1: \documentclass[twocolumn,prb]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[aps,preprint]{revtex4}
3: %,showpacs,twocolumn,nofootinbib
4: \usepackage{hyperref}%,showkeys,srcltx,
5: \usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb,graphicx,latexsym}
6:
7:
8: \begin{document}
9: \title{Induction and
10: Mutually Obstructing Equilibria}
11: \author{Dorothea Hahn}
12: \author{Mario Liu}\email{mliu@uni-tuebingen.de}
13: \affiliation{Theoretische Physik, Universit\"{a}t
14: T\"{u}bingen, 72076 T\"{u}bingen, Germany}
15: \date{\today}
16:
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: A unified, consistent and simple view of the Faraday
20: law of induction is presented, which consists of two
21: points: discriminating the lab- from the rest-frame
22: electric field and understanding it is the
23: impossibility for both fields to vanish
24: simultaneously, which generates and maintains the
25: circular current. A number of illustrative examples
26: are considered, including a mechano-electric pendulum
27: to exhibit periodic and reversible conversion between
28: electrical and mechanical energy.
29: \end{abstract}
30: \maketitle
31:
32: \section{Introduction}
33: \noindent The Faraday law of induction equates the change
34: of the magnetic flux $\phi$ to the sum of potential drops
35: along a wire loop,
36: %
37: \begin{equation}\label{1}\textstyle
38: \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\phi\equiv\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm
39: d}t}\int \vec B\cdot{\rm d}\vec A =-\oint\vec E\cdot{\rm
40: d}\vec \ell=-\sum U_i.
41: \end{equation}
42: %
43: It contains two effects: The first concerns a changing
44: field at constant area, $\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm
45: d}t}\phi=\int(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\vec
46: B})\cdot{\rm d}\vec A$, and is obtained by integrating
47: the Maxwell equation, $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\vec
48: B}=-\vec\nabla\times\vec E$.
49:
50: The second effect is given by changing the area of a
51: conducting loop at a static (and frequently uniform)
52: field, $\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\phi=\oint\vec
53: B\cdot(\vec v\times{\rm d}\vec \ell)=\vec
54: B\cdot\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}{\vec A}$. This is a little
55: harder to grasp: Since $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\vec
56: B}=0$, an integration of the electric field around the
57: loop is zero, $\int\vec\nabla\times\vec E\cdot{\rm d}\vec
58: A=\oint\vec E\cdot{\rm d}\vec \ell=0$, and it appears
59: surprising at first that a current should nevertheless
60: flow. The prevalent explanation is~\cite{HR}: The
61: electrons in the moving section of the loop are subject
62: to the Lorentz force, finite even if the electric field
63: vanishes, $\vec F=e(\vec E+\vec v\times\vec B)=e\vec
64: v\times\vec B$. It is their response to, and the
65: resultant motion along, $\vec F$ that gives rise to the
66: current $I$, see Fig~\ref{F1}.
67: %
68: \begin{figure}[h]
69: \centering\scalebox{0.25}{\includegraphics{F1.EPS}}\\
70: \caption{A piece of wire moves with the velocity $\vec
71: v$, changing the area $A$ of the conducting loop in
72: the presence of a $B$-field. } \label{F1}
73: \end{figure}
74: %
75: More quantitatively, observing that $\vec v\times\vec
76: B$ is the force per unit charge, same as the electric
77: field $\vec E$, one concludes that both should also
78: otherwise be similar. So integrating $\vec v\times\vec
79: B$ along the loop yields an ``induced" electric
80: potential $U^{\rm ind}=\oint\vec v\times\vec
81: B\cdot\,{\rm d}\vec \ell$. And it is only natural to
82: employ $U^{\rm ind}$ in the Ohm law,
83: %
84: \begin{equation}\label{2}
85: RI= U^{\rm ind}=\oint\vec v\times\vec B\cdot\,{\rm
86: d}\vec \ell,
87: \end{equation}
88: %
89: with $R$ the total electric resistance of the loop, and
90: $I$ the current. Because this is reminiscent of
91: batteries, $U^{\rm ind}$ is also referred to as an
92: electromotive force.
