EMF in a loop; non-constant magnetic field

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the EMF in a square loop due to a time-varying current in a straight wire, using the formula ξ = -dΦ/dt and the Biot-Savart law. The initial calculation yielded 600 nV, but the user struggled to replicate this result through various methods, including considering separate loops and integrating. After several attempts and adjustments, including analyzing the flux through different regions, the user confirmed that the correct EMF indeed comes out to 600 nV. The conversation highlights the importance of careful integration and understanding the geometry of the setup. Ultimately, the solution was verified, emphasizing the need for precise calculations in electromagnetic problems.
AJKing
Messages
104
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



Refer to Figure attached.

The current in the long straight wire is

i = (4.5A/s2)t2-(10A/s)t

Find the EMF in the square loop at t=3.0s.

Homework Equations



\xi = -\frac{d \Phi}{dt}

And Biot-Savart law for straight wires of infinite length:

B = \frac{\mu_0 i}{2 \pi R}

The Attempt at a Solution



Solution: 600 nV

I cannot recreate this result.

I consider two loops, one below the wire in the picture and one above.
I calculate their EMFS separately as:

\xi = -\frac{A \mu_0}{2 \pi R} \frac{di}{dt}

and find the difference between them.
This doesn't reveal 600 nV.

I try integrating with respect to R, and get mathematical gibberish (ln[0]).

I must be missing something fundamental in my setup - any suggestions?
 

Attachments

  • emfLOOP.jpg
    emfLOOP.jpg
    4.2 KB · Views: 477
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Think about the flux through the shaded areas in the figure.
[EDIT: This can help avoid dealing with r = 0. But I don't get 600 nV either. You will need to integrate.]
[Edit 2: OK, it does come out 600 nV.]
 

Attachments

  • emf loop.jpg
    emf loop.jpg
    6.7 KB · Views: 449
Last edited:
The change in flux for those areas cancel.

So, I consider the third region.

4cm away from the source.
8cm long, 16cm wide (not shown in figure)

\xi = \frac{\mu_0 * 8cm * 16 cm * 17A/s}{2 \pi} \int^{12cm}_{4cm} \frac{1}{R} = 47 nV.

If I don't integrate, and instead just find the difference, I get closer, but it doesn't make sense to do that. ( = 725 nV)
 
AH!

You were right, it does come out to 600 nV.
Infinitesimal lengths :).

Thanks
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top