Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Classical Physics
Electromagnetism
Confusion in Maxwell's derivation of Ampere's Force Law - II
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="faheemahmed6000, post: 5483894, member: 594801"] Up to here (page 156), there is no dot or cross product and the language and notation (except a few) are common. I had nothing to 'decipher' up to page 156 (except to solve a few maths). What I only don't understand (up to page 156) is the generalisation of ##P=\dfrac{B+C}{2r}##. Can you please go through the pages and explain why ##P=\dfrac{B+C}{2r}## is generalised for all values of ##l, m, n## as well as for open circuits while it is derived from special case ##(l=1, m=0, n=0)##? There is nothing hard to decipher here. I am reading this old book because this is only where I find a historic derivation of Ampere's Force Law. Any help would be appreciated. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Classical Physics
Electromagnetism
Confusion in Maxwell's derivation of Ampere's Force Law - II
Back
Top