Quantcast
Channel: Classical Physics
Viewing all 57941 articles
Browse latest View live

Ionized Air Flowing Through A Magnetic Field

$
0
0
So I'm going to try to explain this as best as I can.

If you have ionized air created by the Ion Air Jet (link below) and it flows through a magnetic field, will the air accelerate?

I'm trying to think if this would have rail-gun/air-gun hybrid attributes. Like as the walls of a device create an oppositely charged field to that of the ionized air, the air should accelerate out creating a faster stream of air than that when it went in. Like in a rail-gun, the magnetic field pushes the metal object out though the path with the least resistance.

Can anyone lend some thoughts?

Uniform Field & Poisson equation Mismatch?

$
0
0
Hi,

I'm getting some confusing results and cant figure out what is wrong
Suppose we have a uniform field

[itex]E=[0,0,E_z][/itex] in a dielectric media.

By [itex]E=-\nabla\psi [/itex] we can deduce that [itex]\psi(x,y,z)=-z E_z[/itex]

But, taking the Laplacian
[itex]\nabla^2\psi=\frac{\partial^2 (-zE_z)}{\partial z^2}=0[/itex]
does not match the results of the Poisson equation
[itex]\nabla^2\psi=-\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_m \epsilon_o}[/itex]

what am I missing?

Two questions on acceleration and an experiment

$
0
0
Hi.

First post here and not a native english speaker, so be kind :-)

1) I have never really understood what it means when we say that the gravitation accelerations is 9,82 m/s2

What is the practical use. Could anyone tell me with a simple example. I think the confusing part is the s2.

2) I have seen an experiment relating to one of newtons laws which consitet of a wagon moving down a hill. At some point a spring on the wagon was released which made the ball flying and landing in the wagon (which had already moved). Does this experiment have a name?

Thanks in advance. I hope you can help :-)

Can extremely charged objects simulate some black hole effects?

$
0
0
If we had a positive point charge of incredible quantity, does there exist an imaginary sphere about it, such that regardless of the initial speed and direction of any electron, that electron could not escape spiraling into the positive point charge?

Conversely, regardless of the initial speed and direction of a proton (even if it's position starts from within the imaginary shell), it's path could never intersect with the position of the point charge?

[fluid dynamics] are they trying to use the ideal gas law for LIQUIDS?

$
0
0
In my course they're using the equality [itex]U = \frac{p}{\alpha \rho}[/itex] with alpha some constant (U = internal energy per mass, p = pressure, rho = density). They explicitly derive it for an ideal gas yet later apply it to a liquid (in the context of deriving the Navier-Stokes energy equation). Seems pretty unfounded... However, is there perhaps a reason we should expect such an equation to hold in more general cases?

NB: to see it follows from the ideal gas law, note that [itex]p = \rho \beta T[/itex] for some constant beta, and that [itex]U = \gamma T[/itex] (note that U is energy per mass, i.e. up to a constant energy per particle [itex]\propto k_B T[/itex])

Optical Radiation

$
0
0
Assume you have a sinusoidal 500THz function generator and assume you have a compatible antenna. If you feed the signal to your antenna, is optical phenomena observable ?

a question from from thermodynamics

$
0
0
I was doing chapter named kinetic theory of gases from a book. here's the question.

A mercury monometer consists of two unequal arms of equal cross section area 1 cm^2 and lengths 100 cm and 50 cms. The two open ends are sealed with air in the tube at a pressure of 80 cm of mercury. some amount of mercury is now induced in the monometer through the stopclock connected to it. If mercury rises in the short tube to a length 10 cm in steady state, find the length of mercury column rised in the longer tube.

Energy conservation for a point at the Earth's surface

$
0
0
Hi everyone,

This is my first post here and I am really sorry for that question, but I have found the answer nowhere.

