Recent content by Farina

Most mainstream reader get this kind of tongue-in-cheekiness. Responding with a "...but just trying to find a polite way to tell you that your question is counter factual" isn't abrasive? Next time try something like "perhaps there's a better way to frame you question, e.g. ..." and you'll be...

I'm thinking it's something akin to how the moon is "continually falling" towards the Earth: for each little bit it falls towards the Earth due to the Earth's gravity, it's inertia moves it a little bit tangentially -- thus circular motion. I'm still not, though, sure of this and need an...

I didn't mean that literally. Thanks for the sarcasm though. Maybe it's time to tune-up your "tongue-in-cheek" nuance detector.

Nope. Thanks for the response, though. This doesn't answer the question as framed. This is pretty much like all the other the other qualitative explanations I've seen, which all side-step explaining in terms of resultant vertical forces (and how they arise). Once again... non-spinning...

More specifically... question stumps 3 physics profs, PF, textbooks, and entire Internet. It’s easy to find explanations of why a gyroscope precesses. What’s not so easy to find – even after spending, literally, hours thinking about it, surfing the web (including PhysicsForums), reading...

The stated problem text said: "... along the same initial path" which I take to mean the initial path and return path are one and the same?

Twice the energy means 1.4 times the speed, which means a 1.4 times greater radius for a given period, T.

Thank you! And, right, that's the rub... the problem statement (taken from Halliday & Resnick) specified: "If the particle is sent back though the magnetic field (along the same initial path)..." My guess this "same initial path" specification is incorrect.

Hello. Can you please check out the attachment? Solving (a) is easy. The correct answer to (b) is "the period for the return trip is unchanged" (that is, T = 130 ns). Okay, fine: the attachment shows why T only depends on m, q, and B. How on Earth, though, do you reconcile this with the...

I'm an intro calc-based physics instructor, and recently uncovered some vagueness, or maybe errors (?), with my recipe. Can you please comment on the following? Question 1: Loop Currents - MY RECIPE: "Determine # of loop currents by connecting each circuit junction once, and only once, to a...

Right! I suppose there are instances where the textbook's blended Loop+Junction Rule approach are needed, but it seems like your Loop-Current Method is *far* simpler. Thank you again.

I am mixing these 2 methods, I guess - but this is the precise method used in most physics textbooks. I'm looking, right now, at Halliday & Resnick (9th ed, pg 719) and they are indeed prescribing a Junction+Loop Rule approach.

I've been using the "Branch Current Method." After some surfing around, I see you're describing the "Loop Current Method." Most/all physics textbooks use the Branch Current Method. I follow your approach, which perfectly matches the Loop Current Method reference I found. I'm still...

First off - THANK YOU! You're describing a much simpler approach. I always thought each circuit branch had to be labeled with its own unique current. For the provided sample circuit, there are indeed 5 distinct currents: I1, I2, I3, I4 and I5. You're advising to simply rely on KLR and consider...

I teach intro, calc-based physics. Below is a terse summary of my recipe for analyzing simple battery-resistor multi-loop circuits. It was working well, until we tried the circuit seen in the attachment. Depending on our selection of simultaneous equations, sometimes our analysis produced...