Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: induced emf again



I should have added that the suggested experiment (see
below) should be performed twice: (a) when the rod is
sliding in a constant magnetic field and (b) when the
rod is stationary but the magnetic field is changing. In
the first case the direction of E inside the rod will be
opposite to the direction of conventional current, in
the second the two directions will coincide. If not
then the idea of "two distinct effects" would remain
a hypothesis. I am saying this because I am not
aware of experiments in which the two directions
were compared. Please share what you know.

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

... Here is another suggestion. Use a voltmeter to
find out about the direction of E lines inside the rod,
use a galvanometer to determine the direction of the
current. The wires leading to the voltmeter should
be parallel to the magnetic field lines.

Consider a metal rod of length L sliding with the
speed v along the rigid U-shaped wire frame
perpendicular to the uniform magnetic field B. Do
the electric field lines INSIDE THE ROD have the
same direction as the conventional current? My
answer, especially after the discussion about the
induced emf we had last winter, would be "yes."
But now I think it would be a wrong answer. I
now think that the electric field inside the loop
is conservative, all electric lines begin and terminate
on static charges. In other words, the sliding rod
behaves as if it were a battery whose emf is B*v*L.

The origin of my misconception is probably rooted
in the rule according to which "the way in which the
flux changes is not at all important, it can be a
stationary B but changing area, or it can be a constant
area but changing B." But Faynman argues that two
ways of changing the flux result in two different
phenomena. Right or wrong? I wish I could refer to
an experimental verification of this theoretical claim.
Ludwik Kowalski