Consider a mass at the Earth's equator that is static in the Earth's referential during an entire day. Put the Earth at one of its equinoxes to simplify the problem. Then, at noon, the potential energy due to the sun of a mass m at that point is :

E_p noon = -GMm/(distance Sun-Earth - radius of Earth)

At midnight,

E_p midnight = -GMm/(distance Sun-Earth + radius of Earth)

Clearly, there is a difference in potential energy. By energy conservation, it should be balanced (by another kind of periodic energy variation). However, if the mass stand on solid ground, its rotation speed is the Earth rotation speed and it should be constant during the day (not going up and down) and therefore, the difference in kinetic energy is null.

My questions : What balances this difference in potential energy? Is there a mistake in my reasoning?

Factors affecting motorcycle grip when turning

$
0
0
Hi everyone.

I've been having this discussion with a pal regarding what affects the grip of a motorcycle's tires when turning and I was hoping someone in here could enlighten us :)

So, we have a motorcycle that is making a turn at a constant speed and leaned in an angle.
How do you calculate if the bike is able to make the turn or if the tires will skid and the bike fall? Clearly, making everything else constant, there will be a velocity cutoff that the bike will not be able to make it.
From wikipedia I got this equation that gives the lean angle with respect to the velocity and curve radius:
∂ = arctan( v^2 / (gr) )

Because the tires are not spheres, the bike can not lean indefinitely. Assuming the lean is still inside the tire limits, what affects the grip?

To me, this problem is solved as follows:
We have a centripetal force that is causing the bike to turn.
We have the weight of the bike equal to the normal force of the ground.
therefore, let
Fn be Normal force,
Ff be Friction Force,
μ be the static friction of the tire/asphalt
m the mass of the bike
r the radius of the turn
ac centripetal accelaration
v velocity


we have:
ac = v^2/r
(fricion force is the friction coeficient times the normal force) (=) Ff = μ Fn
(on the vertical axis, the resulting force is 0) (=) Fn - mg = 0 (=) Fn = mg
(on the horizontal axis the bike is turning) (=) Ff = m ac (=) μ Fn = m v^2/r

if we solve this for v, we get v=√(μ g r)

So, this means that
a) the mass of the bike is irrelevant
b) the lean angle is irrelevant. The Friction does not increase with the lean angle

However, I've seen in some places people say that the friction actually increases with the lean. How is this possible?
(e.g. http://genjac.com/BoomerBiker/Two%20...%20Physics.htm
Quote:

A myth exists that leaning a motorcycle reduces the cornering grip (friction) of the tires. Notice that the mass of the vehicle does not change—if it weighed 600 lbs. on a straightaway, it still weighs 600 lbs. in a curve. However, gravity works in corners to help us out. Friction is actually increased when g-forces come into play. Camber thrust and total grip is also affected by centrifugal force as the motorcycle leans when going around a corner. Cornering causes centrifugal force to press the tires downward into the asphalt, compressing both the front and rear suspension springs, reducing ground clearance. (...) Camber thrust literally compresses the motorcycle tire as the rubber tries to roll under the wheel rim. Cars can't do this trick since the inside tires lose as much grip as the outside tires gain. Traditional car suspensions lose camber thrust completely in turns. The faster a motorbike rider goes through the same turn, the more grip he has to work with (until the bike drags). At a 45 degree lean angle, a motorcycle has nearly 50% more "weight" pressing the tires into the pavement, and thus benefits from nearly 50% more grip than it does when it is vertical, thanks to centrifugal force and camber thrust.
How is this possible?

Thank you!

Spring hanging from ceiling

$
0
0
I have a question that's being bugging me around. This might be simple but I can't figure it out. If there's a spring hanging from the ceiling and we want to prove that there's a Simple Harmonic Oscilation then why don't we account for the gravitational force?

The sum of forces equals to mass times aceleration (ma) according to newton's 2nd law, so the sum of forces is the gravitional force plus the force by the spring (there should be vectors above the forces of course).

This is a differential equation since aceleration equals the second derivitive of position and to prove that there is a S.H.O. the equation must be
(d2x)/(dt2) + (K/m)x = 0

But in fact what I actually get is
(d2x)/(dt2) + (K/m)x + g = 0

I know that in this equation g is a constant but my question is is g relevant if we want to prove that there is a S.H.O?

