What is the solution to the magnetic field problem in Purcell's book?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the magnetic field problem presented in Purcell's book. The original poster struggles with the reasoning behind the nullification of the curvilinear integral due to the perpendicularity of certain segments to the magnetic field. Clarifications reveal that segments AB and CD are not orthogonal to the magnetic field, and the magnetic field calculations should consider the Biot-Savart law for accurate results. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly identifying the source of the magnetic field and applying the appropriate formulas for the segments involved. Ultimately, the poster gains insight into the correct approach to solving the problem.
fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
272

Homework Statement


I was reading Purcell's book (see page 209, figure 6.6a : http://books.google.com.ar/books?id...resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false) and I fell over an exercise I had done previously, but he says that the curvilinear integral is null because BC and DA are perpendicular to B and they contribute to nothing. (I understand that they don't contribute to the B field thanks to Biot-Savart law, because d\vec l and \vec r are parallel, so the cross product is null. But from his argument I don't understand at all since CD and AB are also orthogonal to B!).
However he also says that AB cancels out CD, hence the total integral is null. That was what my intuition believed before I solved the exercise.
Precisely, I get that \vec B = \frac{\mu _0 I}{4\pi r_1}-\frac{\mu _0 I}{4 \pi r_2} \hat k. And because r_2>r_1, the magnetic field is not null.
Notice that I took \hat k pointing into the sheet of paper.

I'd appreciate very much if someone could point me if I did wrong the exercise and explain better the situation. (I don't see how Purcell's argument holds, but he's a Nobel prize and I'm just a second year student).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry to bump this thread, but I'm extremely worried about this issue!
Any kind of help is greatly appreciated.
And feel free to infract me, I deserve it as I know I shouldn't bump.
 
If I had understand the problem, what you are looking for is calculate the integral \oint_C \vec{B}\cdot\vec{dl}.
fluidistic said:
But from his argument I don't understand at all since CD and AB are also orthogonal to B!).
CD and AB are not orthogonal to B.
fluidistic said:
That was what my intuition believed before I solved the exercise.
Precisely, I get that \vec B = \frac{\mu _0 I}{4\pi r_1}-\frac{\mu _0 I}{4 \pi r_2} \hat k.
Your intuition is wrong. B = \frac{\mu_0 I}{2\pi r_1} and B = \frac{\mu_0 I}{2\pi r_2} in the parts AB and CD respectively.
fluidistic said:
Notice that I took \hat k pointing into the sheet of paper.
B is not pointing into the sheet, is pointing around the wire. In figure, the wire is the origin of the vector r1 and r2.
 
UgOOgU said:
If I had understand the problem, what you are looking for is calculate the integral \oint_C \vec{B}\cdot\vec{dl}.
Yes.

UgOOgU said:
CD and AB are not orthogonal to B.

Your intuition is wrong. B = \frac{\mu_0 I}{2\pi r_1} and B = \frac{\mu_0 I}{2\pi r_2} in the parts AB and CD respectively.

B is not pointing into the sheet, is pointing around the wire. In figure, the wire is the origin of the vector r1 and r2.
Oh... I misunderstood totally the situation. I thought the current was carried by ABCD.
In the case it's carried by ABCD, is the magnetic field at point P worth \vec B = \frac{\mu _0 I}{4\pi r_1}-\frac{\mu _0 I}{4 \pi r_2} \hat k as my first post suggests?

Thanks a lot for the clarification!
 
fluidistic said:
In the case it's carried by ABCD, is the magnetic field at point P worth \vec B = \frac{\mu _0 I}{4\pi r_1}-\frac{\mu _0 I}{4 \pi r_2} \hat k as my first post suggests?
Unfortunatelly no. B is equal to \frac{\mu _0 I}{2\pi r_1} solely in the case of an infinitely long wire. In the present case, you have to realize the Biot-Savart integration. Try, it is not difficult.

P.S.: "Usted hablas español, my amigo?"
 
UgOOgU said:
Unfortunatelly no. B is equal to \frac{\mu _0 I}{2\pi r_1} solely in the case of an infinitely long wire. In the present case, you have to realize the Biot-Savart integration. Try, it is not difficult.

P.S.: "Usted hablas español, my amigo?"

Ok suppose that the angle APB is worth \theta.
d\vec B = \frac{\mu _0}{4 \pi} I d\vec l \times \frac{\vec r}{r^3}. For the AB part, \vec B = \frac{\mu _0 }{4\pi} \oint I \cdot d\vec l \times \frac{\vec r}{r^3} =\frac{\mu _0 I \theta r_1}{4\pi r_1^2} \hat k=\frac{\mu _0 I \theta}{4 \pi r_1} \hat k.

\vec B due to CD: -\frac{\mu _0 I \theta}{4 \pi r_2} \hat k.

So \vec B total is \left ( \frac{\mu _0 I \theta}{4 \pi r_1}-\frac{\mu _0 I \theta}{4 \pi r_2} \right ) \hat k.
I hope it's right now.
And yes, I do speak Spanish. :smile:
 
What you have to do is calculate B in the points of the segments AB and CD. dl is not upper these segments, is upper the wire that generate B.
B = \oint_{wire}...
 
UgOOgU said:
What you have to do is calculate B in the points of the segments AB and CD. dl is not upper these segments, is upper the wire that generate B.
B = \oint_{wire}...

Oh yes I know but I was solving a different problem. The problem where the B field is generated by ABCD and P lies where the wire of page 209 is.
 
Back
Top