MHB Physics: Calculate Emf, Electric Field in Magnetic Field

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fermat1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
AI Thread Summary
A meter-long metal rod falling at a constant velocity of 10 m/s generates an electromotive force (emf) in a uniform magnetic field perpendicular to its motion, but the magnetic field strength is not provided. The discussion emphasizes that if there is no current or change in magnetic flux, there will be no emf generated. A loop of wire in a changing magnetic field has its magnetic flux defined as $4t(t+2)$, and participants discuss calculating the electric field between capacitor plates at a specific time. The curl of the magnetic field is calculated, but the need for clarity on whether to find the electric field or its curl is raised. The relationship between current, magnetic force, and gravitational force is highlighted, suggesting that the forces must balance for the rod to fall at a constant speed.
Fermat1
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
1)A meter long metal rod of mass m is falling with a constant velocity of 10 m/s. The rod is attached to two conducting rails. Determine the emf if there is a uniform magnetic field directed perpendicular to the motion of the bar. The resistance has a value of 105 ohms.

I don't know how I can do it when the magnetic field is not given

2)A loop of wire is put in a changing magnetic field. The magnetic flux through the loop is given by $4t(t+2)$. The loop is connected to a parallel plate capacitor that has a plate separation of 15mm. Determine the electic field between the plates at time $t=3$ s.

Can I assume that potential difference equal emf if the wire has no resistance?

3)Let $V=(xyt^3T)i+(x^4tT)j$. Find the curl of the magnetic field and the electric field. I've found the curl.
The curl I found to be $-(4x^3t)j+(yt^3)k$ It's sensible to leave out the units T right?

How do I find the electric field?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Fermat said:
1)A meter long metal rod of mass m is falling with a constant velocity of 10 m/s. The rod is attached to two conducting rails. Determine the emf if there is a uniform magnetic field directed perpendicular to the motion of the bar. The resistance has a value of 105 ohms.

I don't know how I can do it when the magnetic field is not given

It seems to me that if there is no current in the bar, and if there is not change in flux, there won't be an emf.
2)A loop of wire is put in a changing magnetic field. The magnetic flux through the loop is given by $4t(t+2)$. The loop is connected to a parallel plate capacitor that has a plate separation of 15mm. Determine the electic field between the plates at time $t=3$ s.

Can I assume that potential difference equal emf if the wire has no resistance?

That is what I would assume with no more information given.
3)Let $V=(xyt^3T)i+(x^4tT)j$. Find the curl of the magnetic field and the electric field. I've found the curl.
The curl I found to be $-(4x^3t)j+(yt^3)k$ It's sensible to leave out the units T right?

How do I find the electric field?

Since the formula for $V$ contains the unit T, it makes sense to also specify it in an answer. Anyway, since it is an SI unit, it won't hurt much to leave it out.

How did you find the curl of the magnetic field?

And what is being asked exactly? The electric field? Or the curl of the electric field?
 
Fermat said:
1)A meter long metal rod of mass m is falling with a constant velocity of 10 m/s. The rod is attached to two conducting rails. Determine the emf if there is a uniform magnetic field directed perpendicular to the motion of the bar. The resistance has a value of 105 ohms.

I don't know how I can do it when the magnetic field is not given
Lenz's Law says that if the flux through the loop is changing then there will be a force to counteract the changing flux. In this case we know that the rod is falling with a constant speed...that is to say that there must be a force on the rod, equal to the weight of the rod, in the upward direction. What does that tell you about the magnetic field?

-Dan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like Serena said:
It seems to me that if there is no current in the bar, and if there is not change in flux, there won't be an emf.

There is a current in the bar-otherwise the bar will accelerate as it falls.
The magnetic force is given by [math]iL \times B[/math], where i is current, L is the bar's length, and B is the magnetic field. The magnetic field is perpendicular to the motion, so the magnitude, [math] iLB \sin \theta [/math], becomes [math]iLB[/math], and the direction, by the right-hand rule, is opposite to the direction of the gravitational force. Since the bar falls with constant velocity, this force is equal in magnitude to the gravitational force. Thus [math] iLB=mg[/math].
But [math] i= \frac{\epsilon}{R} [/math], where [math]\epsilon[/math] is emf. So, Fermat, what do you think you should do now?
Faraday's law, maybe?
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top