1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Lenz's Law, 2nd opinion wanted

  1. Apr 5, 2004 #1
    Please look for flaws in my reasoning, any help would be appreciated.
    HRW CH31 #28P(if you have the book handy)
    A long rectangular conducting loop of width L, resistance R, and mass m, is hung in a horizontal, uniform magnetic field B that is directed into the page and exists only above line aa. The loop is then dropped; during its fall, it accelerates until it reaches a certain terminal speed. Ignoring air resistance, what is this terminal speed?
    For the falling loop to reach a constant terminal speed the force of gravity pulling it downward must be cancelled by a Lorentz Force pullint it upward

    F(Lorentz)=mg eqn 1

    To find F(L) we must first find the induce EMF, then the induced current and finally use this to determine F(L).

    Magnetic Flux:(MF)=Integral[B*dot*dA] Let x equal verticle length of loop in B field.


    Now taking the derivative of both sides with respect to t:

    intergrate both sides with respect to t:
    This sounds reasonable because EMF should be increasing with time since change of flux is increasing with time.

    Now in terms of current:

    and Force:

    Subbing g for a and rewriting eqn 1 from way above:

    solving for t:

    Using kinematics equation:

    Sound Plausible? Thanks for your time.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 5, 2004 #2
    Here, I think, is a problem:

    (You could have saved yourself some time by simply claiming that v = at, which in effect is what you have done.)

    Problem is you are assuming that a is constant. I think you will agree that this is the case here. The magnetic force exerted on the coil is increasing as v increases.

    In fact, if you just remember that you are looking for a terminal velocity, it will be obvious that ai=g, and af=0.
  4. Apr 6, 2004 #3
    Ahhh :rolleyes: , thanks for pointing that out; I sensed a bit of redundancy(sp?), but wasn't sure enough to simplify. Then again, I can use the practice showing relationships via Calculus.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Lenz's Law, 2nd opinion wanted
  1. Lenz's Law (Replies: 11)

  2. Lenz's Law (Replies: 3)

  3. Lenzs Law (Replies: 1)

  4. Lenz's law (Replies: 8)