Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Michael Faraday
21
PARADOXES IN WHICH FARADAYS LAW OF INDUCTION PREDICTS ZERO EMF BUT THERE IS A NON-ZERO EMF
1.2
have worked when either the disc or the magnet was rotated, but not both. Faraday attempted to explain the disagreement with observation by assuming that the magnets eld, complete with its lines of ux, remained stationary as the magnet rotated (a completely accurate picture, but maybe not intuitive in the lines-of-ux model).
In other words, the lines of ux have their own frame of
reference. As we shall see in the next section, modern
physics (since the discovery of the electron) does not need
the lines-of-ux picture and dispels the paradox.
The procedure
1. The magnet is held to prevent it from rotating, while 1.5.1 Using the Lorentz force
the disc is spun on its axis. The result is that the
galvanometer registers a direct current. The appa- See also: Lorentz force law
ratus therefore acts as a generator, variously called
the Faraday generator, the Faraday disc, or the
After the discovery of the electron and the forces that afhomopolar (or unipolar) generator.
fect it, a microscopic resolution of the paradox became
2. The disc is held stationary while the magnet is spun possible. See Figure 1. The metal portions of the apparaon its axis. The result is that the galvanometer reg- tus are conducting, and conne a current due to electronic
motion to within the metal boundaries. All electrons that
isters no current.
move in a magnetic eld experience a Lorentz force of
3. The disc and magnet are spun together. The gal- F = qv B, where v is the velocity of the electrons and
q is the charge on an electron. This force is perpendicvanometer registers a current, as it did in step 1.
ular to both the velocity of the electrons, which is in the
plane of the disc, and to the magnetic eld, which is normal (surface normal) to the disc. An electron at rest in
1.3 Why is this paradoxical?
the frame of the disc moves circularly with the disc relThe experiment is described by some as a paradox as ative to the B-eld, and so experiences a radial Lorentz
it seems, at rst sight, to violate Faradays law of elec- force. In Figure 1 this force (on a positive charge, not
tromagnetic induction, because the ux through the disc an electron) is outward toward the rim according to the
appears to be the same no matter what is rotating. Hence, right-hand rule.
the EMF is predicted to be zero in all three cases of ro- Of course, this radial force, which is the cause of the curtation. The discussion below shows this viewpoint stems rent, creates a radial component of electron velocity, genfrom an incorrect choice of surface over which to calcu- erating in turn its own Lorentz force component that oplate the ux.
poses the circular motion of the electrons, tending to slow
The paradox appears a bit dierent from the lines of the discs rotation, but the electrons retain a component
ux viewpoint: in Faradays model of electromagnetic in- of circular motion that continues to drive the current via
duction, a magnetic eld consisted of imaginary lines of the radial Lorentz force.
magnetic ux, similar to the lines that appear when iron This mechanism agrees with the observations: an EMF is
lings are sprinkled on paper and held near a magnet. The generated whenever the disc moves relative to the magEMF is proposed to be proportional to the rate of cutting netic eld, regardless of how that eld is generated.
lines of ux. If the lines of ux are imagined to originate
in the magnet, then they would be stationary in the frame The use of the Lorentz equation to explain the Faraday
of the magnet, and rotating the disc relative to the magnet, Paradox has led to a debate in the literature as to whether
whether by rotating the magnet or the disc, should pro- or not a magnetic eld rotates with a magnet. Since the
duce an EMF, but rotating both of them together should force on charges expressed by the Lorentz equation depends upon the relative motion of the magnetic eld to
not.
the conductor where the EMF is located it was speculated
that in the case when the magnet rotates with the disk but
a voltage still develops, that the magnetic eld must there1.4 Faradays explanation
fore not rotate with the magnetic material as it turns with
In Faradays model of electromagnetic induction, a circuit no relative motion with respect to the conductive disk.
received an induced current when it cut lines of magnetic However, careful thought showed if the magnetic eld
ux. According to this model, the Faraday disc should was assumed to rotate with the magnet and the magnet
1.5
Modern explanations
rotated with the disk that a current should still be produced, not by EMF in the disk (there is no relative motion
between the disk and magnet) but in the external circuit
linking the brushes[1] which is in fact in relative motion
with respect to the rotating magnet. In fact it was shown
that so long as a current loop was used to measure induced EMFs from the motion of the disk and magnet it is
not possible to tell if the magnetic eld does or does not
rotate with the magnet.
Several experiments have been proposed using electrostatic measurements or electron beams to resolve the
issue, but apparently none have been successfully performed to date.
However, In case 2, since there is no current observed
the magnetic eld did not rotate with the rotating magnet.
1.5.2
E =
dB
d
=
dt
dt
dA B(r, t) ,
(t)
E =
dB
dA
R2 d
R2
=B
=B
=B
,
dt
dt
2 dt
2
where B is the ux, and d A is a vector element of This ux-cutting result for EMF can be compared to calarea of a moving surface (t) bounded by the loop around culating the work done per unit charge making an innitesimal test charge traverse the hypothetical line using
which the EMF is to be found.
the Lorentz force / unit charge at radius r, namely |v B
How can this law be connected to the Faraday disc gener| = B v = B r :
ator, where the ux linkage appears to be just the B-eld
multiplied by the area of the disc?
R
One approach is to dene the notion of rate of change
R2
drBr =
B ,
of ux linkage by drawing a hypothetical line across the E =
2
0
disc from the brush to the axle and asking how much ux
linkage is swept past this line per unit time. See Figure which is the same result.
