It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The Faraday paradox or Faraday's paradox is any experiment in which Michael Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction appears to predict an incorrect result. The paradoxes fall into two classes:Even though Faraday's paradox is phrased in terms of electromagnetic induction, it would be fair to say that this conundrum goes back to Ampère who invented a motor, the possibility of which Faraday considered improbable. Even Wikipedia entry on Faraday's Paradox does not mention Ampère's name, moreover it appears that there is no Wikipedia entry on Ampère’s Motor to begin with.
(1) Faraday's law appears to predict that there will be zero EMF but there is a non-zero EMF.
(2) Faraday's law appears to predict that there will be a non-zero EMF but there is a zero EMF.
Faraday deduced his law of induction in 1831, after inventing the first electromagnetic generator or dynamo, but was never satisfied with his own explanation of the paradox.
In order to understand the path leading to the discovery of Ampère’s motor, it is important to discuss the first electric motor in the history of physics, presented by Faraday (1791–1867). Following Øersted’s historical discovery (1820) of the deflection of a magnetized needle by a nearby long straight wire, Faraday began to devote himself to the study of electromagnetism. In September 1821 he created what is normally considered as the first electric motor... Faraday sent a small model of the apparatus to several scientists, including Ampère. In this pocket apparatus the inclined wire rotates around a fixed magnetized piece of metal... Faraday informed Ampère about his discovery in October 1821. In his first paper describing this device Faraday mentioned the following:Tesla, not surprisingly, recognized the fundamental importance of Faraday's discovery and was fascinated by it. In his 1891Notes on an Unipolar Dynamo Tesla says:
Having succeeded thus far, I endeavored to make a wire and a magnet revolve on their own axis by preventing the rotation in a circle round them, but have not been able to get the slightest indications that such can be the case; nor does it, on consideration, appear probable.
It is characteristic of fundamental discoveries, of great achievements of intellect, that they retain an undiminished power upon the imagination of the thinker. The memorable experiment of Faraday with a disc rotating between the two poles of a magnet, which has borne such magnificent fruit, has long passed into every-day experience; yet there are certain features about this embryo of the present dynamos and motors which even to-day appear to us striking, and are worthy of the most careful study.We shall see in this discussion that Faraday's paradox runs even deeper and goes to the heart of what went terribly wrong with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, leading ultimately to the rise of insanity called Special Theory of Relativity and failure of basically healthy attempts by Maxwell to understand the phenomenon of electromagnetism on the basis of pure mechanics.
Just found this xxx
The "field " that I imagine as a trochoidal dynamic vortex of 2 parts that counter rotate against each other, through each other and about each other.
This forms a standing vortex that is axially super symmetric.
In reality I need to account for the earths magnetic field . Thus the standing vortex has at leadtbthreebor four components.
Where does this field pattern exist? Not in the magnet itself but in the volume of space that surrounds and includes that volume.
If the magnetic material is rotated axially along its dipole is it going to change the pattern in space? I don't think so
Now the stator acts like a detector of this pattern if the stator moves through this pattern each part of the stator registers a change in its local interaction with it. This we call electrification.
Thus it does not matter if the stator rotates with the magnet or not, the axil magnetic field pattern remains the same in space whether the magnet rotates or not.
Now my conjecture is that the angular rotation Facyors into the pattern by phase differences. Therefore if the angular rotation of the magnet is at a certain frequency that resonates with the dynamic of the trochoidal surface of the field it will affect the pattern in free space .
In fact, I have stated this understanding in the very first comment I made at the magneticuniverse forum: My understanding of the magnetic field dynamics.
Please reread the following comment also, which elaborates on the first one:
On Ed Leedskalnin's understanding of the dynamics of Earth's magnetic field
Who is in the right, and who is in the wrong? That's what we have to find out ... unless, of course, the whole thing is mere misunderstanding caused by the use of the same notion – namely "the south(north) pole individual magnet" – for two different things.
Right and wrong are important distinctions for engineers who build things others risk their lives on! Here I am genuinely pleased to have someone with an almost idntical model to discuss the natural behaviour of an aether / space-time fluid with !
Looking back over that earlier interaction I can definitely hold my hand up as being wrong on a number of observations about gyre!
But I can also point to an attempt to better understand the concpts.
That Örsted understood gyre s clear, that a large number of his peers did not is also clear. The CW and CCW description is too simple . Phase and screw need to be added . Thus a gre ABCD for instance differs from ADCB not just by a relativistic viewpoint but also by phase and screw!
Thus to a fixed observer a rotating gyre presents an undulating signal but the phase in the gyre is detectable as "precession " and that precession decays to a spin up or spin down undetectable signal.
So a gyres initial state can be assigned and it's transmutation can be tracked by perturbation using a resonance signal.
Screw is not properly used in the current NMR model as far as I know, but screw and field polarity are different in both our models
Thank you for your insights and, most importantly, thank you for your intellectual honesty and human dignity.
Be well, man!
Pink Floyd - Us and Them
Us and them
And after all we're only ordinary men.
Me and you
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do.
'Forward' he cried from the rear
And the front rank died.
The general is sat and the lines on the map
Move from side to side.
Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who.
Up and down
And in the end it's only round and round. And round.
'Haven't you heard it's a battle of words'
The poster bearer cried.
'Listen son' said the man with the gun,
'There's room for you inside.'
"Well I mean, they're gonna kill ya, so like, if you give 'em a quick sh...short, sharp shock, they don't do it again. Dig it? I mean he got off light, 'cause I coulda given 'im a thrashin' but I only hit him once. It's only the difference between right and wrong innit? I mean good manners don't cost nothing do they, eh?"
