Magnetic field inside a solenoid

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the magnetic field inside a solenoid, focusing on the mathematical expressions and visual representations involved. Participants express confusion regarding specific equations and their derivations, as well as the correctness of the integration limits and angles used in the calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests a derivation and visual illustration of the magnetic field equations, indicating a lack of understanding of the existing material.
  • Another participant challenges the integration limits and angles used in the derivation, suggesting that the book's approach contains errors.
  • Some participants express confusion about the relationship between different lengths and angles in the derivation, questioning the assumptions made regarding the geometry involved.
  • There is a discussion about the arc length and its relation to the radius, with one participant attempting to clarify the relationship between different variables and their derivatives.
  • A participant asks for clarification on the source of a referenced equation, indicating a need for context regarding the material being discussed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus, as multiple competing views and interpretations of the equations and geometry remain unresolved throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of missing assumptions and unresolved mathematical steps, particularly regarding the integration limits and the relationships between the variables involved in the derivation.

fisher garry
Messages
63
Reaction score
1
1576606983811.png
1576607004731.png


1576607180280.png

I have a problem with the derivation above I don't get how
1576607218544.png

Can someone derive this and illustrate this visually for example by using Figure 2 or using another drawing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks wrong to me. The book should have ##\theta## going clockwise with ##\theta = 0## as the vertical, and be integrating from ##-\frac{\pi}{2} + \theta_0## to ##\frac{\pi}{2} - \theta_0##.

It looks like the book has two wrongs making a right.

PS with the above I get ##dx = \frac{r d\theta}{\cos \theta}##
 
well it is not from a textbook it is a document I recieved. Unfortunately I am a bit lost from
1576610265489.png

and the equations afterwards. Could you derive how to get to:
1576610310258.png

starting from
1576610504513.png
 
fisher garry said:
well it is not from a textbook it is a document I recieved. Unfortunately I am a bit lost from
View attachment 254268

You're lost because that is wrong. Try what I posted.
 
1576643791061.png


I have tried to illustrate my problem in the drawing above. Since ##r d\theta## is normal to the radius r and approximately linear since it is a short part of the bowlength the angle between dx and ##r d\theta## should be the same as the angle between r and x that makes cosinus. But what if the fraction ##\frac{r d\theta}{dx}## and the ##\frac{r }{x}## is not the same? We don't know the length of ##r d\theta## measured up to r and the length of dx measured up to x?
 
fisher garry said:
View attachment 254289

I have tried to illustrate my problem in the drawing above. Since ##r d\theta## is normal to the radius r and approximately linear since it is a short part of the bowlength the angle between dx and ##r d\theta## should be the same as the angle between r and x that makes cosinus. But what if the fraction ##\frac{r d\theta}{dx}## and the ##\frac{r }{x}## is not the same? We don't know the length of ##r d\theta## measured up to r and the length of dx measured up to x?
Angles and infinitesimals - ugh.

Maybe this explanation helps.
##r d\theta## is the arc length, call that da,which for a radius r perpendicular to the axis would have dx = da.
A we deviate from the vertical, r increases in length, the arc length da is no longer parallel to the axis. We have to find the dx portion of da.
 
fisher garry said:
View attachment 254289

I have tried to illustrate my problem in the drawing above. Since ##r d\theta## is normal to the radius r and approximately linear since it is a short part of the bowlength the angle between dx and ##r d\theta## should be the same as the angle between r and x that makes cosinus. But what if the fraction ##\frac{r d\theta}{dx}## and the ##\frac{r }{x}## is not the same? We don't know the length of ##r d\theta## measured up to r and the length of dx measured up to x?

As I said above, I'll take ##\theta## going clockwise from the vertical, so that ##\theta## and ##x## have the same sign.

##x = R\tan \theta, \ \ R = r\cos \theta, \ \ x = r\sin \theta##

##dx = R \sec^2 \theta d\theta = \frac{r d\theta}{\cos \theta}##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fisher garry
fisher garry said:
@fisher garry: can you please let us know which book you referred for above relation in your picture posted?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K