2. Assuming a radius R for the disc, a sector of disc with
The above methodology for nding the ux cut by the circentral angle has an area:
cuit is formalized in the ux law by properly treating the
time derivative of the bounding surface ( t ). Of course,
the time derivative of an integral with time dependent
R2 ,
A=
limits is not simply the time derivative of the integrand
2
42
PARADOXES IN WHICH FARADAYS LAW OF INDUCTION PREDICTS NON-ZERO EMF BUT THERE IS A ZERO EMF
alone, a point often forgotten; see Leibniz integral rule tation of the magnet and the disc is the same as rotating
and Lorentz force.
the disc and keeping the magnet stationary. The crucial
In choosing the surface ( t ), the restrictions are that (i) relative motion is that of the disk and the return path, not
it has to be bounded by a closed curve around which the of the disk and the magnet.
EMF is to be found, and (ii) it has to capture the relative
motion of all moving parts of the circuit. It is emphatically not required that the bounding curve corresponds to
a physical line of ow of the current. On the other hand,
induction is all about relative motion, and the path emphatically must capture any relative motion. In a case like
Figure 1 where a portion of the current path is distributed
over a region in space, the EMF driving the current can
be found using a variety of paths. Figure 2 shows two
possibilities. All paths include the obvious return loop,
but in the disc two paths are shown: one is a geometrically simple path, the other a tortuous one. We are free
to choose whatever path we like, but a portion of any acceptable path is xed in the disc itself and turns with the
disc. The ux is calculated though the entire path, return
loop plus disc segment, and its rate-of change found.
dW = dF dr
If we plug in what we previously found for dF we get:
dW = (IdlB) dr
The area covered by the displacement of the conductor is:
Circuit for Tilley experiment.
0
=
I1 I2
4
I
C1
C2
0
B2 =
I2
4
I
C2
(dl2 r21 )
2
r21
I
dl1 B2
F21 = I1
C1
dB = V dt
Furthermore, we now see that this is only true if dW is
nonvanishing. Meaning, Faradays Law is only valid if
work is performed in bringing about the change in ux.
3 See also
Faradays law of induction
Lorentz force
Moving magnet and conductor problem
5 FURTHER READING
References
[1] A. G. Kelly, Monographs 5 & 6 of the Institution of Engineers of Ireland, 1998, ISBN 1-898012-37-3 and ISBN
1-898012-42-3]
[2] See, for example, M N O Sadiku (2007). Elements of
Electromagnetics (Fourth ed.). NY/Oxford UK: Oxford
University Press. pp. 9.2 pp. 386 . ISBN 0-19530048-3.
[3] Tilley, D. E., Am. J. Phys. 36, 458 (1968)
[4] Nussbaum, A., Faradays Law Paradoxes, http://www.
iop.org/EJ/article/0031-9120/7/4/006/pev7i4p231.pdf?
request-id=49fbce3f-dbc4-4d6c-98e9-8258814e6c30
Further reading
Michael Faraday,Experimental Researches in Electricity, Vol I, First Series, 1831 in Great Books of
the Western World, Vol 45, R. M. Hutchins, ed.,
Encyclopdia Britannica, Inc., The University of
Chicago, 1952.
Electromagnetic induction: physics and ashbacks
(PDF) by Giuseppe Giuliani - details of the Lorentz
force in Faradays disc
Homopolar Electric Dynamo - contains derivation
of equation for EMF of a Faraday disc
Don Lancasters Tech Musings column, Feb 1998
- on practical ineciencies of Faraday disc
Faradays Final Riddle; Does the Field Rotate with
a Magnet?" (PDF) - contrarian theory, but contains
useful references to Faradays experiments
P. J. Scanlon, R. N. Henriksen, and J. R. Allen,
Approaches to electromagnetic induction, Am. J.
Phys. 37, 698708 (1969). - describes how to apply
Faradays law to Faradays disc
Jorge Guala-Valverde, Pedro Mazzoni, Ricardo
Achilles The homopolar motor: A true relativistic
engine, Am. J. Phys. 70 (10), 10521055 (Oct.
2002). - argues that only the Lorentz force can explain Faradays disc and describes some experimental evidence for this
Frank Munley, Challenges to Faradays ux rule,
Am. J. Phys. 72, 1478 (2004). - an updated discussion of concepts in the Scanlon reference above.
Richard Feynman, Robert Leighton, Matthew
Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics Volume
II, Chapter 17 - In addition to the Faraday paradox (where linked ux does not change but an emf
is induced), he describes the rocking plates experiment where linked ux changes but no emf is induced. He shows that the correct physics is always
6.1
Text
6.2
Images
File:Ambox_contradict.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Ambox_contradict.svg License: Public domain Contributors: self-made using Image:Emblem-contradict.svg Original artist: penubag, Rugby471
File:Current_loops.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Current_loops.PNG License: GFDL Contributors: Own work Original artist: Brews_ohare
File:Disc-to-strip_mapping.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Disc-to-strip_mapping.PNG License:
GFDL Contributors: Own work Original artist: Brews ohare
File:M_Faraday_Th_Phillips_oil_1842.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/M_Faraday_Th_Phillips_
oil_1842.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Thomas Phillips, 1842 Original artist: Thomas Phillips
File:Solid_Faraday_disc.PNG Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Solid_Faraday_disc.PNG License:
GFDL Contributors: Own work Original artist: Brews ohare
File:Tilley_experiment.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Tilley_experiment.svg License: CC-BY-SA3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist:
6.3
Content license