Magnetic field due to current loop

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the magnetic field due to a current loop, specifically addressing the contributions from two different curves in the loop. Participants are analyzing the formula for the magnetic field and its application in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the correct interpretation of the variable phi in the magnetic field formula and its implications for the calculations. There are discussions about the necessity of including the fraction of the circle represented by phi and how it affects the overall magnetic field calculation.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided different perspectives on the formula and its application, with some suggesting that the original poster may have made calculation errors. There is an ongoing examination of the assumptions regarding the angle and the contributions from the inner and outer loops. The discussion reflects a mix of interpretations and attempts to clarify the correct approach without reaching a definitive consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of ensuring that the radii are in the correct units and that the calculations must reflect the correct physical interpretation of the problem. There is also mention of the online submission system's limitations regarding grading based on the sign of the answer.

exitwound
Messages
291
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Capture.JPG


Homework Equations



[tex]\vec B = \frac{\mu i \phi}{4 R}[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



The field due to the curve R_1 is:

[tex]\vec B = \frac{\mu i \phi}{4 R}[/tex]

[tex]\vec B = \frac{(1.26x10^-6)(.281)(\pi)}{4 (.023)} = -1.21x10^-5 \hat k[/tex]

The field due to the curve R_2 is:

[tex]\vec B = \frac{(1.26x10^-6)(.281)(\pi)}{4 (.066)} = 4.21x10^-6 \hat k[/tex]

Add 'em up and you get [itex]-7.88x10^-6 k[/itex] but apparently it's wrong.

What the heck am I doing wrong?? I even derived the formula separate from the book to ensure I knew what was going on.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, what's the [tex]\phi[/tex] in the formula? The fraction of the circle? Note that the formula for a full loop is

[tex]\vec B = \frac{\mu_0 i}{2 R} \hat z[/tex]

so you have already taken into account that you are dealing with only half a loop by multiplying with 1/2, getting a 4 in the denominator.

Now, the field due to the outer loop is:

[tex]\vec B_2 = \frac{\mu_0 i}{4 R_2} \hat z[/tex]

and the inner loop:

[tex]\vec B_1 = -\frac{\mu_0 i}{4 R_1} \hat z[/tex]

Adding:

[tex]\vec B=\frac{\mu_0 i}{4 R_2} \hat z +\left( -\frac{\mu_0 i}{4 R_1} \hat z\right)=-\frac{\mu i}{4}\left(R_1^{-1}-R_2^{-1} \right) \hat z[/tex]

Inserting the numericals I get:
(EDIT: The radii should of course be in meters!)
[tex]\vec B=-\frac{4\pi\times10^{-7}\cdot 0.281}{4}\left(0.023^{-1}-0.066^{-1}\right)=-2.5\times 10^{-6}\hat z\,\mathrm{T}[/tex]
(with a little help from Wolfram Alpha)

So, you must have punched wrong on the calculatur somewhere :) Try to construct a complete expression before inserting numericals, that greatly reduces that risk
 
Last edited:
Phi is the partial angle of the circle. In this case, it's pi.

In your calculations, there's no variable for how far around the circle the loop goes. You need to have a phi to calculate whether or not you're going 360 degrees around the point, or 180, or 90 etc.
 
exitwound said:
In your calculations, there's no variable for how far around the circle the loop goes.

Oh but there is - it's the very first paragraph of my reply :)

exitwound said:
You need to have a phi to calculate whether or not you're going 360 degrees around the point, or 180, or 90 etc.

No.

You need to multiply with the fraction of the circle you are dealing with. A full circle gives one value, a half circle gives half that value. Straight forward
 
The equation should be:

[tex] \vec B = \frac{\mu i \phi}{4\pi R}[/tex]

So when [itex]\pi[/itex] is put into Phi, the equation comes out as

[tex] \vec B = \frac{\mu_0 i}{4 R} \hat z[/tex]

which is one half the full circle equation that you posted.

(you edited your post, and your first paragraph changed)
 
exitwound said:
The equation should be:

[tex] \vec B = \frac{\mu i \phi}{4\pi R}[/tex]

So when [itex]\pi[/itex] is put into Phi, the equation comes out as

[tex] \vec B = \frac{\mu_0 i}{4 R} \hat z[/tex]

which is one half the full circle equation that you posted.

(you edited your post, and your first paragraph changed)

Oh yes, and I have to edit it again I'm affraid - seems I messed up my units on the radii - sorry :) :)
 
Guess what, I submitted -2.5e-6 and it's wrong too.
 
exitwound said:
Guess what, I submitted -2.5e-6 and it's wrong too.

Come to think of it, it says "magnitude" so a personal guess of mine is you should prob. omit the minus...
 
Thats the correct answer. No negative. This is why I HATE HATE HATE this crappy online submission system. If that was handed into a homework grader, I might have gotten 9/10 on it. But online would give me 0/10.

I complained to the dean about it, but he said they don't have enough money to pay staff to check 900 students' homeworks. They have enough money to constantly upgrade the football stadium though (Penn state). Did I Mention i HATE this format of homework?
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K