93:
94:
95: \section{Objections}
96: When first encountering the Faraday's law, students
97: are frequently sensitized by their teachers to the
98: disconcerting fact that this beautifully simple law
99: lacks a unified understanding, as one needs both the
100: Lorentz force and one of the Maxwell equations to
101: derive it. In his famous lectures~\cite{2}, Feynman
102: succinctly described, and lamented, a general sense of
103: resignation:
104: %
105: \begin{quote}
106: We know of no other place in physics where such a
107: simple and accurate general principle requires for its
108: real understanding an analysis in terms of {\em two
109: different phenomena}. Usually such a beautiful
110: generalization is found to stem from a single deep
111: underlining principle. Nevertheless, in this case
112: there does not appear to be any such profound
113: implication. We have to understand the ``rule" as the
114: combined effect of two quite separate phenomena.
115: \end{quote}
116: %
117: Two objections to the above view of induction are also
118: worthy of some attention. First, there are two different
119: Lorentz forces: The macroscopic one, $\vec
120: j\times\langle\vec B\rangle$, given in terms of the
121: averaged field, expresses the directly veri\-fiable force
122: on a current carrying wire. The force on an electron,
123: $e(\vec E+ \vec v_e\times\vec B)$, on the other hand, is
124: a microscopic formula, given in terms of the electron
125: velocity $v_{e}$ and the microscopic field $\vec B$.
126: (Only in this paragraph does $\vec B$ denote the
127: microscopic field. It is always the macroscopic,
128: coarse-grained field otherwise.) Electrons in conductors
129: have a broad velocity distribution, and they are exposed
130: to strongly varying fields. Therefore, it appears
131: strikingly bold to assert that the average magnetic force
132: per unit charge, $\langle\vec v_e\times\vec B\rangle$, is
133: simply $\vec v\times\langle\vec B\rangle$, the velocity
134: of the wire times the average $B$-field, as we did above.
135:
136: It is instructive to reflect upon the Hall Effect in this
137: context. If evaluated in the same naive fashion,
138: employing the Lorentz force in a classical free electron
139: model, the result is notoriously unreliable and rarely
140: agrees well with experiments. In fact, even the sign may
141: be wrong --- then it is referred to as the anomalous Hall
142: effect. So why is the Faraday law universally accurate?
143:
144:
145:
146:
147: Second, even disregarding these doubts, the above
148: derivation appears to contain a logical error. Its two
149: resulting formulas are, for $\vec B$ uniform,
150: %
151: \begin{equation}\textstyle
152: \vec A\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\vec B}=-\sum
153: U_i, \quad {\vec B}\cdot\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}{\vec
154: A}= -U^{\rm ind}. \label{3}
155: \end{equation}
156: %
157: We may of course add both equations, obtaining $\vec
158: A\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\vec B}+ {\vec
159: B}\cdot\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}{\vec A}=\dot \phi$ on
160: the left, with $-U^{\rm ind}$ included in $-\sum U_i$
161: on the right, as one usually does. But we must not
162: forget that each formula remains valid on its own. If
163: the field is static, $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\vec
164: B}=0$, the sum of potentials vanishes, $\sum U_i=0$,
165: irrespective whether ${\vec B}\cdot\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm
166: d}t}{\vec A}$ vanishes or not. If there is only one
167: resistive element in the circuit, reducing $\sum U_i$
168: to a single voltage drop $U_R$, then both this voltage
169: and the current will always vanish, $I=U_R/R=0$. In
170: other words, even if ${\vec B}\cdot\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm
171: d}t}{\vec A}=-U^{\rm ind}$ is finite, we must not
172: write $RI=U^{\rm ind}$, as in Eq~(\ref{2}), to account
173: for Faraday's observation, as this clearly violates
174: the Maxwell equation.
