Magnetic Field at a point due to two parallel wires

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the magnetic field intensity at a point equidistant from two parallel wires carrying equal anti-parallel currents. The initial approach involved using the magnetic field equation for an infinite line but recognized that the y-components of the fields would cancel due to opposite current directions. Participants clarified that the x-components also cancel, emphasizing the importance of vector diagrams in visualizing the problem. Ultimately, the correct configuration for calculating the magnetic field was derived by manipulating angles and understanding the vector relationships. The conversation highlights the significance of vector analysis in solving magnetic field problems involving multiple current-carrying wires.
smithisize
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Two long parallel wires are a center-to-center distance of 4.90 cm apart and carry equal anti-parallel currents of 3.70 A. Find the magnetic field intensity at the point P which is equidistant from the wires. (R = 10.00 cm).

http://imageshack.us/a/img11/3812/twoparallelwires.jpg

Homework Equations



dB = μo*I*(dL\vec{}xdR\vec{})/(4*pi*r^3)

The Attempt at a Solution



Well first I tried multiplying the equation for magnetic field of an infinite line (μo*I/(2*pi*r) by two since there are two wires. then I realized that since the current is flowing in opposite directions, the y-component of the field, so to speak, would cancel out, and now I'm stuck.

Here is the solution, but I want to know how to arrive here (and more specifically I'd like to know why we're multiplying the infinite line equation by the y-component): d*I*μo/(2*pi*(R^2+ (d/2)^2)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
hi smithisize! :smile:
smithisize said:
… then I realized that since the current is flowing in opposite directions, the y-component of the field, so to speak, would cancel out …

no, if you draw a vector diagram (with arrows), you'll find the x components cancel out :wink:
 
tiny-tim said:
hi smithisize! :smile:no, if you draw a vector diagram (with arrows), you'll find the x components cancel out :wink:

Well, the vector equations for dr are R\hat{i} -(d/2)\hat{j} and R\hat{i}+(d/2)\hat{j} therefore the vector sum states that the vertical component cancels out.

But, I ended up figuring it out. If you draw the b-field for the top wire, and manipulate theta (of the upper left corner of a triangle drawn on the top wire) a bit, you can end up with the proper configuration and see that where it all comes from.
 
smithisize said:
Well, the vector equations for dr are R\hat{i} -(d/2)\hat{j} and R\hat{i}+(d/2)\hat{j}

no, if you draw the arrows, you'll see that one goes to the left, and the other to the right,

so it's -R\hat{i} +(d/2)\hat{j} and R\hat{i}+(d/2)\hat{j} :wink:
 
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 .
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...
Back
Top