Electromagnetism Problem (conductors, dielectrics)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around an electromagnetism problem involving conductors and dielectrics, specifically focusing on the application of Ampere's law and magnetic flux calculations in a cylindrical geometry.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of Ampere's law to determine the magnetic field in different regions, questioning the evaluation of the magnetic field between conductors and the implications of current distribution.
  • There are inquiries about the calculation of magnetic flux, particularly regarding the dependence on height and the integration process over a non-constant magnetic field.
  • Some participants express confusion about the nature of the magnetic field and its variability with respect to distance from the central conductor.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided feedback on the original poster's attempts, affirming some approaches while highlighting areas of confusion. There is an ongoing exploration of the correct expressions for magnetic flux and the integration process, with no explicit consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the need to consider the direction of the magnetic field and the geometry of the area for integration, as well as the requirement to find the flux per unit length of the cable. There are indications that assumptions about the uniformity of the magnetic field may need to be revisited.

roam
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1508/problemhd.jpg

Homework Equations



The Ampere law: [itex]\oint_C \vec{B} \cdot d\vec{l} = \mu_0 I_{enc}[/itex]

The field and flux is proportional to the current: [itex]\Phi = LI[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution



(a)

[itex]\oint_C \vec{B} \cdot d\vec{l} = \vec{B} \oint_C d\hat{l}[/itex]

[itex]= \vec{B} (2 \pi s)= \mu_0 I_{enc}[/itex]

[itex]\therefore \ \vec{B}= \frac{\mu_0 I_{enc}}{2 \pi s}[/itex]

The magnetic field is 0 for s<a. So for the space between the conductors do I have to evaluate this between a<s<b?

[itex]\therefore \ \vec{B}= \frac{\mu_0 I_{enc}}{2 \pi b-2 \pi a}[/itex]

Is this correct?

(b) The magnetic flux produced by the current in the conductor in the middle is

[itex]\Phi = \int B.dA = B(2 \pi a h)[/itex]

Here 2πah is the surface area. So how can we evaluate this if we do not know h (height)? :confused:

(c) [itex]\Phi = LI \implies L = \frac{\Phi}{I} = \frac{B(2 \pi r h)}{I}[/itex]

Is this the correct approach?

Any help is greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
roam said:

The Attempt at a Solution



(a)

[itex]\oint_C \vec{B} \cdot d\vec{l} = \vec{B} \oint_C d\hat{l}[/itex]

[itex]= \vec{B} (2 \pi s)= \mu_0 I_{enc}[/itex]

[itex]\therefore \ \vec{B}= \frac{\mu_0 I_{enc}}{2 \pi s}[/itex]
Hi, roam. That looks fine.

The magnetic field is 0 for s<a.
The magnetic field for s<a would depend on how the current is distributed in the inner conductor. But, apparently they don't want you to worry about that in this problem.

So for the space between the conductors do I have to evaluate this between a<s<b?

[itex]\therefore \ \vec{B}= \frac{\mu_0 I_{enc}}{2 \pi b-2 \pi a}[/itex]

Is this correct?

I don't understand this at all. The symbol B stands for the value of the magnetic field at a point of space.

(b) The magnetic flux produced by the current in the conductor in the middle is

[itex]\Phi = \int B.dA = B(2 \pi a h)[/itex]

Here 2πah is the surface area. So how can we evaluate this if we do not know h (height)? :confused:

You'll need to think about the direction of B and construct an area perpendicular to B and find the flux through that area. When you integrate over the area you won't be able to pull B out of the integral since it is not a constant over the area. Also, note that the question asks for the flux per unit length of the cable.

(c) [itex]\Phi = LI \implies L = \frac{\Phi}{I} = \frac{B(2 \pi r h)}{I}[/itex]

Is this the correct approach?

Yes, it's the correct approach. But you'll need to find the correct expression for the flux.
 
TSny said:
You'll need to think about the direction of B and construct an area perpendicular to B and find the flux through that area. When you integrate over the area you won't be able to pull B out of the integral since it is not a constant over the area. Also, note that the question asks for the flux per unit length of the cable.

Hi,

Thank you for your input. So, the magnetic field is due to the inner conductor in the center carrying I. The direction of B is that it circles around the central wire anti-clockwise (using the right hand rule for instance). We would have:

[itex]\int B.da =\int \frac{\mu I}{2 \pi s}.da[/itex]

So I'm a bit confused, do I now pull everything out of the integral except s? Also, why is B not constant? Isn't the central wire carrying a steady current?
 
roam said:
Thank you for your input. So, the magnetic field is due to the inner conductor in the center carrying I. The direction of B is that it circles around the central wire anti-clockwise (using the right hand rule for instance). We would have:

[itex]\int B.da =\int \frac{\mu I}{2 \pi s}.da[/itex]
That looks good.
So I'm a bit confused, do I now pull everything out of the integral except s? Also, why is B not constant? Isn't the central wire carrying a steady current?

Are you clear on the meaning of the symbol s? Have you selected the surface over which you are integrating to find the flux? You'll need to choose a flat rectangular area that extends from the inner to outer conductor and that's oriented perpendicular to B as shown in the attached figure. s is not constant over this surface. Since B contains s, B is not constant over the surface.

Since you want the flux per unit length, you can take the length of the surface that is parallel to the current to be 1 unit long.
 

Attachments

  • coax.jpg
    coax.jpg
    3.1 KB · Views: 401

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K