I've been told an effective induction stovetop needs to deliver about 1000W of power. I have magnet wire that can tolerate at most about 0.2A of current, and was planning on using a 60Hz wall outlet as my source (obviously I'll need to bring down the outlet current quite a bit).
So the energy...
I think so.
The answer to question 2 would be no: as the sphere precesses the magnetic moment alternates between up and down orientation (this is due to angular momentum and torque, not the magnetic field itself). The magnetic field causes a magnetic force that will either accelerate the sphere...
Assuming we’re still treating this as a spin-1/2 problem, the component of intrinsic angular momentum in the direction of the magnetic field gradient can only be either + or - h/(4*pi).
Sending neutral atoms with random initial orientation through a non-uniform magnetic field causes discrete ouputs (spin orientations) along the same axis as the magnetic field gradient.
So if the Lorentz force has no effect on the magnetic moment of the sphere, is the answer to the second question:
"Would the motion you described above affect the component of the magnetic moment measured by the Stern-Gerlach experiment?"
a no, because the motion the sphere experiences is the...
It's been a while since I took EM, but hopefully I'm following you correctly:
F = +u*dB/dz
Moving in the upward direction, dB/dz is positive so F>0, so the force acting on the magnetic moment is upward.
I know that magnetic dipoles tend to align so that the moment (south-to-north poles) are...
Okay, so there's a magnetic force acting on the sphere
F = iL X B
At the point along the line through the center of the sphere that's higher up, the current is into the page, and therefore F points right and down (into the sphere). At the other side of the sphere F points left and up, also...
Homework Statement
Consider a solid spinning sphere of negative charge in a non-uniform magnetic field:
http://d2vlcm61l7u1fs.cloudfront.net/media%2F2f8%2F2f840122-3d7f-4af3-98a7-efa9b2e7d26a%2FphpBOhfaK.png
(the rotation illustrated at the top is supposed to be counter-clockwise).
What...
Ah, the mistake in my diagram is that I tried to show events 1 and 2 simultaneously at the top, as they would be in O's frame. But this is in C's frame.
If I start with the bottom scenario in the diagram and work backwards, the pulse from event 2 will be back at the location of event 2 before...
I think I understand now.
First of all it wasn't until I saw your diagram that I realized event 1 was on the positive axis and event 2 was on the negative axis. I had them switched, so when I was arguing that event 2 occurred first in C's frame, I meant event 1.
But to re-approach my argument...
If A, B and O are all at rest relative to each other then they all move to the left at the same velocity in C's reference frame.
I was able to solve the problem using Lorenz' equations, but I guess I get a little confused about the difference between an event occurring and an event being...
I'll try the Lorentz approach, but now I'm curious if my logic for this part is wrong:
Since the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, if C is directly over event 1 (which is a light pulse), then C will see the wavefront emit radially outward in every direction as if event 1 were...