Faraday paradox

1 Paradoxes in which Faradays

law of induction predicts zero
EMF but there is a non-zero
EMF

This article describes the Faraday paradox in

electromagnetism. There is a dierent Faraday
paradox in electrochemistry: see Faraday paradox (electrochemistry).

These paradoxes are generally resolved by the fact that

an EMF may be created by a changing ux in a circuit
as explained in Faradays law or by the movement of a
conductor in a magnetic eld. This is explained by Feynman as noted below. See also A. Sommerfeld, Vol III
'Electrodynamics Academic Press, page 362.

1.1 The equipment

See also: electrical generator
The experiment requires a few simple components (see

Michael Faraday

The Faraday paradox (or Faradays 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:

1. Faradays law predicts that there will be zero

EMF but there is a non-zero EMF.
2. Faradays law predicts that there will be a
non-zero EMF but there is a zero EMF.

Figure 1: Faradays disc electric generator. The disc rotates with

angular rate , sweeping the conducting disc circularly in the
static magnetic eld B due to a permanent magnet. The magnetic Lorentz force v B drives the current radially across the
conducting disc to the conducting rim, and from there the circuit
path completes through the lower brush and the axle supporting
the disc. Thus, current is generated from mechanical motion.

Faraday deduced this law in 1831, after inventing the rst

electromagnetic generator or dynamo, but was never satised with his own explanation of the paradox.
1

21

PARADOXES IN WHICH FARADAYS LAW OF INDUCTION PREDICTS ZERO EMF BUT THERE IS A NON-ZERO EMF

Figure 1): a cylindrical magnet, a conducting disc with

a conducting rim, a conducting axle, some wiring, and a
galvanometer. The disc and the magnet are tted a short
distance apart on the axle, on which they are free to rotate
about their own axes of symmetry. An electrical circuit
is formed by connecting sliding contacts: one to the axle
of the disc, the other to its rim. A galvanometer can be
inserted in the circuit to measure the current.

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

The experiment proceeds in three steps:

1.5 Modern explanations

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

Relation to Faradays law of induction

See also: Faradays law of induction

The ux through the portion of the path from the brush at
the rim, through the outside loop and the axle to the center
of the disc is always zero because the magnetic eld is in
the plane of this path (not perpendicular to it), no matter
what is rotating, so the integrated emf around this part of
the path is always zero. Therefore, attention is focused
on the portion of the path from the axle across the disc to
the brush at the rim.

Figure 2: Two possible loops for nding EMF: the geometrically

simple path is easy to use, but the other provides the same EMF.
Neither is intended to imitate any line of physical current ow.

so the rate that ux sweeps past the imaginary line is

Faradays law of induction can be stated in words as:[2]

The induced electromotive force or EMF
in any closed circuit is equal to the time rate of
change of the magnetic ux through the circuit.
Mathematically, the law is stated:

E =

dB
d
=
dt
dt

dA B(r, t) ,
(t)

E =

dB
dA
R2 d
R2
=B
=B
=B
,
dt
dt
2 dt
2

with = d / dt the angular rate of rotation. The sign

is chosen based upon Lenzs law: the eld generated by
the motion must oppose the change in ux caused by the
rotation. For example, the circuit with the radial segment
in Figure 2 according to the right-hand rule adds to the
applied B-eld, tending to increase the ux linkage. That
suggests that the ux through this path is decreasing due
to the rotation, so d / d t is negative.

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.

Figure 3: Mapping of the Faraday disc into a sliding conducting

rectangle example. The disc is viewed as an annulus; it is cut
along a radius and bent open to become a rectangle.

In this example, all these paths lead to the same rate of

change of ux, and hence the same EMF. To provide
some intuition about this path independence, in Figure
3 the Faraday disc is unwrapped onto a strip, making it
resemble a sliding rectangle problem. In the sliding rectangle case, it becomes obvious that the pattern of current
ow inside the rectangle is time-independent and therefore irrelevant to the rate of change of ux linking the
circuit. There is no need to consider exactly how the current traverses the rectangle (or the disc). Any choice of
path connecting the top and bottom of the rectangle (axleto-brush in the disc) and moving with the rectangle (rotating with the disc) sweeps out the same rate-of-change
of ux, and predicts the same EMF. For the disc, this
rate-of-change of ux estimation is the same as that done
above based upon rotation of the disc past a line joining
the brush to the axle.

This becomes clearer if a modied Faraday disk is used in

which the return path is not a wire but another disk. That
is, mount two conducting disks just next to each other on
the same axle and let them have sliding electrical contact
at the center and at the circumference. The current will
be proportional to the relative rotation of the two disks
and independent of any rotation of the magnet.

