragged through a B field at 90 degree angle which is essentially the Faraday disc.
Again the physics to the best of my knowledge does not change whether in the rotational or linear scenario.
EMF goes smaller and smaller as time passes from the disc break because:
• If pieces are very far EMF is not directed to center of disc, but crosswise to it.
• If distances get bigger polarizing effects get smaller.
• If magnet field is from a magnet behind disc, the B-field applied to pieces is very small, if pieces are far from the magnet.

#### greswd

after the disc breaks its pieces must get only füther and füther from each other as time passes. EMF is not directed to center of disc, but crosswise to it if time from breaking approaces infinity. polarizing effects lack to exist as time from breaking approaches infinity.
But it becomes linear straightaway when it breaks though. Straightaway.

#### greswd

E,B,v are different in different frames of reference, but meaningful(frame invariant) claims same in all frames of reference. E,B,v are different in frames of reference, where linear generator is in rest and where it is moving, but whether it is generating power or not is same in both frames of reference.
But it doesn't explain why use the angular velocity when the LFL depends on linear velocity.

#### greswd

if the disc breaks into pieces then each individual piece effectively becomes a small linear faraday generator because even a single electron rotating above a homogeneous B field experiences the Lorentz force and would be deflected sideways and the same thing happens in a conducting element being dragged through a B field at 90 degree angle which is essentially the Faraday disc.

Again the physics to the best of my knowledge does not change whether in the rotational or linear scenario.
But let's say the conductor and the magnet are moving together, at the same speed.

In the rest frame, no Lorentz force. But in the moving frame, you might expect a Lorentz force. Some people argue that there is an induced electric field that counters the magnetic force in the moving frame.

But then you might wonder why this doesn't apply to the rotational case.

Hence the request for transitional experiments.

#### olgerm

Gold Member
But it becomes linear straightaway when it breaks though. Straightaway.
Yes, but EMF approxes zero over time. Pieces are moving, in this case, relative to magnet. That is why this may produce EMF, but linear generator, where circut moves with magnet would not.

But it doesn't explain why use the angular velocity when the LFL depends on linear velocity.
What is LFL?

But let's say the conductor and the magnet are moving together, at the same speed.
In the rest frame, no Lorentz force. But in the moving frame, you might expect a Lorentz force. Some people argue that there is an induced electric field that counters the magnetic force in the moving frame.
post #68 explains exactly that.

#### greswd

Yes, but EMF approxes zero over time. Pieces are moving, in this case, relative to magnet. That is why this may produce EMF, but linear generator, where circut moves with magnet would not.
But what about the disc getting polarized when disc and magnet rotate together?

What is LFL?
Lorentz Force Law

post #68 explains exactly that.
But the point I'm making is:
But then you might wonder why this doesn't apply to the rotational case.

Hence the request for transitional experiments.

#### olgerm

Gold Member
But what about the disc getting polarized when disc and magnet rotate together?
rotational faraday generator works if disc rotates with magnet. What about it?

But then you might wonder why this doesn't apply to the rotational case.
Because realtions I assumed in post #68 are not valid in rotational case(like $(\vec{v}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B}=\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}$)

#### artis

it doesn't matter whether the magnet is moving together (physically attached to the conductor) or conductor simply moving through a homogeneous B field created by a stationary magnet, as long as the conductor cuts B field lines the result is the same and it's the same for both rotating circular discs as well as flat linearly moving pieces of conductor, same rules apply , in all cases to get useful current there needs to be relative motion between conductor and current pickup circuit.

I feel the OP has some sort of confusion with regards to the matter.

#### olgerm

Gold Member
it doesn't matter whether the magnet is moving together (physically attached to the conductor) or conductor simply moving through a homogeneous B field created by a stationary magnet, as long as the conductor cuts B field lines the result is the same and it's the same for both rotating circular discs as well as flat linearly moving pieces of conductor
If magnet moves lineary together with circuit, then the circuit does not produce EMF.

#### artis

sure , that is what I said , but if magnet moves linearly together with conductor and the circuit that closes the loop moves with a different speed then there is current in the loop, well there should be.

#### greswd

But it doesn't explain why use the angular velocity when the LFL depends on linear velocity.
@olgerm just a reminder, thanks

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving