Induced emf in a wire hard mathematically

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating induced electromotive force (emf) in a circuit involving two infinite wires carrying currents in opposite directions. The circuit includes a moving rod with resistance, and participants are tasked with determining the induced current, the force required to maintain the rod's velocity, and the work done by an external agent.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss calculating the magnetic field between the wires using Ampere's law and integrating to find the magnetic flux. There are attempts to express the induced current in terms of the magnetic flux and resistance.
  • Some participants question the definitions and assumptions made regarding the magnetic field and the integration limits.
  • There are discussions about the time-dependence of the magnetic flux and its implications for the calculations.
  • Several participants express uncertainty about their calculations and seek confirmation or clarification on their reasoning.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing feedback on each other's attempts and suggesting areas for reconsideration. Some guidance has been offered regarding the integration process and the interpretation of variables, but no consensus has been reached on the correct approach or final expressions.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the information they can provide or the methods they can use. There is also a recognition of potential errors in reasoning and calculations that need to be addressed.

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
286

Homework Statement


See picture for clarity.
There are 2 infinite wires carrying a current i, one wire does it in the upward direction and the other wire in the downward direction. They are separated by a distance L+2d.
Between them lies a circuit such that the part that moves with a velocity v upward has a resistance R and the rest of the circuit has a negligible resistance.
1)Calculate the induced current through the rod moving at constant velocity v.
2)Calculate the force needed to maintain the constant velocity. (applied by an external agent)
3)The work done by the external agent by unit of time.

Homework Equations


None given.

The Attempt at a Solution


First I calculated the magnetic field between the 2 wires. I used Ampere's law. I reached [tex]B=\frac{\mu _0 I}{2\pi r}+\frac{\mu _0 I}{2\pi (L+2d-r)}[/tex], pointing into the sheet.
Now [tex]V=RI\Rightarrow I=\frac{V}{R}=-\frac{d\Phi _B}{dt}\cdot \frac{1}{R}[/tex].
So I must find [tex]\frac{d \Phi _B}{dt}[/tex].
First, I'm looking for [tex]\Phi _B[/tex].
I believe that [tex]\Phi _B = A\cdot B_{\text{enclosed}}[/tex].
So I integrated the expression I had found of B from d to L-d, which gave me [tex]B_{\text{enclosed}}=\frac{\mu _0 I}{2\pi r}\left [ \ln \left ( \frac{L-d}{d} \right) + \ln \left ( \frac{d+L}{3d} \right ) \right ][/tex].
Then [tex]\frac{d \Phi _B}{dt}=LvB_{\text{enclosed}}[/tex], thus [tex]I=-\frac{Lv B_{\text{enclosed}}}{R}[/tex].

It was so messy to calculate, I'm sure at 99.9999999999% I've made at least an error...
Could someone confirm it? Or at least tell me if my reasoning was right.
Thanks in advance.
 

Attachments

  • out.jpg
    out.jpg
    54.7 KB · Views: 460
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi there :smile:,

You're vaguely on the right track, but here are a few comments:

"Benclosed" does not have any real meaning. Instead, you are actually trying to find
ΦB = ∫B·dA

for the loop.

After writing B·dA in terms of r, the distance from a wire, the integration limits will be from d to L+d These are the distances from the vertical parts of the loop to either of the wires.

The final expression for ΦB should not depend on r (an integration variable), and should depend on time t somehow.
 
Thank you so much Redbelly. I'm going to try tomorrow (a bit late for now).
Wow, so when I will calculate [tex]\frac{d \Phi _B}{dt}[/tex], it will go even messier since ∫B·dA depends on time!
I'll probably ask for further help tomorrow... but as of now, I say a big thank you.
:biggrin:
 
Okay, good luck. By the way, it will be a fairly simple time-dependence, and a simple derivative.
 
Redbelly98 said:
Okay, good luck. By the way, it will be a fairly simple time-dependence, and a simple derivative.