175:
176:
177: \section{Two Electric Equilibria}
178: The consideration below avoids all these difficulties
179: and inconsistencies. We start by introducing the
180: electric field $\vec E^0$ of the conductor's local
181: rest-frame. It is related to the lab-frame field $\vec
182: E$ as
183: %
184: \begin{equation}\label{4}
185: \vec E^0=\vec E+\vec v\times\vec B.
186: \end{equation}
187: %
188: (Only terms to first order in $v/c$ are included in this
189: paper.) Note that $\vec v$ is the macroscopic velocity of
190: the medium -- an unambiguous, directly observable
191: quantity. Rest-frame fields are important, because
192: conductors strive to reduce them. As long as $\vec E^0$
193: is finite, there is a current $\vec j=\sigma \vec E^0$,
194: which redistributes the charge to relax $\vec E^0$ to
195: zero. Only then is the conductor in equilibrium. One
196: could not possibly substitute $\vec E$ for $\vec E^0$ in
197: these statements, because $\vec E$ depends on the
198: observer's frame that can be changed at will, while the
199: conductor's equilibrium is an unambiguous fact,
200: independent of observers.
201:
202:
203: A metallic object at rest is in equilibrium if $\vec
204: E=0$; if it moves with the velocity $\vec v$, we have
205: $\vec E^0=0$ instead, so the lab-frame field is finite,
206: $\vec E=-\vec v\times\vec B$. In any configuration such
207: as in Fig.~(\ref{F1}) that offers two inequivalent paths,
208: ``frustration" sets in, as the moving section strives to
209: establish a finite potential difference, $-\int\vec
210: v\times\vec B\cdot\,{\rm d}\vec \ell$, by charge
211: separation, while the stationary part attempts to
212: eliminate it: The incompatibility of both equilibria,
213: working hard to obstruct each other, is what gives rise
214: to a current that flows as long as $\vec v$ is finite.
215:
216: A limiting case is easy to see: If the resistance of the
217: sliding bar is much larger than that of the stationary
218: arc, see Fig.~\ref{F1}, the latter is much better able to
219: maintain equilibrium, $\vec E\approx0$, so the current
220: $\vec j=\sigma\vec E_0$ is approximately $\sigma\vec
221: v\times\vec B$ -- same as obtained above using the
222: Lorentz force. For a general quantitative account, we
223: follow Landau and Lifshitz~\cite{LL} to integrate the
224: Maxwell equation in the form $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
225: {\vec B}=-\vec\nabla\times(\vec E^0-\vec v\times\vec B)$,
226: arriving at
227: %
228: \begin{equation}\label{5}
229: \textstyle \int{\rm d}\vec
230: A\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial t}{ \vec B}+\oint\vec
231: B\cdot\,(\vec v\times{\rm d}\vec \ell)= -\oint\vec
232: E^0\cdot\,{\rm d}\vec \ell.
233: \end{equation}
234: %
235: Identifying the conductor's velocity $\vec v$ with that
236: the area $\vec A$ changes, the two terms on the left may
237: be combined as $\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\int \vec
238: B\cdot{\rm d}\vec A$, and the result is the Faraday's
239: law, properly given in terms of the rest-frame potential
240: drops $U^0_i$,
241: %
242: \begin{equation} \label{6}\textstyle
243: \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t} \phi\equiv \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm
244: d}t}\int \vec B\cdot{\rm d}\vec A= -\oint\vec
245: E^0\cdot\,{\rm d}\vec \ell=-\sum U^0_i.
246: \end{equation}
247: %
248:
249:
250: We now revisit Fig.~\ref{F1}, to analyze it as two
251: inequivalent paths characterized by two resistors, see
252: Fig.~\ref{F1a}. Clearly, Eq~(\ref{6}) simply states
253: %
254: \begin{equation}\label{6a}\textstyle
255: \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t} \phi=-(U_1+U_2)=-(R_1+R_2)I,
256: \end{equation}
257: %
258: as the result of the general case. Note that the
259: potential remains constant, $\vec E^0\equiv0$, between
260: the resistors, and there is no need for an electromotive
261: force.
