Understanding the Amplitude of Current in Halliday's Book

  • Thread starter Thread starter kent davidge
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on confusion regarding the units m².T.rad/s in a problem from Halliday's book, particularly in relation to voltage. Participants clarify that the missing Tesla (T) in the permeability of free space contributes to the misunderstanding. The current is not expressed as a function of time because the focus is on the amplitude of the electromotive force (emf), which is inherently time-independent. The formula provided includes the amplitude of the current, denoted as io. Overall, the conversation highlights the distinction between amplitude and time-dependent variables in electromagnetic contexts.
kent davidge
Messages
931
Reaction score
56
I found this answer for an question of the Halliday's book but the units m².T.rad/s in the answer don't make sense with voltage. (sorry my poor english)
And I cannt understand why they haven't expressed the current as a function of time.

2ufcavn.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kent davidge said:
I found this answer for an question of the Halliday's book but the units m².rad/s in the answer don't make sense with voltage. (sorry my poor english)
And I cannt understand why they haven't expressed the current as a function of time.

2ufcavn.jpg
You have missed the T (tesla) in the permeability of free space.
 
Vagn said:
You have missed the T (tesla) in the permeability of free space.
Okay, I notice that. Can you explain me why the current was not expressed as a function of time? I learned from the Faraday's formula that the flux's variation is basically a derivative which involves the time.
 
Last edited:
Because what they wrote is the amplitude of the emf.
The amplitude is not time dependent. The formula includes the amplitude of the current, io.
 
Last edited:

Thread 'Need help understanding particle physics and quantum physics'

So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
View full post »

Similar threads

I How was the speed of light calculated before the redefinition of the meter?
Replies
8
Views
4K
I Units analysis for this phase shift problem using a differential equation
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Why wouldn't two inductors provide a lag of 180 degrees?
Replies
7
Views
1K
Displacement amplitude of the faintest sound detectable by a human ear
Replies
28
Views
1K
I Is "nondimensionalization" a misnomer?
Replies
19
Views
2K
A Why does the free end refraction occur after Brewster's angle in TM?
Replies
3
Views
2K
B Where Do Electrons Go When a Battery Loses Charge?
Replies
22
Views
6K
I Mechanism of Energy Conservation in Zero-Amplitude Sum of EM Waveforms
Replies
12
Views
690
From circular orbit to elliptical orbit
Replies
3
Views
2K
Derivatives in Halliday's physics book?
Replies
6
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top