- #141
timetraveller123
- 621
- 45
yes that's why i assumed they were asking about electrostatic potential because after all they could have only set one answer
Thx again for pointing out that the Em field can readily be determined along the entire contour of post 109.timetraveller123 said:yes that's why i assumed they were asking about electrostatic potential because after all they could have only set one answer
Very theoretical? Re: my post 115 pdf slide:timetraveller123 said:r yes i agree it is a very theoretical concept
rude man said:Very theoretical? Re: my post 115 pdf slide:
Hang a voltmeter so that it is suspended above the top of the coil at the half-way point with the leads going straight down to points a and b. What is the reading now? emf/6 maybe? The "theoretical" potential difference as computed by line-integrating Es and Es only?
And: I may have mentioned this before, but:
Kirchhoff said the sum of potential drops around a circuit = 0. If we consider each drop as the integral of Es only then his statement also applies to any closed loop in the sense of line-integrated Es fields.. Therefore. the line integral of Es must be the potential difference along each segment of any circuit.
Dr. Lewin's statement that "Kirchhoff was wrong" in the video with the 100 and 900 ohm resistors was absolutely incorrect.
V1 + V2 = 0 But then V1+V2 = ∫E dl around loop = = 0? Which is false since ∫E dl around loop = emf. So V1 and V2 can’t be voltages since voltages must add to 0 around any loop Cf. Kirchhoff.
It's been a long grind, 1 1/2 years old or so, yet no one has IMO solved the OP's problem. I hereby submit a method of solution but won't carry out the computations as they are laborious and probably inappropriate anyway.timetraveller123 said:Homework Statement
A circular coil with radius a is connected with an equilateral triangle on the inside as shown in the figure below. The resistance for each section of the wire is labeled. A uniform magnetic field B(t) is pointing into the paper, perpendicular to the plane of the coil. B(t) is decreasing over time at a constant rate k. Given 2r1 “ 3r2. Find UAB, the potential difference between points A and B
View attachment 211464
I think I have complete solution, but it would be easy to have mistake. Going clockwise around the outer loop, starting with CA, and calling currents ##i_1,i_2,i_3 ##, and similarly around the triangle, ##i_4,i_5, i_6 ##, I get ##\\ ## ##i_1=\frac{9}{2}M-\frac{7}{8}N ## ##\\ ## ##i_2=\frac{45}{2}M-\frac{35}{8}N ##Charles Link said:Letting ## C=\frac{dB}{dt} ##, I get the EMF for the 3 outer circular arcs is ## \mathcal{E}_o=\frac{C \pi a^2}{3} ##, and (assuming I computed it correctly), I get the EMF for each of the three straight line segments is ## \mathcal{E}_i= \frac{C \sqrt{3} a^2}{4} ##. It should be a simple matter to then compute all of the currents, using Kirchhoff's laws. It requires 6 loop equations. There are 6 currents to solve for. ## \\ ## @vanhees71 I will try to double-check my calculations, but might you concur?
That's the wrong integral. The integral is with Es, not Em. And as I pointed out, the Es integral from A to B will be the same whether you go via the arc AB or the triangle side AB. The voltage can be computed as asked for.Charles Link said:@rude man It is, in any case, impossible to specify ##U_{AB} ## as the question in the OP asks, because the path integral ## I=\int\limits_{A}^{B} \vec{E}_{induced} \cdot d \vec{l} ## will be a function of the path that is taken between ## ## and ## B ##.
Any chance you have that PM @rude man?cnh1995 said:I have sent you a PM with the answer I am getting for the voltmeter reading.
Hi again cnh, I will look for that PM, I think i can find it & look at it.cnh1995 said:Any chance you have that PM @rude man?
I remember writing the whole solution in a notebook at that time, but I'm afraid I have lost that notebook.
Will try again and post my results.
This is the whole "crux" of Professor Walter Lewin's paradox. The EMF's/voltages are path dependent.rude man said:That's the wrong integral. The integral is with Es, not Em. And as I pointed out, the Es integral from A to B will be the same whether you go via the arc AB or the triangle side AB. The voltage can be computed as asked for.
