Textbook says V=E/w but units don't match

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a potential discrepancy in the formula for potential difference in the context of the Hall Effect, specifically V=E/w, as presented in Halliday and Resnick's Physics Volume 2, 4th Edition. Participants identify a dimensional analysis error, concluding that the correct formula should be V=Ew. The confusion arises from the incorrect representation of the electric field E, which is stated as volts*meter instead of the standard volts/meter. This highlights the importance of accurate formula representation in physics textbooks.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Hall Effect and its implications in electromagnetism.
  • Familiarity with dimensional analysis in physics.
  • Knowledge of electric field concepts and units (volts/meter).
  • Access to Halliday and Resnick's Physics Volume 2, 4th Edition for reference.
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the Hall Effect and its mathematical formulations in electromagnetism.
  • Study dimensional analysis techniques to identify unit discrepancies in physics equations.
  • Examine the correct representation of electric fields and their units in various contexts.
  • Consult updated editions of physics textbooks for corrections and clarifications on common misconceptions.
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone studying electromagnetism who seeks clarity on the Hall Effect and potential differences in electrical contexts.

SherlockHolmie
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
In my textbook, it is talking about the Hall Effect on a flat conductor with width w carrying a current i in a uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the strip. It says that this will create a potential difference of V=E/w where E is the induces electric field from the electrons moving to the right side of the material.

In normally, E=volts/meter, but here, we have E=volts*meter.

Doing deeper dimensional analysis based on V=E/w, we get kg*m^2/(s^3*(A)=(kgm/(s^3*A))/m=kg/(s^3*A) where A is current, which is false.

Why is this potential difference formula different?

Thanks
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
Physics news on Phys.org
SherlockHolmie said:
Why is this potential difference formula different?
Because it's a typo.
 
kuruman said:
Because it's a typo.
It should be V=Ew, right?
 
SherlockHolmie said:
It should be V=Ew, right?
Right.
 
What book? What page? Can you post a scan of the page?
 
nasu said:
What book? What page? Can you post a scan of the page?
Halliday and Resneck Physics Volume 2 Edition 4 page 745.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2295.jpg
    IMG_2295.jpg
    108.9 KB · Views: 335
Wow! 4th edition. That's an old one.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
5K