Infinitely Long Parallel Rectangular Parallel Strips (H field)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the evaluation of the magnetic field between two infinitely long parallel rectangular strips using Ampere's law. Concerns are raised about whether the solution adequately considers the contributions from both strips, particularly regarding the assumption that the magnetic field outside the strips is zero. It is argued that this assumption holds only if the currents in the strips are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction; otherwise, a net current would create a non-zero magnetic field outside. The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity on the conditions under which the magnetic field can be considered contained entirely between the strips. Overall, the participants seek to validate the reasoning behind the assumptions made in the solution.
jegues
Messages
1,085
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



See figure attached.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I have some concerns about his solution for part a).

I agree with how he's evaluated Ampere's law to find the field due to one of the strips at any point between the plates, but if you want to know the net field inbetween the strips, I think you must consider what the opposing plate is doing as well.

He seems to have neglected this, am I correct?

For example, let's say we want to find the field a distance z from the bottom plate, or in other words a distance (a-z) from the top plate. (Assuming the Y-axis starts at the top edge of the bottom plate)

The net field should have two contributing fields, one from each plate respectively.

Does it just so happen that due to the symmetry of the problem that the summation of these two contributing fields always works out to be the answer he's given? (Anywhere inbetween the two plates of course)

How can you prove that this is indeed the case?
 

Attachments

  • 2008FQ4.JPG
    2008FQ4.JPG
    32.5 KB · Views: 373
Physics news on Phys.org
Still looking for some help!
 
I am unsure about the reasoning that I'm about to present, so check with someone else before accepting it.

It seems that he has indeed considered the opposing plate, because he's using the approximation that the field outside the two strips to be zero. If the two currents that are flowing in the strips were not equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, then there would be a net current flowing in one direction, and thus, according to the Ampere's circuital law, there would be a resultant non-zero magnetic field on the outside.
 
Last edited:
omoplata said:
I am unsure about the reasoning that I'm about to present, so check with someone else before accepting it.

It seems that he has indeed considered the opposing plate, because he's using the approximation that the field outside the two strips to be zero. If the two currents that are flowing in the strips were not equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, then there would be a net current flowing in one direction, and thus, according to the Ampere's circuital law, there would be a resultant non-zero magnetic field on the outside.

He states in the question, "Assuming that the magnetic field is contained entirely between the strips" so there is no field outside.
 
jegues said:
He states in the question, "Assuming that the magnetic field is contained entirely between the strips" so there is no field outside.
I think that assumption can only be made if the currents in the strips are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Because if you apply Ampere's circuital law to a loop around both strips, if there is a net current in one direction, the line integral of the magnetic field is going to be non-zero.

So, if the currents are not equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, a zero outside magnetic field is a physical impossibility, and implies that the Ampere's circuital law is wrong.

Anyway, I would also welcome someone else's opinion on this.
 
Last edited:
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top