262: %
263: \begin{figure}%
264: \centering
265: \scalebox{0.25}{\includegraphics{F1a.EPS}}\\
266: \caption{Equilibrium requires the rest-frame electric
267: field of both the stationary and moving section of the
268: wire to vanish. As this cannot happen simultaneously,
269: a current is generated ``out of
270: frustration."}\label{F1a}
271: \end{figure}
272: %
273:
274: \section{A Mechano-Electric Pendulum}
275: A worthwhile variation contains all three elements:
276: resistor, coil and capacitance. With $L$ denoting the
277: inductivity, $C$ the capacitance, and $\omega$ the
278: frequency, they are
279: %
280: \begin{equation}\label{8} U^0_L=-i\omega L\,I,\quad
281: U^0_C=I/(-i\omega C).
282: \end{equation}
283: %
284: Inserting them in Eq~(\ref{6}), assuming a uniform and
285: constant $\vec B$, denoting the relevant length of the
286: moving wire as $\vec\ell$, see Fig.~\ref{F2}, we find
287: %
288: \begin{equation}\label{9}\textstyle
289: [i\omega L-R+(i\omega C)^{-1}]I=\vec B\cdot(\vec
290: v\times\vec\ell).
291: \end{equation}
292: %
293: The motion of the wire (of mass $M$) is subject to the
294: Lorentz force. For uniform $\vec v$, it is given as
295: %
296: \begin{equation}\label{10}\textstyle
297: M\frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\vec v}=\int\vec j\times\vec
298: B\,{\rm d}V=\vec\ell\times\vec B I.
299: \end{equation}
300: %
301: Combining the last two equations, we arrive at a
302: mechano-electric pendulum,
303: %
304: \begin{equation}\label{11}
305: \left(\omega^2+i\omega\frac
306: RL-\omega_0^2\right)I=0,\,\,
307: \omega_0=\pm\sqrt{\frac1{CL}+\frac{B^2\ell^2}{ML}}.
308: \end{equation}
309: %
310: Since both the capacitance and the moving wire contribute
311: to the restoring force, the wire alone would suffice to
312: form a pendulum with the inductance. Clearly, the numbers
313: are such that a conveniently observable resonance of
314: around 1 Hz seems possible -- if the sliding resistance
315: can be sufficiently reduced~\cite{f}.
316: %
317: \begin{figure}
318: \centering \scalebox{0.25}{\includegraphics{F2.EPS}}\\
319: \caption{A Faraday circuit consisting of a gliding
320: wire (mass $M$, length $\ell$), a resistor, a coil and
321: a capacitor. Wire and coil alone suffice for the
322: function of a mechano-electric pendulum -- each
323: standing for one of the two aspects of the Faraday
324: law. The oscillation of the wire graphically displays
325: the periodic conversion of electric and mechanical
326: energy.}\label{F2}
327: \end{figure}
328: %
329:
330:
331: \section{Bulk Conductors}
332: The validity of the Faraday law, Eq~(\ref{6}), is
333: confined to wire loops, because the conductor's
334: velocity $\vec v$ was identified with the rate the
335: area $\vec A$ changes, or $\dot A=v\ell$. Yet the
336: circumstance of mutually obstructing electric
337: equilibria, giving rise to currents, occurs under
338: rather more general conditions -- including especially
339: bulk metal.
340: %
341: \begin{figure}[b]
342: \centering \scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{F3.EPS}}\\
343: \caption{Connected wires moving
344: to the left, into the region of a finite magnetic field.}
345: \label{F3}
346: \end{figure}
347: %
348: Consider first the wire grid of Fig.~\ref{F3}, moving
349: with the velocity $\vec v$ from a region without field
350: into one with a finite magnetic field. One may of course
351: apply Eq~(\ref{6}) for all possible loops of this grid,
352: though it is much simpler to map it onto
353: Fig.~(\ref{F1a}), considering two inequivalent paths, the
354: two field-exposed bars striving to establish a potential
355: difference, and the four field-free ones working to
356: eliminate it. Each is respectively characterized by the
357: effective resistance, $R_2=R/2$ and $R_1=R/4$, if we take
358: all vertical bars to be identical, with resistance $R$,
359: and neglect the contribution from the horizontal wire.
