Because the two beams weren't linearly polarized in your original set-up you were essentially working with 4 waves (two s-waves and two p-waves).
In principle, its possible to interfere the two beams, but they would have to be in precisely the same (elliptical) polarization state. This is...
Nice video. Brings back memories of when I did solid state research back in the mid-80s. We would make our own YBaCuO samples, and do this same type of test to verify superconductivity.
I agree with everyones comments about the flux lines through the sample stabilizing the magnet.
Stingray and 5.0stang got it right.
TQ and HP are proportional to each other, so it makes no sense to speak of them as if they're independent. The more appropriate question, as was pointed out, is to ask what is the optimal distribution or powerband (TQ vs RPM, HP vs RPM) for auto racing...
It's a good question. I used to do flow studies and simulations with water passing along Si wafers whose surface could be hydrophobic (water repelling, like your waxed, beading surface) or hydrophillic (like your unwaxed surface).
I don't recall encountering this effect (water flow...
You're probably measuring parasitic capacitance from your cables/leads. Testing a known, commercial capacitance (e.g., Radio Shack) that has a similar C is a good idea.
I've measured parasitic C as high as 50pF in my high speed coaxs. It will help if you make the leads as short as possible...
There is a huge potential difference between the hot electrode and ground. By touching the hot end and grounding yourself, you just provided a conducting path (your body) and current will flow.
To answer your question, the potential difference drives the current through a resistor (your...
To understand it, you'll need to study Maxwell's equations, and the boundary conditions it predicts for field components normal and perpendicular to the boundary.
k_eff = 1 when in contact, and assumptotically reaches its max value as d is increased.
Using a 2D argument, this is exactly what we expect -with the assumptotic value equal to k. Experimentally however, the assumptotic value is about k/6, where k is the published value of the dielectric...
I thought the same -it should be 1/k. It seems that the two dimensional argument should apply in 3D as well.
Without going into too much details, I'm doing experiments where I measure the field within a dielectric crystal (of cubic geometry). I'm applying the field with parallel plates...
I should have mentioned that I'm interested in the simplest case where the field direction is parallel to four faces of the cube (and normal to the other two faces).
Hi. Those of you familiar with the classic problem in Jackson, where a dielectric sphere (diel const = k) is placed in a uniform electric field E_0, may recall the simple expressions for the field inside of the sphere:
E_in = 3/(2+k) E_out.
The solution tells us that the field...