Understanding the Flux Rule for Motional EMF?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter aaaa202
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Emf Flux Motional emf
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the flux rule for motional electromotive force (emf), specifically the relationship expressed as dφ/dt = -ε. Participants explore the intuition behind this rule, its proof as presented in a textbook, and the connection to Lenz's law.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the flux rule should be considered intuitive and suggests that Lenz's law provides a qualitative understanding of the rule.
  • Another participant notes that Lenz's law is a qualitative statement of the flux rule, implying that there may not be more depth to it.
  • Concerns are raised about the proof of the flux rule in the textbook, particularly whether it aims to prove the rule itself or merely demonstrate its applicability to loops that do not maintain a fixed shape.
  • There is a suggestion that the proof involves the definition of flux and the Lorentz force law, which are expected to be discussed earlier in the text.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the intuition behind the flux rule and the nature of its proof. There is no consensus on whether the proof is adequately addressing the rule itself or its implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the definitions of flux and the Lorentz force law, indicating that understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping the proof of the flux rule. However, the discussion does not resolve the clarity of the proof or its implications.

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
The flux rule for motional emf can be stated as:

d[itex]\phi[/itex]/dt = -[itex]\epsilon[/itex]

I have some questions regarding this. 1) Should I find this rule intuitive?
And secondly a proof of this rule is given in my book, which I have attached. I don't really understand the idea of the proof - is the idea to proof the above rule or to just proof that if it works, it will do so for loops, which "do not even maintain a fixed shape". Because the words seem to suggest the later but on the other hand that would mean that the above rule is generally unproved in my book.
 

Attachments

  • fluxrule.jpg
    fluxrule.jpg
    30.6 KB · Views: 852
Physics news on Phys.org
aaaa202 said:
The flux rule for motional emf can be stated as:

d[itex]\phi[/itex]/dt = -[itex]\epsilon[/itex]

I have some questions regarding this. 1) Should I find this rule intuitive?[..]
Just answering 1: You may find it intuitive by means of Lenz's law, which is a qualitative version of the above. It has similarity to Newton's third law, in the sense of action is reaction.
 
okay but Lenz' law is just a more qualitative statement of the flux rule - but perhaps there isn't more to it.
What about 2)? That one was more of a puzzle to me.
 
aaaa202 said:
okay but Lenz' law is just a more qualitative statement of the flux rule - but perhaps there isn't more to it.
What about 2)? That one was more of a puzzle to me.
It seems to prove the flux rule from their definition of flux plus the Lorentz force law. Both should appear earlier in the text.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 194 ·
7
Replies
194
Views
23K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K