360: The result is again Eq~(\ref{6a}), or
361: %
362: \begin{equation}\label{12}
363: -(R/2+R/4)I=\vec B\cdot(\vec v\times\vec\ell).
364: \end{equation}
365: %
366: To obtain the breaking force, we insert this
367: expression for the current $I$ in Eq~(\ref{10}),
368: %
369: \begin{equation}
370: \textstyle M\frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\vec v}=
371: -(4\ell^2B^2/3R)\vec v,\qquad\label{13}
372: \end{equation}
373: %
374: with $3RM/(4\ell^2B^2)$ being the relaxation time --
375: which of course will change after another vertical
376: wire moves into the field. If one of the two
377: horizontal wires is lacking, no current at all will
378: flow, and no breaking takes place -- because there is
379: no inequivalent paths. Each portion of the wire net is
380: happily in equilibrium by itself, without the need or
381: possibility to obstruct that of the other portion.
382:
383: Similar circumstances reign when a solid metal plate
384: enters a magnetic field, because the value of the
385: effective $R_2$ and $R_1$ decreases with the width of its
386: region. At the beginning, the field-exposed region is
387: narrow, and $R_2$ is the dominating one. Toward the end,
388: when the field-free region is narrow, $R_1$ becomes large
389: and is the one limiting the current. The largest current
390: flows, and maximal breaking by the Lorentz force occurs,
391: when the plate is half in. No current at all flows when
392: one of the two regions ceases to exist. If a metal comb
393: enters the field, each tooth is in effect an electrically
394: independent entity. Due to their narrow width, the
395: resistance is always large in comparison, so the current,
396: the Lorentz force and the breaking are always much
397: smaller.
398:
399: The next example is the eddy-current break, a piece of
400: metal moving with $\vec v$, with only part of the
401: metal exposed to a magnetic field. Equilibrium is
402: given by $\vec E=0$ outside the field-exposed region,
403: and by $\vec E=-\vec v\times\vec B$ inside it. Any
404: deviation from these values churns up a current $\vec
405: j$ to re-establish them -- obviously quite the same
406: dilemma as before. The result is again a
407: frustration-induced current, which dissipates the
408: kinetic energy of the moving plate effectively.
409: Constant magnetic field and charge density imply the
410: field equations:
411: %
412: \begin{equation}\label{14}
413: \vec\nabla\times\vec E=0, \quad\vec\nabla\cdot\vec
414: j=\sigma\vec\nabla \cdot(\vec E+\vec v\times\vec B)=0,
415: \end{equation}
416: %
417: and the boundary conditions: $\triangle E_t=0$,
418: $\triangle E_n=-\vec v\times\vec B$. These have been
419: solved~\cite{AJP} assuming constant $\vec B$, $\vec v$,
420: and a circular field-exposed region. The result is a
421: dipolar current field, with equal effective resistance,
422: $R_2=R_1$.
423:
424:
425:
426: \section{Feynman's Rocking
427: Contact}
428: \begin{figure}[h]
429: \centering \scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{F4.EPS}}\\
430: \caption{Rocking contacts, as indicated by
431: the dotted lines, between
432: two plates with curved edges --
433: though the physics of the two spherical
434: plates should be rather similar.} \label{F4}
435: \end{figure}
436: %
437: Finally, we discuss Feynman's rocking
438: contact~\cite{3}, which consists of two metal plates
439: with slightly curved edges, such that their contact is
440: only in one point, see the dotted lines of
441: Fig.~\ref{F4}. It was presented in his lectures as an
442: example for circumstances in which the Faraday's law
443: does not hold, with a hint that it could be analyzed
444: with the Lorentz force. However, in any bulk geometry
445: such as the one here, there is little reason why the
446: electron velocity $\vec v_e$ should in any way
447: resemble $\vec v$ of the metal. So the Lorentz force
448: cannot be too useful. And it is the rest-frame
449: electric field that will again do the trick.
