Finding the B field in a long cylindrical hole in a long wire

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on calculating the magnetic field (B field) in a cylindrical cavity within an infinitely long cylindrical wire carrying a uniform electric current (I). The current density (J) is defined as J = I / π(R² - r²). The user initially attempts to find the vector potential (A) using integration in polar coordinates but later realizes that applying Ampere's Law directly is a more efficient approach. The discussion highlights the importance of superposition in electromagnetic theory and the simplification of complex integrals.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electromagnetic theory, specifically Ampere's Law
  • Familiarity with vector calculus and integration in polar coordinates
  • Knowledge of current density (J) and its calculation
  • Experience with elliptic integrals and their applications
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Ampere's Law in cylindrical geometries
  • Learn about the calculation of vector potentials in electromagnetic fields
  • Explore elliptic integrals and their significance in physics
  • Investigate the principles of superposition in electromagnetic theory
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and students studying electromagnetism, particularly those interested in magnetic field calculations in cylindrical systems.

VortexLattice
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
So, I'm trying this problem and just want to make sure my attack is correct. We have an infinitely long cylindrical hole in an infinitely long cylindrical wire, like in this picture:

11bca21b-9df4-47b5-8ce5-d451a1e43490.png


(Here, they call the radius of the hole 'a'. I'm going to call it r.)

There's an electric current I in the wire and the current density is uniform. I want to find the B field anywhere in the cavity. First, I find J, the current density:

J = \frac{I}{\pi (R^2 - r^2)}

So, the step I'm most worried about is this: I want to find the vector potential A in the hole, but it's pretty hard to integrate around a hole. So I'm going to find the vector potential due to the whole cylinder (as if there were no hole), and then the vector potential due to a current of the same density going through the hole, and then subtract the latter from the former (because it's just a superposition, like electric potential, right?).

I'm doing this in polar coordinates, where the z axis goes along the center of the wire. So, typically you have to integrate over a volume to get A, but we don't actually care about the z direction here, so we just integrate it from 0 to z, and it should cancel out at the end:

\vec{A}(\vec{x}) = Jz \int_0^R r'dr' \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi' \frac{1}{\left|\vec{x} - \vec{x'}\right|}

So, I say that our observation point \vec{x} is (x,0,z), and the point \vec{x'} we're integrating at is (x',y',z). Then, in polar coordinates, we have \vec{x'} = (r'cos(\phi'),r'sin(\phi'),z). Plugging this in, I get:


\vec{A}(\vec{x}) = Jz \int_0^R r'dr' \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi' \frac{1}{\sqrt{(x - r'cos(\phi'))^2 + (r'sin(\phi'))^2}} = Jz \int_0^R r'dr' \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi' \frac{1}{\sqrt{x^2 -2xr'cos(\phi') + r'^2}}

Now, I integrate. I actually first integrate over r'. I do a kind of completing the square thing in the denominator, and then integrate:

\vec{A}(\vec{x}) = Jz \int_0^R r'dr' \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi' \frac{1}{\sqrt{(r' - cos(\phi'))^2 + x^2sin^2(\phi')}}

I integrated this in wolfram, and it simplifies a little. But now I have to integrate over phi, and it gives me an elliptic integral of the first kind. Academia has ruined me so I get afraid when an answer doesn't boil down to three terms or less, so I'm just wondering if this seems right or not.

Also, is my general idea a good one or is there a much easier way?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So, it has been pointed out to me that I am functionally retarded: You use the premise I'm using (subtracting the current due to a cylinder in place of the hole), but you don't do the whole silliness with the vector potential. Because you're calculating them separately, you can just use Ampere's law. Yayyy, I'm stupid.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
92
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
972