Thanks for your response!
Yes, sorry, the final answer should've been B=\frac{μ_0Ic}{2 \pi (b^2-a^2)}.
So, the magnetic field strength at a radial distance c in a solid cylindrical rod with +I current should be B=\frac{μ_0Ic}{2 \pi (b^2-a^2)}. For a solid cylindrical rod with current -I, the...
I followed the following approach which is also the listed solution:
First of all, from Ampere’s circuital law, we get:
∮B⋅dl=μ_0I
Here, I is the enclosed circuit in the circular Gaussian surface of radius c and its value will be:
I=J⋅πc^2
Here, J is the current flowing per unit cross-sectional...
The solution in my book is as follows:
"Since the line has equal intercepts on axes, it is equally inclined to axes.
\implies line is along the vector a(\hat i + \hat j + \hat k)
\implies Equation of line is \frac{x-2}{1}=\frac{y-3}{1}=\frac{z-4}{1}"
As per my understanding, an intercept is the...
Sorry, I think I had misinterpreted this point. The longest carbon chain has precedence over a carbon chain with greater substituents. But, above both of those, a chain with more number of principal characteristic group as substituents is given priority.
"P-44.1.1 The senior parent structure...
I too thought so. But, this is what I found in the IUPAC Blue Book:
"P-44.1 SENIORITY ORDER FOR PARENT STRUCTURES
When there is a choice, the senior parent structure is chosen by applying the following criteria, in order, until a decision is reached. These criteria must always be applied before...
In this question, I am not sure as to which of the following two chains should be considered as the principal chain.
Approach 1 (7 carbon chain, 2 substituents):
4-methyl-4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)heptane
Approach 2 (6 carbon chain, 4 substituents):
2,2,3-trimethyl-3-propylhexane
Clearly, the...
I understand the part where you say that the way I did it, they are not actually position vectors, but changes in distances. But, what do you mean by "already differentiated"? How is this "already differentiated" when clearly we use differentiation to compute the "rates" of change?
Sorry. Well, yes, I did, and was indeed able to find the correct answer. But, I don't understand where I'm going wrong in the current approach.
Like, as @haruspex pointed out:
That makes sense. But, why cannot we do this instead:
Like, where is the fallacy?
You mean like \vec{S}_{along\ the\ string}=(\vec{S}_{along\ the\ horizontal})cos\theta \implies u\Delta t = (v\Delta t) cos\theta \implies u=vcos\theta?
The correct answer is u=vcos\theta. I have understood so far to be able to conclude that \text{displacement of string} = PA - PC \approx AB
Also, \overline{AB}=\overline{AC}cos\theta
or, more generally, \vec{S}_{along\ the\ string}=(\vec{S}_{along\ the\ horizontal})cos\theta
Now, I had hoped...