Here's my attempt: ΦB=∫B·dA=[tex]B\cdot A[/tex] because the 2 vectors are orthogonals. This gives me ΦB[tex]=\frac{\mu _0 I}{2\pi} \left[ \frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{L+2d-r} \right] Lvt[/tex].
Integrating, [tex]\int_d^{L+d} \Phi _B dr=\frac{\mu _0 I Lvt}{2\pi} \left[ \ln \left ( \frac{L+d}{d} \right) +\ln \left ( \frac{L+3d}{d} \right ) \right ][/tex].
Derivating with respect to time, [tex]\frac{d \Phi _B}{dt}=\frac{\mu _0 I Lv}{2\pi} \left[ \ln \left ( \frac{L+d}{d} \right) +\ln \left ( \frac{L+3d}{d} \right ) \right ][/tex], thus [tex]I=-\frac{\mu _0 I Lv}{2\pi} \left[ \ln \left ( \frac{L+d}{d} \right) +\ln \left ( \frac{L+3d}{d} \right ) \right ] \cdot \frac{1}{R}[/tex]. Unfortunately I cancels out... What am I doing wrong?
 
fluidistic said:
Here's my attempt: ΦB=∫B·dA=[tex]B\cdot A[/tex] because the 2 vectors are orthogonals. This gives me ΦB[tex]=\frac{\mu _0 I}{2\pi} \left[ \frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{L+2d-r} \right] Lvt[/tex].
I didn't understand how did you get expression for ΦB.
Inside the loop field due to two current carrying conductors is identical.
So net ΦB= 2*Lvt*μo/2π*Intg[1/r]*dr between the limits d to (d+L).
 
Use rl.bhat's hint, just do the integral for one wire and multiply the result by 2.

Also, dΦB/dt (1/R) gives you the current in the loop, not the current in the outside wires. They are different currents.
 
rl.bhat said:
I didn't understand how did you get expression for ΦB.
Inside the loop field due to two current carrying conductors is identical.
So net ΦB= 2*Lvt*μo/2π*Intg[1/r]*dr between the limits d to (d+L).

Ok I made an error. Without using the trick of multiplying by 2 the integral of the first wire, I do it the hard way.
Here's my new attempt: From Ampere's law, the total electric field is given by [tex]B(r)=\frac{\mu _0I}{2\pi} \left[ \frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{r-2d-L} \right][/tex].
Do you buy that? If so, then you should also buy that [tex]B\cdot dA=\frac{\mu _0I}{2\pi} \left[ \frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{r-2d-L} \right] \codt Lvdt[/tex].
Integrating from d to L+d, I reached [tex]\Phi _B= \frac{Lvdt \mu _0 I}{2\pi}\int _d ^{L+d} \frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{r-2d-L} dr=\frac{Lvdt \mu_0 I}{2\pi} \cdot \left [ \ln \left ( \frac{L+d}{d} \right ) + \ln \left ( \frac{d}{L+d} \right) \right ][/tex]. It seems to me it's worth 0...
Where did I go wrong?
 
The distance of a point from the second wire in terms of r is (2d + L - r). Now you will get the required result. When you find magnetic field due to current carrying conductor, distance should be always positive. In your expression for second wire it is negative. That is why you got zero result.
 
  • #10
rl.bhat said:
The distance of a point from the second wire in terms of r is (2d + L - r). Now you will get the required result. When you find magnetic field due to current carrying conductor, distance should be always positive. In your expression for second wire it is negative. That is why you got zero result.

Ok thank you very much. So I'm the same case as before. I get [tex]\Phi _B =\frac{\mu _0 I vLdt}{2\pi} \left [ \ln \left ( \frac{L+d}{d} \right ) + \ln \left ( \frac{L+3d}{d}\right ) \right ][/tex].
I don't know what I'm missing... I'm sure it's wrong. Now I have to differentiate with respect to time...
 
  • #11
The term in question is a result of doing this integral:

[tex]\int_{d}^{L+d}\frac{1}{L+2d-r}dr<br /> =-ln(L+2d-r)|_{d}^{L+d}[/tex]

L+2d-r is the distance to the right-hand wire here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K