I didn't complete the analysis but I did a somewhat similar one (see attached pdf, sorry it's not very good). In that one there were three separate Es paths and all three integrated to the same answer.
For the OP's problem I assumed the B field to be symmetrical, in fact circular & centered at the center of the circle. That's how I obtained the values of the Em fields.
I will reply to your newest 2 posts separately.
I agree. That's how I remember having done it.rude man said:and I reiterate that the problem must be attacked with separate Em and Es fields as I have blathered on for a long time.
@cnh I look forward to your solution. Because I split the solution into two parts, I think my second solution may still be right, even if I goofed on the first part with the algebra. I do think there is chance that I got both parts correct.cnh1995 said:Any chance you have that PM @rude man?
I remember writing the whole solution in a notebook at that time, but I'm afraid I have lost that notebook.
Will try again and post my results.
I guess it is deleted from our inboxes as we didn't revisit that conversation for a year.Never mind! I will try to work it out again.rude man said:I think i can find it & look at it.
It is simply Kirchhoff's voltage laws as spelled out by Professor Lewin.cnh1995 said:I agree. That's how I remember having done it.
Which is why i said he was wrong. He didn't know what "voltage" means. It is not necessarily what a voltmeter reads.Charles Link said:This is the whole "crux" of Professor Walter Lewin's paradox. The EMF's/voltages are path dependent.
Thanks cnh. I also could not find it. Looking forward to your re-work!cnh1995 said:I guess it is deleted from our inboxes as we didn't revisit that conversation for a year.Never mind! I will try to work it out again.
Yes that's correct so I am missing one independent equation somewhere. 17 equations and 18 unknowns! Hope @cnh1995 has better luck!Charles Link said:There are only two independent current junction equations, accounting for the 6 KVL equations. ## \\ ##
Wouldn't that eliminate the electrostatic field Es from this circuit?Charles Link said:and they could even have chosen r1=r2r1=r2 r_1=r_2 .
i don't think you need that many equation(please do correct me if i am wrong) there is some symetry involved by which you can say that i4=i6 and i1=i3rude man said:Yes that's correct so I am missing one independent equation somewhere. 17 equations and 18 unknowns! Hope @cnh1995 has better luck!
EDIT: Es4 + Es5 + Es6 = 0 (the triangle) is a third independent Es equation.
I might have goofed in posts 150-152, but surprisingly, I did not get the two ## I_1's ## or the two ## I_3's ## equal as in your diagram. The circulation in a given direction, (clockwise or counterclockwise) may, in fact, destroy what appears to be a symmetry that may be non-existent.=Edit: I goofed somewhere in the algebra. Hopefully I will have a correction shortly.timetraveller123 said:Is this correct? Does the direction of the current I assume matter? there is one loop I haven't used then there would 5 equations for 4 unknown making it overdetermined and lastly what sign should I use for the change in magnetic field thanks for the help
View attachment 213131
Thank you @cnh1995. I would love to see a summary of your approach a la my post 149. Did you have 18 equations & 18 unknowns, what are they, etc. I'm not interested in quantitative results since I don't have any myself (I am too lazy to compute things like areas and triangle lengths ). The approach is what's interesting to me. Thanks.cnh1995 said:As per my calculations, the "electrostatic" voltage VAB= VA-VB= -3sqrt(3)a2k/96.
(Here, k=dB/dt as mentioned in the OP).
Electrostatically, B comes out to be at a higher potential than A and C.(PS: How do I type mathematical signs and symbols here on PF5? I don't see any option in the editor.)
Edit: I verified the above result with actual numerical values as follows:
Radius a= 10m, k= 5T/s, r1= 15 ohm, r2= 10 ohm (2r1=3r2).
All the six currents are satisfying KCL at the 3 nodes (total incoming node current= total outgoing node current = 52.046 A).
Typing the entire solution here would be a tedious task. Let me know if you want to see the full solution. I will try to post an image of the whole solution.
Nah, just 2 equations with 2 unknowns!rude man said:Did you have 18 equations & 18 unknowns, what are they, etc