Inductance Puzzle involving coplanar conducting rings

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the inductance of coplanar conducting rings, specifically comparing the inductance of a small ring with a larger ring that has dimensions scaled by a factor of n, and the effects of placing another superconducting ring in the same plane. The original poster has provided an expression for the inductance of the first ring and is seeking guidance on how to approach the second part of the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the inductance for a ring with n-times the dimensions and has presented a formula for the inductance of a single-turn ring. Some participants question the correctness of the derived expressions and seek validation of the approach taken.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing feedback on the original poster's calculations. There is a request for clarification on the correctness of the results, indicating that further exploration of the problem is needed. Some participants express uncertainty about the next steps in calculating the inductance for the second scenario involving the superconducting ring.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the information shared and the methods discussed. There is an indication that assumptions regarding the relationships between the inductances of the rings are being questioned.

Hak
Messages
709
Reaction score
56
Homework Statement
We have a small ring made of thin wire having radius ##R## and its inductance is ##L##. Find the inductance of a ring having ##n##-times the dimensions as this ring. If in the plane of the ring, we place another superconducting ring of half the geometric dimensions so that the planes of the rings and their centers coincide, then the inductance of the ring with radius ##R## comes out to be ##L_1##. What will the inductance ##L_2## of the ring with radius ##R## be when it is placed inside a superconducting ring with twice the geometric dimensions? The planes and centers of the rings also coincide in this case.
Relevant Equations
/
I solved the first point as ##L_n = \frac{\mu_0 n R}{2}##. How to proceed for the other point?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hak said:
Homework Statement: We have a small ring made of thin wire having radius ##R## and its inductance is ##L##. Find the inductance of a ring having ##n##-times the dimensions as this ring. If in the plane of the ring, we place another superconducting ring of half the geometric dimensions so that the planes of the rings and their centers coincide, then the inductance of the ring with radius ##R## comes out to be ##L_1##. What will the inductance ##L_2## of the ring with radius ##R## be when it is placed inside a superconducting ring with twice the geometric dimensions? The planes and centers of the rings also coincide in this case.
Relevant Equations: /

I solved the first point as ##L_n = \frac{\mu_0 n R}{2}##. How to proceed for the other point?
Welcome to PF.

Please show us your work on the first question, so we can understand your approach. Thanks.
 
Let us recall the formula for the inductance of a ring of radius ##R## and wire cross-sectional area ##A##, as given by ##L = \frac{\mu_0 N^2A}{l}##, where ##\mu_0## is the permeability of free space, ##N## is the number of turns of the wire, and ##l## is the length of the wire. For a single-turn ring, we have ##N = 1## and ##l = 2 \pi R##, so the formula simplifies to ##L = \frac{\mu_0 A}{2 \pi R}##. Since ##A = A_{circle} = \pi R^2##, we have: ##L = \frac{\mu_0 R}{2}##.

Now, if we have another ring that has ##n##-times the dimensions of the original ring, that means its radius is ##R_n = nR## and its cross-sectional area is ##A_n = \pi n^2 R^2 = n^2 A##. Plugging these values into the formula, we get: $$L_n = \frac{\mu_0 A_n}{2 \pi n R} = \frac{\mu_0 \pi n^2 R^2}{2 \pi n R} \Rightarrow L_n = \frac{\mu_0 n R}{2} = nL$$
 
Is it correct?
 
Hak said:
Is it correct?
Could someone please tell me whether this result is correct? In that case, I would post my approach to calculate ##L_1##, although I firmly believe it is wrong, as it does not lead to ##L_2##.
 
?
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
929
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
836
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
917
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
959
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K