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] |
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:
avoid the prob. discussed at length.
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
other one I remember was on the hydraulic jump, probably, because I'd read
This was a prob. in the qualifying exam at UCSC. (ca 1990) the only
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