450:
451: To understand the rocking contact, first consider a
452: metal wheel rotating with the angular velocity
453: $\omega$, in the presence of a field $\vec
454: B\,\|\,\vec\omega$. Being in equilibrium, $\vec
455: E^0=0$, implies $\vec E=-\vec v\times\vec B$ with
456: $\vec v=\vec\omega\times\vec r_\perp$, or $\vec
457: E=-\vec r_\perp(\vec\omega\cdot\vec B)$, with the
458: constant electric density, $\rho=\vec\nabla\cdot\vec
459: E=-2\vec\omega\cdot\vec B$. Assuming the wheel is
460: neutral, there is a total surface charge of
461: $2V\vec\omega\cdot\vec B$ at the rim ($V$ denotes the
462: volume of the wheel). Reversing the rotation also
463: reverses the charges.
464:
465: Next consider Fig.~\ref{F5}, depicting two metal
466: wheels rotating in place, so the runner in between
467: moves. The runner has two conducting surfaces
468: separated by an insulating sheet. Connecting the two
469: surfaces will give rise to a one-shot current, which
470: neutralizes the opposite surface charges of the wheels
471: -- no frustration here. Oscillating the runner
472: generates an alternating current.
473:
474: %
475: \begin{figure}%[h]
476: \centering \scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{F5.EPS}}\\
477: \caption{Two metal wheels oscillating in the presence of
478: a $B$-field generates an alternating current.}
479: \label{F5}
480: \end{figure}
481: %
482: Now reconsider Fig~\ref{F4}, depicting either two
483: wheels rocking against each other, or if we take away
484: the metal behind the dotted lines, the rocking contact
485: of~\cite{3}. The geometry is slightly more complex,
486: because there is also a contribution from the
487: translational velocity. But the basic analysis of the
488: last example remains valid. Since the rotating parts
489: are already in contact to each other, little if any
490: current will travel via the wires.
491:
492: \section{Summary}
493: We summarize. Starting from the fact that an electric
494: equilibrium is given only if the electric field of the
495: local rest frame vanishes, or $\vec E=-\vec
496: v\times\vec B$, many phenomena concerning metal parts
497: moving in the presence of a magnetic field are shown
498: to become easily understandable, and accessible for
499: fully or semi-quantitative analysis. The Faraday Law
500: is seen as a special case of two mutually obstructing
501: electric equilibria, as a result of which a circular
502: electric current is maintained.
503:
504:
505:
506:
507:
508:
509: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
510: \bibitem{HR} See for instance the classic
511: introductory textbook by D. Halliday, R. Resnick, J.
512: Walker, {\em Fundamentals of Physics} (John Wiley,
513: 2000).
514: \bibitem{2} R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, M. Sands,
515: {\em The Feynman Lectures on Physics II} (Addison
516: Wesley, 1970) \S17-1.
517: \bibitem{LL}L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz,
518: {\em Electrodynamics of Continuous Media} (Pergamon
519: Press, 1984), \S63.
520: \bibitem{f} It is assumed that the two inductive
521: elements, say because the fields point in orthorgonal
522: directions, do not couple.
523: \bibitem{AJP} P.J. Salzman, J.R. Burke, S.M. Lea, Am. J. Phys.
524: {\bf 69}(5), 586-590, 2001
525: \bibitem{3} Fig. 17-3 of ref.~\cite{2},
526: {\em The Feynman Lectures on Physics II}.