1.7 Conguration without a return path

A Faraday disk can also be operated with neither a galvanometer nor a return path. When the disk spins, the
electrons collect along the rim and leave a decit near the
axis (or the other way around). It is possible in principle to measure the distribution of charge, for example, through the electromotive force generated between
the rim and the axle (though not necessarily easy). This
charge separation will be proportional to the magnetic
eld and the rotational velocity of the disk. The magnetic
eld will be independent of any rotation of the magnet.
In this conguration, the polarisation is determined by the
absolute rotation of the disk, that is, the rotation relative
to an inertial frame. The relative rotation of the disk and
the magnet plays no role.

2 Paradoxes in which Faradays

law of induction predicts nonzero EMF but there is a zero
EMF
These paradoxes are generally resolved by determining
that the apparent motion of the circuit is actually deconstruction of the circuit followed by reconstruction of the
circuit on a dierent path.

2.1 An additional rule

In the case when the disk alone spins there is no change in

ux through the circuit, however, there is an electromotive force induced contrary to Faradays law. We can also
show an example when there is a change in ux, but no induced voltage. Figure 5 (near right) shows the setup used
in Tilleys experiment.[3] It is a circuit with two loops or
meshes. There is a galvanometer connected in the righthand loop, a magnet in the center of the lefthand loop,
1.6 Some observations
a switch in the lefthand loop, and a switch between the
Whether the magnet is moving is irrelevant in this anal- loops. We start with the switch on the left open and that
ysis, as it does not appear in Faradays law. In fact, rotat- on the right closed. When the switch on the left is closed
ing the magnet does not alter the B-eld. Likewise, ro- and the switch on the right is open there is no change in the

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.

eld of the magnet, but there is a change in the area of the

galvanometer circuit. This means that there is a change in
dS = drdl
ux. However the galvanometer did not deect meaning
there was no induced voltage, and Faradays law does not
work in this case. According to A. G. Kelly this suggests Therefore:
that an induced voltage in Faradays experiment is due to
the cutting of the circuit by the ux lines, and not by
ux linking or the actual change in ux. This follows
from the Tilley experiment because there is no movement
of the lines of force across the circuit and therefore no
dW = IB dS = IdB
current induced although there is a change in ux through
the circuit. Nussbaum suggests that for Faradays law to
be valid work must be done in producing the change in The dierential work can also be given in terms of
charge dq and potential dierence V :
ux.[4]
To understand this idea, we will step through the argument given by Nussbaum.[4] We start by calculating the
force between two current carrying wires. The force on
wire 1 due to wire 2 is given by:
dW = V dq = V Idt
F21

0
=
I1 I2
4

I
C1

C2

dl1 (dl2 r21 )

2
r21

By setting the two equations for dierential work equal

to each other we arrive at Faradays Law.

The magnetic eld from the second wire is given by:

0
B2 =
I2
4

I
C2

(dl2 r21 )
2
r21

So we can rewrite the force on wire 1 as:

I
dl1 B2

F21 = I1
C1

Now consider a segment dl of a conductor displaced dr

in a constant magnetic eld. The work done is found
from:

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

given by the combination of the Lorentz force with

the Maxwell-Faraday equation (see quotation box)
and poses these two paradoxes of his own.
The rotation of magnetic eld by Vanja Janezic describes a simple experiment that anyone can do.
Because it only involves two bodies, its result is less
ambiguous than the three-body Faraday, Kelly and
Guala-Valverde experiments.
W. F. Hughes and F. J. Young, The Electromagnetodynamics of Fluids, John Wiley & Sons (1965)
LCCC #66-17631. Chapters 1. Principles of Special Relativity and 2. The Electrodynamics of Moving Media. From these chapters it is possible to
work all induced emf problems and explain all the
associated paradoxes found in the literature.

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

6.1

Text

Faraday paradox Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%20paradox?oldid=633178486 Contributors: Heron, Art Carlson, Quarl,

Laurascudder, Wtshymanski, J S Lundeen, Srleer, D.keenan, Dugosz, Light current, Sbyrnes321, Melchoir, Radagast83, Acdx, FlyHigh,
Byelf2007, Weatherman1126, Eliyak, Chetvorno, ShelfSkewed, Thijs!bot, N5iln, Headbomb, RebelRobot, CommonsDelinker, Fconaway,
ISC PB, Youngfj, Constant314, Colfer2, Mild Bill Hiccup, Brews ohare, Arnold the Frog, Addbot, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, Shadowjams,
, Dr FJY, Citation bot 1, Ivy86, Nellatnoj, Euriditi, Updatehelper, RjwilmsiBot, Qniemiec, Donner60, HCPotter, ChuispastonBot,
ClueBot NG, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Zalokar, Dansalmo, Albert.marcos.vasquez, Bnglass, Mario Casteln Castro and Anonymous:
36

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

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0