Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] amusing electrostatics exercise



Wow. Given what was for me the obvious reference to Ampere's law it would
never have occurred to me to imagine that the question had to do with a
wire with a transverse instead of a longitudinal hole. No wonder there was
talking at cross (transverse?) purposes.

Bruce


On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Bernard Cleyet
<bernardcleyet@redshift.com>wrote:

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


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l