527: \end{thebibliography}
528: \end{document}
529:
530: \begin{center}{\bf\large appendix}\end{center}
531: \noindent In this section we shall show how to obtain
532: Eq~(\ref{11}) in detail. Imagine a circuit consisting of
533: a voltage source, for example a battery giving rise to an
534: alternating voltage $U_a$ and the three usual elements in
535: series connection: coil, capacitance and resistor. In
536: this circuit the resistive potential drop is simply
537: described by Ohm's law: $$U^0_R = \int\vec E^0\cdot\,{\rm
538: d}\vec \ell= \int\rho \vec j\cdot\,{\rm d}\vec \ell =
539: R\,I,$$ while the capacitive one is given by $U^0_C =
540: \frac{Q}{C}$ which is opposite to $U_a$ (that should be
541: obvious). Finally the inductive potential drop is $U^0_L
542: = -L\,\frac{{\rm d}I}{{\rm d}t}$, so altogether: $$U_{a}
543: - L\frac{{\rm d}I}{{\rm d}t}- \frac{Q}{C} = IR$$ Now use
544: the relation $I = \frac{{\rm d}Q}{{\rm d}t}$ to obtain in
545: whole: $$\frac{{\rm d}U_a}{{\rm d}t}= L\frac{{\rm d}^2
546: I}{{\rm d}t^2} + R\frac{{\rm d}I}{{\rm d}t}+ \frac{I}{C}
547: $$ For $I(t) = I_0 \,exp(-i\omega t)$ we finally get
548: $$U_a = -i\omega L\,I + R\,I + \frac{I}{-i\omega C}$$
549: which is what we claim in Eqs~(\ref{7}, \ref{8}).\\ To
550: facilitate the following calculation let us introduce
551: Cartesian coordinates in the example of Fig.~\ref{F2}.
552: Pushing the wire towards the coil means moving it in the
553: $- x$ -- direction while an electron going up the wire
554: moves in the $+ y$ -- direction. Then the $+ z$ --
555: direction perpendicular to the $x - y$ -- plane is
556: pointing towards the spectator.\\ Considering Eq
557: ~(\ref{9})
558: %
559: \[[-R+i\omega L+(i\omega C)^{-1}]I =
560: \int\frac{\partial}{\partial t}{ \vec B}\cdot{\rm
561: d}A+\oint\vec B\cdot\,(\vec v\times{\rm d}\vec \ell)
562: \]
563: %
564: For $\vec B, \vec v$ uniform, the right side yields
565: %
566: \[\vec
567: B D\cdot(\vec v\times\vec \ell )+
568: (\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \vec B) \cdot\vec A \]
569: %
570: Assuming $\vec B, \vec v$ and $\vec ell \parallel \vec
571: j$(within the moving wire)
572: being perpendicular to each other,
573: for example $\vec B = - B_0 \cdot \hat{e}_{\rm z},
574: \vec v = v_0\cdot \hat{e}_{\rm x}$ and $\vec \ell =
575: \hat{e}_{\rm y}$, Eq ~(\ref{10}) reads
576: %
577: \[\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec v =
578: \frac{1}{M}\int\vec j\times\vec B\,{\rm d}V =
579: -\frac{IB_0 D}{M}\cdot \hat{e}_{\rm x}
580: \]
581: %
582: Using this in the time-derivative of Eq~(\ref{9})
583: regarding $I= I_0 \cdot exp(-i\omega t)$ yields
584: %
585: \begin{eqnarray*}
586: (i\omega R - \frac{1}{C} + \omega^2 L)I =
587: (\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec B)D\cdot
588: (\vec v\times\vec \ell )
589: +(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \vec B)\cdot\vec A
590: \\
591: +\vec BD\cdot(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
592: \vec v\times\vec \ell )
593: = (\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec B)D
594: \cdot(\vec v\times\vec \ell ) + I\frac{B_0^2
595: D^2}{M}.
596: \end{eqnarray*}
597: %
598: Choosing $\vec B$ nearly constant, the nonlinear term
599: $\sim \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec B$
600: can be neglected. Then the result is given by
601: \[(i\omega R - \frac{1}{C} + \omega^2 L -
602: \frac{B_0^2 D^2}{M})I
603: = \vec A \cdot \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \vec B\]
604: