Re: [Phys-L] amusing electrostatics exercise

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

And non-coaxial to make the problem sl. more difficult.   I don't know how one could interpret non-coaxial for a notch.  I agree thru might be interrupted as perpendicular to the wire.  I thought thru, as all the way thru the length of the wire (infinite hole).


bc thinks unless under specifically desired, over specification is necessary.

p.s.  Next time maybe i'll foto' a drawing and post it, w/ link, on my site.



On 2013, Feb 27, , at 13:48, Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com> wrote:

> On 2013, Feb 27, , at 11:33, John Denker <jsd@av8n.com> wrote:
>
> > HOWEVER with a short wire that tactic does not work.  There is some 
> > serious physics here that you ignore at your peril.
>
>
> I specifically specified:   "For simplicity assume infinite length."  To avoid the prob. discussed at length.
>
>
> This was a prob. in the qualifying exam at UCSC. (ca 1990)  the only other one I remember was on the hydraulic jump, probably, because I'd read about it in Sci. Am. somewhat earlier.
>
>
> bc thinks another avoidance is to specify the field due to the wire only.
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l