I want to open a dicussion about the universal validity of the Faraday Law of Induction. It seems that there are two kind of induction and we should clarify if both are identical or both are different phenomena.

A) Induction by flux cutting the induced wire: this induction is done in current generators and the flux lines must cut the wire. It requires relative movement (at speed v) between the field and the wire

                 E = B · v · Length

B)Induction by flux linking two coils: this induction is done in transformers. The flux lines do not need to cut the wire. It is just need a variable magnetic field

                E = -N · S · dB/dt



Richard Feynman (Nobel prize winner) about the electromagnetic induction:

    "So the "flux rule" that the emf in a circuit is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit applies whether the flux changes because the field changes or because the circuit moves (or both) ...

    Yet in our explanation of the rule we have used two completely distinct laws for the two cases  E = v x B  for "circuit moves" and  E = -S· dB/dt  for "field changes".

    We know of no other place in physics where such a simple and accurate general principle requires for its real understanding an analysis in terms of two different phenomena.

...

The "flux rule" does not work in this case [note: for an example explained in the original text]. It must be applied to circuits in which the material of the circuit remains the same. When the material of the circuit is changing, we must return to the basic laws. The correct physics is always given by the two basic laws

F = q · ( E + v · B )
rot E = - dB/dt                              "

            — Richard P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics  .
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox#Inapplicability_of_Faraday.27s_law

--------------------------------------------

For those interested in an interesting fact about the Induction Law here I link a file which explains that two different formulations seem to exist for the same phenomenon : one, the Faraday Unipolar generator: E = (v · B) , other the Maxwell 2nd Law : rot E = -dB/dt, which are two different formulations for the same law !!! "Faraday or Maxwell" by Meyl (read page 5 and next) http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/Faraday-or-Maxwell.pdf

Another great paper by Cohn: http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/George%20I.%20Cohn%20-%20Electromagnetic%20Induction.pdf

"THE FLUX LINKING LAW, E = -dB/dt, AND THE FLUX CUTTING LAW , E = B·l·v, OFTEN ERRONEOUSLY ARE CONSIDERED AS MERELY DIFFERENT WAYS OF EXPRESSING THE SAME PHENOMENA. THIS ARTICLE ATTEMPTS TO DISPEL THE CONFUSION SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT OF ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION"  (Cohn, 1949)

Nothing that you have said challenges Faraday's Law of Induction.  You have pointed out the distinction between Faraday's Law that is expressed in terms of physical motion, with the more general form that is expressed in terms of changing flux density.  Faraday's Law is a subset of the general form.

Where is that "general form" ? All I see is two different equations, one working when flux is changing and one when flux is stable.

 
As many of you know there are occasion where the Faraday´s induction Law (E = - S · dB/dt) cannot be applied. There are some paradoxes where the calculation with E = -S · dB/dt  cannot be done, so it is not a general equation . Therefore it seems that induction is derived from two different phenomena: FLUX LINKING and FLUX CUTTING, each one with one different equation. This paradoxes come from Faraday´s  time. ( Faraday Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox   )
 
As all universal laws in nature, it would be great to find an common underlining principle which could explain both phenomena
 
Here I link some very interesting documents:
 
“Electromagnetic induction without magnetic field”   (Hooper-Monstein effect)  ( see pdf below )  http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/hoopmnst.htm
 
      This comes from the work from Hooper ( http://www.rexresearch.com/hooper/horizon.htm ), Monstein ( http://www.rexresearch.com/monstein/monstein.htm )  and Crane ( see pictures below , http://www.rqm.ch/Central%20Oscillator%20and%20SpaceQuantaMedium.pdf ). Crane postulate attraction a repulsion of poles as rotating fluid-like stream in the same or opposite directions. Again other scientist proposing vortex-like foundations for this behavior, also stated by Howard Johnson, Roy Davis – Crawl and others…
 
“Faraday Final Riddle: Does the field rotates with the magnet?  ( see pdf below )
 

I think that we just know the tip of the "Magnetism" iceberg. Until we do not know the foundation of Magnetism we won´t be able to derive new technology.

A very interesting video about Distinti´s theory which discredits the Faraday equation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vOoVfQRuv8

Regards

 It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor.

 
 The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated.
 
 But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.
 
 Examples of this sort, together with unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relative to the "light medium," suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.


</blockquote>

EM theory is just fine.  You should study this guy's videos.

https://www.youtube.com/user/lasseviren1/videos

Some new findings about disident theries of EM:

The Supressed Electrodynamics of Ampere-Gauss-Weber
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html

Joseph Henry - On the discovery of two distinct kinds of Dynamic Induction
http://www.overunity.com/14906/joseph-henry-on-the-discovery-of-two-distinct-kinds-of-dynamic-induction/

Gennady Nikolaev - About two kinds of magnetic interaction: transverse and longitudinal magnetic interaction (New Energy Technologies, Issue #6 )
http://magneticuniverse.com/uploads/FileUpload/e4/24d9314e3aa202313fd3cf4259d19e.pdf

Some food for thought...

Good articles hanon. The last one of Nikolaev I did not read until today. Any article that emphasize a different phenomena regarded the magnetism and make it to not fit in the current scientific paradigm, is more valuable for me than an entire academic library. Here is an another article about non-conventional magnetism, translated as "The Game of Toroids"!