4

Farday's law says if I change the magnetic flux through a closed loop an emf would appear.

Between what two points is the EMF calculated?

enter image description here

Let's say that my calculations give me an E=−dΦdt=10V.

What is the EMF between AC? Is it different from the EMF between AB?

JRE
  • 67,678
  • 8
  • 104
  • 179
bibo999999
  • 153
  • 6
  • The EMF from a magnetic source is multi-valued. As A and B, or A and C are in different places, we must also consider the path that any further wires take to complete the circuit - so do those wires enclose the changing flux or not? The emf between those points includes not only the magnetically induced emf, but also the IR emf due the the loop current it induces. By one reckoning, by symmetry, A, B and C all have the same potential. Show the multimeter on your diagram, and the exact path the leads take between A, C and the meter terminals. – Neil_UK Feb 06 '22 at 13:53
  • @Neil_UK So the true value of emf between AC and AB is zero for both. and only if I use wiring and a multimeter I will get different answers according to the wiring? – bibo999999 Feb 06 '22 at 14:01
  • The induced EMF is the same as if the loop were not shorted out. The measured voltage is a totally different thing when the loop closes but, the induced EMF remains the same. I don't believe that Faraday's law talks about a closed (i.e. shorted) loop of wire. – Andy aka Feb 06 '22 at 14:01

1 Answers1

2

A time varying magnetic field \$\vec{B}\$ induces an electric field \$\vec{E}_{induced}\$ which satisfies the equations

$$\nabla \cdot \vec{E}_{induced} = 0$$ $$\nabla \times \vec{E}_{induced} = -\frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial t}$$

Note: If a conductor is located within the electric field, the induced electric field will cause the electrons in the conductor to rearrange. This rearrangement will cause a reaction electric field \$\vec{E}_{reaction}\$ to be created which satisfies the equations

$$\nabla \cdot \vec{E}_{reaction} = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}$$ $$\nabla \times \vec{E}_{reaction} = 0$$

The total electric field \$\vec{E}_{total}\$ is given by

$$\vec{E}_{total} = \vec{E}_{induced} + \vec{E}_{reaction}$$

The voltage drop along a curve \$\gamma\$ which begins at point \$P_1\$ and ends at \$P_2\$ is given by the integral

$$V_{\gamma}=\int_{\gamma} \vec{E}_{total} \cdot d \vec{\ell}$$

and corresponds to the work per charge associated with moving a test charge from \$P_1\$ to \$P_2\$ along \$\gamma\$. It also corresponds to the voltage used in Ohm's law.

$$V_{\gamma} = I_{\gamma}R_{\gamma}$$

The EMF induced in a curve \$\gamma\$ which begins at point \$P_1\$ and ends at point \$P_2\$ is given by

$$\mathscr{E}_{induced}=\int_{\gamma} \vec{E}_{induced} \cdot d\vec{\ell}$$

In your diagram, there are two paths between any two points. One path going clockwise around the circle, and the other path going counter-clockwise. Therefore, there is not one EMF induced between two points in your diagram, but two, one for each path.

So what is the emf between AC?

$$\mathscr{E}_{induced}=\int_{\gamma AC} \vec{E}_{induced} \cdot d\vec{\ell}$$

where \$\gamma AC\$ is either the clockwise or counter-clockwise path from A to C.

is it different from the emf between AB?

Yes, the emf "between" A and B is

$$\mathscr{E}_{induced}=\int_{\gamma AB} \vec{E}_{induced} \cdot d\vec{\ell}$$

where \$\gamma AB\$ is either the clockwise or counter-clockwise path from A to B.


In a comment, @bibo999999 asks a very good question.

So how can a voltmeter show two different results for the same measurement?

Since there are two different EMFs "between" A and B depending upon direction, what exactly would a voltmeter indicate if its leads were connected to points A and B. Obviously a voltmeter has to give one answer in any given configuration. (It turns out that a voltmeter measuring a circuit subject to a time-varying magnetic field will give different answers depending upon the location of the voltmeter. But for this answer, we will assume that the voltmeter is in one fixed location.)

If there are two paths \$\gamma_1\$ and \$\gamma_2\$ that connect two points, but in different directions, then let's call \$\gamma_2'\$ the curve made by reversing \$\gamma_2\$. Then \$\gamma_1\$ and \$\gamma_2'\$ together form a loop.