Down and out
It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about.
And who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about?
Out of the way, it's a busy day
I've got things on my mind.
For want of the price of tea and a slice
The old man died.
LaPointe primer field structure was always unsatisfactory because it obscured the dynamics, but it is revealing in that it provides an axially symmetric trochoidal structure in space that materialises structure and force patterns in inductible space.
Now the nature of the rotation at its simplest may not be as important as the effect .
Both screws being of CW gyre but oppositely displacing may be a good mechanical analogy of attraction if the inherent( but assumed) forces with that dynamic act like a screw going into a screw hole .
The alternative scenario of CCW gyre interacting with CW gyre is only sensible in terms of static dynamics . The forward forces balance leaving no motion or inform motion and the gyrs balance leaving no net gyre or uniform gyre.
But as LaPoint clearly shows the simplistic gyre model falls far short of the structures he demonstrates
I am continuing to meditate on this trochoidal dynamic
Dozens of conflicting "explanations" have been offered, retracted, rejected for this simple Ball-Bearing Motor.
The fog thickens.
But don't believe for a second that this electric motor has nothing to do with magnetism, as the video claims at the beginning: If you have an electric current - you are dealing with magnetism, period.
This rather mathematical treatment of vortex boundary stability seems to be a rough model of some of the dynamics under discussion.
I introduced the word trochoidal to help me avoid pinning my thoughts to too simple a rotation . Yet still I visualise a helical dynàmic as founding each Equipotential surface , that is a version of the common motion of a vortex as some cone, rather than as the central part of a toroidal structure. .
Ken wheelers demonstrations show 2 distinct regional dynamics at a so called pole, agreeing ostensibly with LaPoint. LaPoint has a central axial jet vorte that shoots out above the trapping dome if the magnetic potential surface takes his preferred structure. The "bowl" is roughly hyperbolic as Wheeler asserts , but the trapping dome and the flip ring are structures that were not conceived in the behaviour of a vortex dynamic prior to LaPoint .
The flip ring is a virtual dipole at a point or surface in space . As observed it favours the analogy of gyre ( Skymion gyre) flipping over in a plane or surface. The instability exists only in a very thin sheet, the sheet being thus a boundary between a so called double layer.
The nature of our explanation remains the same as Ampères. We have to inductively assume similar or almost self similar behaviour at all scales.
To deal with the causality notion that can plague investigation I developed the words "fractal entrainment" , or fractal dynàmic causation. It is merely an acknowledgement tht I am limited in any ability to determine cause and almost certainly not able to determine absolute cause because all my thinking is based on fractal topologies and necessarily tautological analogies. But what I can do is construct a more detailed model at a different scale..
How useful that might be technologically I do not know , but how aesthetically beautiful it might be is a joy to discover!
The universe never stops and so neither can I .
Was it a simple helical force or a combination of 2 such simple helical forces ?
No matter , here was proof that forces do not in general act in straight lines!
Ampere demonstrated that a simple loop on the inducted copper wire behaved like a bar magnet. Thus more rotational axes changed the behaviour of the force / forces in space.
Looping the loop s again in the form of a Rodin coil or a donut transformer revealed further behaviours and the influence of topology on these helical forces.
The question is : one or two or more helical forces ?
But also are the forces uniform along an inducted copper rod?
It would seem not! The magnetic tester seems to vary as it passes along an inducted rod! Lodge saw this as electric arcing between two inducted wires carrying an AC current. He envisaged them as Maxwells suggested wave ( undulatory) behaviour. But Hertz presented his findings first.
The variation in the rotational field around an inducted wire needs more clarification, I feel .
It is certain however that a simple helical progression as a vortex for current is not An accurate description of this behaviour.
The geometry of the coils is important to help imagine the trochoidal topology of the dipole orienting field/ surfaces
This analogy relies on the Archimedian screw behaviour. That implies surface and body forces move other surface and body force structures " mechanically"
On the other hand a phase interaction of super positioned rotations of spheroidal surfaces of forces that act in across and out of the surfaces give an alternative undulatory dynamical description.
A Fourier series description cn model this locally.
Thus a simple motion can be modelled by a more complex rotational pattern in which frequency amplitude and phase are key.
Forget electro and magneto just grasp the topological dynamic and the let native vector representations straight line and arc line
A third spiral version, time step variation is also in the same data variation
NMR is the new fundamental basis
I would like to point out again that Matt Emery's reading of Leedskalnin, as described here, won't fit the bill. Why? Because he is using right-hand screw only to model what Faraday called lines of force.
It is very easy to prove. Matt sees the line of force as two right-hand screws moving in opposite directions – screwing through each other, so to speak. Thus he gets the double helix. But what is the total momentum of this double helix at each point of each line of force? Zero. And what is the total moment of momentum of this double helix at each point of each line of force? Also zero. Bar magnets with this type of lines of force will neither attract nor repel each other!
To get the exact attraction/repulsion pattern we observe for bar magnets, we have to have both right-hand screw and left-hand screw moving through each other. Then we get a field which is comprised of lines of torque (rather than lines of force as Faraday imagined) that fits the attraction/repulsion pattern of bar magnets precisely.
This line of torque is not a double helix – it is rather something like this.
This is so funny but it's on the money !
The dielectric field is the solenoid topology . That topology is often used to define a ' current" within the wire. Here ken shows that the dielectric field is a vorticular dynmic topology that has a undulatory topology. The gear effect is amazing .
As you see the pattern in space is fixed irrelevant of the " spin" of the magnet used to move the metal on the bowl.
Faradays paradox is not unsolvable, methinks .