Voltage drop across ideal solenoidal inductor

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the voltage drop across an ideal solenoidal inductor within a simple LCR circuit, exploring the implications of Faraday's law and Lenz's law in this context. Participants examine the mathematical treatment of the electric field and the path integral involved in calculating voltage drop, while also addressing the complexities of the solenoid's geometry.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a solenoid configuration and attempts to calculate the voltage drop using the path integral of the electric field, leading to a negative result that confuses them.
  • Another participant points out the need for a closed path for integration and questions the complexity of the surface for flux calculation in relation to the solenoid.
  • A later reply suggests simplifying the problem by using a flat loop of wire instead of the solenoid, indicating that this might clarify the situation.
  • Another participant agrees with the suggestion to simplify and mentions that using Lenz's law instead of Faraday's law might be an approximation due to the solenoid's geometry.
  • One participant proposes considering a stack of flat loops as a potential method to analyze the voltage drop along the solenoidal path.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate method for calculating the voltage drop, with some advocating for simplification while others maintain the original approach. There is no consensus on the best way to resolve the confusion regarding the voltage drop across the solenoid.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to the assumptions made about the solenoid's geometry and the mathematical treatment of the electric field and path integral. The complexity of the surface for flux calculation remains unresolved.

genxium
Messages
137
Reaction score
2
First by ideal I mean zero resistance. I tried to verify Faraday's law in simple LCR circuit but ran into some conflicting results. Though the description below will be a little verbose, the configuration for this problem is extremely simple: assume that I put a solenoid ##\left\{\begin{array}{c} x(\tau) = r_0 \cdot cos (\omega \cdot \tau) \\ y(\tau) = r_0 \cdot sin (\omega \cdot \tau) \\ z(\tau) = v \cdot \tau \end{array}\right. ## in a 3D Cartesian coordinate. Given 2 points ##a, b## on this solenoid where ##a## corresponds to ##\tau=0## and ##b## corresponds to ##\tau=T##(large enough to contain more than 1 turn). All constants are positive if not otherwise specified.

If a current ##I## flows in direction ##a \rightarrow b## then it yields a ##\textbf{B}## field to the ##z_+## direction. Now assume that ##\frac{\partial I}{\partial t} > 0##, according to Lenz's law, I shall expect the inductive ##\textbf{E}## field circulates clockwisely viewed in direction ##z_+ \rightarrow z_-##, i.e. ##\textbf{E}(\textbf{r}) = |E(\textbf{r})| \cdot sin\theta \cdot \hat{\textbf{x}} + (-|E(\textbf{r})| \cdot cos\theta) \cdot \hat{\textbf{y}}## where ##\theta## is the angle subtended by ##\textbf{r}## counter-clockwisely with respect to ##x-axis##.

I suppose that the voltage DROP from a to b is positive in this case, i.e. ## \int_0^T \textbf{E} \cdot d \textbf{l} > 0##, however the path integral

## \int_0^T \textbf{E} \cdot d \textbf{l}##
##= \int_0^T -|E| r_0 \omega \cdot sin\theta \cdot sin(\omega \tau) - |E| r_0 \omega \cdot cos\theta \cdot cos(\omega \tau) \cdot d\tau ##
##= \int_0^T -|E| r_0 \omega \cdot [cos(\omega \tau) cos\theta + sin(\omega \tau) sin\theta] \cdot d\tau##
##= \int_0^T -|E| r_0 \omega \cdot cos(\omega \tau - \theta) \cdot d\tau##
##= -T \cdot |E| r_0 \omega < 0##

where use has been made of ##\theta = \omega \cdot \tau## at every point on the path and ##d\textbf{l} = dx \cdot \hat{\textbf{x}} + dy \cdot \hat{\textbf{y}} + dz \cdot \hat{\textbf{z}}##. I checked the calculation for several times but still got the same result. This is confusing me badly, is anyone willing to help?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you use t both for time and as parameter for the solenoid shape? That is confusing.
 
mfb said:
Do you use t both for time and as parameter for the solenoid shape? That is confusing.

Sorry for that :( I've updated the notations
 
First, the path that you integrate over needs to be a closed path. This one is not.

Second, the surface over which you calculate the flux must be bounded by the loop. For a solenoid that is a very complicated surface, I am not at all sure how you would calculate that.

I would recommend simplifying a lot. Use a single flat loop of wire, and go from there.
 
DaleSpam said:
First, the path that you integrate over needs to be a closed path. This one is not.

Second, the surface over which you calculate the flux must be bounded by the loop. For a solenoid that is a very complicated surface, I am not at all sure how you would calculate that.

I would recommend simplifying a lot. Use a single flat loop of wire, and go from there.

@mfb gave me satisfying answers about a flat loop in this thread. I agree that the surface over which the flux is calculated is complicated thus when reasoning the direction of the inductive ##E## field I used Lenz's Law instead of Faraday's Law. This is a method I learned in high school and I think it's an approximation regarding that each turn of the solenoid is approximately parallel to the ##XY## plane, i.e. ##v## is small in ##z(\tau) = v \cdot \tau##.

If the math cannot be simplified for the solenoid, is there any other way to show that whether the voltage drops or increases from a to b along the solenoidal path?
 
If you have already done a flat loop then the easiest thing will be to consider a stack of several flat loops. Use the contour of one loop and the surface bounded by that loop.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K