Since they form a loop, we can apply Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL). The sum of the emfs in \$\gamma_1\$ and \$\gamma_2'\$ is equal to the sum of the voltage drops in \$\gamma_1\$ and \$\gamma_2'\$.

$$\mathscr{E}_{\gamma_1} + \mathscr{E}_{\gamma_2'} = V_{\gamma_1} + V_{\gamma_2'}$$

Therefore,

$$\mathscr{E}_{\gamma_1} - V_{\gamma_1} = - \mathscr{E}_{\gamma_2'} + V_{\gamma_2'}$$

Therefore,

$$\mathscr{E}_{\gamma_1} - V_{\gamma_1} = \mathscr{E}_{\gamma_2} - V_{\gamma_2}$$

What a voltmeter displays is the voltage drop through the meter itself. This can be found using Kirchhoff's Voltage Law. A voltmeter, together with its leads, and any path \$\gamma\$ connecting its leads, forms a loop. KVL says that sum of all the emfs in that loop is equal to the sum of all the voltage drops along that loop. So, what the voltmeter will display will be the emf in \$\gamma\$ plus the emf in the leads minus the voltage drop in \$\gamma\$ minus the voltage drop in the leads. That leaves the voltage drop in the voltmeter (assuming that there is no emf in the "sensitive" part of the voltmeter).

$$\mathscr{E}_{\gamma} + \mathscr{E}_{leads} = V_{\gamma} + V_{leads} + V_{meter}$$

or

$$V_{meter} = \mathscr{E}_{\gamma} - V_{\gamma} + \mathscr{E}_{leads} - V_{leads}$$

However, since we have already shown that

$$\mathscr{E}_{\gamma_1} - V_{\gamma_1} = \mathscr{E}_{\gamma_2} - V_{\gamma_2}$$

The voltmeter will read the same, whether we choose \$\gamma\$ to be \$\gamma_1\$ or \$\gamma_2\$.

QED!

Math Keeps Me Busy
  • 18,947
  • 3
  • 19
  • 65
  • So how can a voltmeter show two different results for the same measurement? – bibo999999 Feb 06 '22 at 14:16
  • 1
    @bibo999999 A very good question. However, the answer is too long to fit in a comment, so I added it to my main answer. – Math Keeps Me Busy Feb 06 '22 at 15:27
  • I need time to digest this ty – bibo999999 Feb 06 '22 at 15:45
  • There seems to be a problem with your proof....KVL is not valid for loops with changing magnetic field and voltage is not defined for such loops. – sarthak Feb 26 '22 at 13:46
  • @sarthak Kirchhoff said that the sum of the emfs around a loop equals the sum of the IR voltage drops around the loop. This is true in the presence of time varying magnetic fields. You can read more about this at: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/13611/how-did-kirchhoff-express-his-voltage-law-kvl – Math Keeps Me Busy Feb 26 '22 at 13:58
  • Potential is only defined for conservative fields (\$\vec{F}\$) for which \$\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{F} = 0\$. Because this implies there exists a scalar field V such that \$\vec{F} = -\vec{\nabla}V\$. If there is changing magnetic field the electric field ceases to be conservative. No such unique V field can be defined. In other words, as you said the line integral of E depends on the path so the definition of potential difference between the end points does not make sense. – sarthak Feb 26 '22 at 14:21
  • The potential difference between the terminals of the inductor is defined assuming that the magnetic field is contained inside the inductor coils and there exists no changing magnetic field between the "terminals". This is called lumped circuit abstraction. You can read Feynman Lectures Vol 2 chapter 22. – sarthak Feb 26 '22 at 14:24
  • @sarthak "No such unique V field can be defined." There _is_ a unique (unique excepting an integrating constant) scalar V field that can be defined. Technically, it is the scalar vector potential under the Coulomb gauge. Less formally, if you decompose E by Helmholtz decomposition E_total=E_solenoidal + E_conservative. E_total is the usual E, E_solenoidal is the magnetically induced E, and E_conservative is what remains. It equals E_conservative = - grad V, or in physics books E_conservative = - grad phi, where phi is the electric scalar potential, in this case, using the Coulomb gauge. – Math Keeps Me Busy Feb 26 '22 at 14:42