Faraday's Paradox experiment

[wings]

check for asymmetries in the two pairs of magnets:

fix a magnet and rotate the other this should have a neutral equilibrium in all angular positions.

@ gravityblock

sorry! I have not seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YASAyhTBeZA&feature=channel

[gravityblock]

Let's look at this from the perspective that both the rotating field and stationary field theories are possibly incomplete, and can be easily unified.

This debate has been going on for more than a century now.  This is what we do know.  When the magnet, disc, and external circuit rotate together (we'll call this mode 1), there is an EMF in both the disc and external circuit.  The emf is pointing in the same direction in both the disc and external circuit, thus canceling each other out either at the rim or at the axis, depending on the direction of rotation and the direction of the magnetic field.  With this in mind, let's now take a look at a rotating magnet, rotating disc, and stationary external circuit (mode 2).  In mode 2, the stationary external circuit will have an equal but opposite emf than the disc.  How can a stationary external circuit be induced with an equal but opposite emf as the disc, if the external circuit doesn't cut any flux because both the field and external circuit are stationary?  Let's take note of the fact that in mode 1, both the disc and external circuit had moving charges and produced the same emf.  In mode 2, the disc had moving charges and the external circuit didn't have any moving charges while producing equal but opposite EMF.

In a rotating magnet, stationary disc, and stationary external circuit (mode 3),  there is no net EMF induced in either.  If we compare mode 2 and mode 3, then the stationary external circuit in mode 3 says the stationary external circuit in mode 2 should have no EMF, but this is not the case.  We have a contradiction at this time between mode 2 and mode 3, thus a Paradox in regards to, does the field rotate with the magnet or not .  Let's take note of the fact that in mode 3, there are no moving charges in either the disc or stationary external circuit.

This paradox isn't based on opposing views.  This paradox is based on experimental data along with an incomplete or wrong theory.  The experimental data says there is a field which rotates with the magnet, and a secondary field which remains stationary.

With this in mind, let's take a quick look at all three modes, to see if this revised theory is in-line with experimental data.  In mode 1, the rotating disc and rotating external circuit cuts the stationary field and both are induced with an emf pointing in the same direction.  The rotating circuit and rotating disc do not cut the field lines of the rotating field, thus there isn't an opposite emf induced.  In mode 2,  the rotating disc cuts the stationary field and is induced with an EMF, while the stationary external circuit is cut by the rotating field and is induced with an equal and opposite EMF relative to the disc.  So far so good. 

In mode 3, we run into a slight problem and this will need to be further analyzed, but I think there is a simple solution according to the experimental data.  We must remember, In mode 3, there are no moving charges in either the disc or external circuit.  The charges on the disc and external circuit will be cut by the rotating field and both will be induced with the same EMF.  The charges induced by the rotating field are now moving and will cut the stationary field and be induced with an EMF that opposes the moving charge induced by the rotating field, thus there is no net movement of the charges and no EMF detected.  In mode 1, an EMF is detected because the charges are moving with a net motion due to the mechanical rotation of the disc and external circuit, and they were cut by the stationary field lines.  In mode 3, there is no EMF detected because the charges have no net motion and aren't pointing in any particular direction because they were cut by both the stationary and rotating field lines.

Faraday's Paradox Solved?

GB

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Faraday's Paradox Solved?

GB

YES.  That's an excellent summation. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[KWP]

{... sigh ...}

Here a direct link to Dr. Kelly's paper "Faraday's Final Riddle; Does the Field Rotate with a Magnet?":
www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/kelly_unipolar.pdf

Dr. Kelly's paper is a beautifully written piece of disinformation (with lots of scientific sounding babble) that is designed to hide the truth from you, and to support the "special theory of relativity" (which is flawed).  He knows that electromagnetics is a difficult subject matter-- even for seasoned physicists and engineers, and he deliberately obfuscates what is really going on through misapplication of the established theory, and in addition, he carefully chooses the experiments that show an outcome that matches his theory-- while (probably deliberately) ignoring the fact that the experiments (or their application to the theory) are flawed.  He tries to say that Faraday's law is flawed, but the truth is that Faraday's law is not flawed and always works 100% of the time when properly applied against the subject matter for which the law was created.

Take a look at the "Tilly test" [figure 13]-- when you open one switch and close the other, there is supposed to be a "change in flux" (because there is a change in area).  This is a misunderstanding of what "flux" is-- in electromagnetics (and as Faraday's law is applied), "flux" is the "intensity of the field per unit area" (or "number of lines of force per unit area" if you prefer)-- for example "100 lines of force per square centimeter".  In the "Tilly test" if the field is static, then nowhere in the area enclosed by any of the conductors has ANY change of "lines of force per square centimeter"-- and therefore there will be no EMF generated.  The flux does not change in the area enclosed by switch "A", and it does not change in the area enclosed by switch "B".  The "Tilly test" did not "fail" Faraday's rule at all-- in fact it reinforces it-- but the author leads you astray by claiming that something significant is going on here.

Now let's take a look at figure 9.  The "lines of force" are cutting across conductor A-B, which generates an EMF in conductor A-B, but then the "lines of force" [LOF from now on] are ALSO cutting across conductor D-C (which causes an EMF).  Because these two conductors are connected in series, and the EMF in each is opposing and equal, there will be no "net" EMF to be read by the galvanometer on the left of the diagram.  If you were to place conductor A-B or the other side of the magnet (as is shown on the right side of the diagram, but with the connecting wire much closer to the rim of the magnet), then you would see an EMF on the galvanometer on the right of the diagram-- (in fact the two conductors being connected in series, would produce 2 x EMF in this case).  This is because the other wire would be influenced by the other pole of the magnet-- and since the direction is the same as wire D-C, the polarity of the EMF in wire A-B would be opposite of wire D-C in this case, and so the EMF is additive.  Dr. Kelly didn't talk about this in his text, because that would not show what he wants the reader to believe.

There are people in various governments that have a lot of secret projects (some of which I have worked on), that would like very much for the general public to never learn the REAL ("true") physics.  The current physics text books (and instruction) have deliberate omissions, obfuscations, and disinformation that (together with the support of certain individuals) is specifically designed to keep us all from learning the real truth.  We have to be really careful about science papers written by supposed "authority figures" (in this case, a PhD with lot's of letters behind his name), because people have agendas-- even very intelligent people that we would like to believe are trying to get at the truth.  We have to engage in critical thinking, and perform our own experiments.  We need to publish the results of these experiments for peer review (on this forum)-- so that everyone has a chance to tear them apart (by pointing out possible flaws in the experiment, etc.)  We need to keep refining the experiments until no flaw can be found by anyone, and then those experiments need to be duplicated by other researchers (with the results published here), and most importantly, we need to do the very best we can to leave our egos out of the process.  THAT is the ONLY way that we are going to get at the truth.

I have been thinking of an experiment that will settle this one way or another.  I need to make a drawing, but right now I have to leave for a family get together, and so I will post it later for peer review.

[lumen]

{... sigh ...}

Here a direct link to Dr. Kelly's paper "Faraday's Final Riddle; Does the Field Rotate with a Magnet?":
www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/kelly_unipolar.pdf

Dr. Kelly's paper is a beautifully written piece of disinformation.

From what I read on the paper, it looked to be quite accurate to me.
Usually some of the cases are left out, but this paper covered them all and the same thing is always true. If it generates a current flow then there is an opposing force generated also.