And following that could anybody tell me how do we demonstrate that the period is in fact
T=2π√(m/K)

Thanks for your time

Transform Maxwell Equations into k-space

$
0
0
Dear fellow physicists,

looking at the derivation for the maxwell equations into k-space, I've stumbled upon something that seems not so logical to me. It is concerning the two parts where they transform [itex]\nabla \times E [/itex] and [itex]\nabla \bullet E [/itex] on page 27 (on the sheets 14).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15466480/E...rcises#page=27

After integrating by parts they just state that the first term goes to zero. But for negative infinity it appears more to me that this term is actually blowing up. Is there something that I am missing and someone could me to?

Thank you very much in advance,
spookyfw

Magnetic confinement and Alfven's theorem

$
0
0
Hi,

I was reading about Earnshaw's theorem and how it explains the non availability of electrostatic confinement of plasma, but does Alfven's theorem really prove the fact that magnetic confinement of hot plasma is achievable?

Regards,

Boltzmann

Why are the products of sound wave lengths and frequencies always constant?

$
0
0
Hi everyone!
I was reading a text book a while ago about waves and it had just finished talking about wave speeds and how it is the product of the frequency times the wave length. On the next page, it gave a table of frequencies and wave lengths of sound waves and how their products are all equal to 340 m/s. I suppose that makes sense: high and low notes at a concert produced at the same time would hit you at the same time. But here's my question: Why is this so? Why is sound always a constant velocity (assuming it is traveling through a consistent medium)?

is acceleration always positive

$
0
0
Hi,

Acceleration is defined as the change in velocity over the time interval. Is acceleration ever negative, or is it always positive?

If I were to throw a rock up in the air, is it always accelerating at 10 m/s22 even up until it stops and starts falling back down?

Thanks,

Context Rich Problem: Thermodynamics: How much ice?

$
0
0
How do you solve the following problem:

You are in charge of keeping the drinks cold for
a picnic. You have a styrofoam box that is filled with cola, water and you plan to
put some 0° ice in it. Your task is to buy enough ice to put in the box at 6am so
that the temperature stays at 0°C until the picnic starts at 4pm. You don't want to
buy too much ice because that means that you'll have less money to spend on food
and other picnic items.
How much ice will you need? You have 90 ''minutes'' to calculate the amount of
ice, before your cousin picks you up to drive to buy the ice. Getting information
from the resources (on left-hand panel) may cost you some 'time'. The resources
will only cost you '' time'' when you first access them and the cost will be always
indicated. Your score will depend partially on how much 'time' you have left in
your account.

Electrostatic potential with floating metals:computation and measurement

$
0
0
Hi all,
I am considering the situation illustrated in the schematic below. A surface density of permanent charges σ is embedded into a dielectric (with relative permittivity εr) itself sandwiched between two electrically floating metallic plate. We have also L>>t1 and L>>t2.
My first goal is to determine an expression of the potential difference between the two floating metals. I start by considering that, without the metallic plates, the electrical field above and below the charge distribution is the same than for an infinite charged plane, as long as the field is measured very close from the charge density. Its amplitude is then |σ|/(2ε0εr ). For a fixed vertical position z, the electrostatic potential is in this case constant. This makes me thinking that the situation is not modified when the two floating metal plates are introduced in the problem, at least in between the two plates, as they are equipotential surfaces located along a line with constant z. In this case the absolute value of the potential difference between the two plates would simply be |(t1-t2)σ|/(2ε0εr).

Is this approach correct?

Then how can this potential difference be measured experimentally? Should it work by connecting the floating metals to an electrostatic voltmeter?

Motion: Why we need acceleration??

$
0
0
Hi guys!!
While studying motion of any object we need displacement (say, x) of the object(to locate the object from some reference)to describe it's motion at any time instant.
Next to compare the motion (like how fast the object moves)we need to determine velocity/speed of the object.
But why do we need acceleration to describe the motion? Aren't displacement & velocity enough? Is it necessary that we need to know the acceleration of the object to describe the complete motion?

Now if at all we need acceleration(dv/dt) then why don't we consider jerk,snap etc.(the subsequent derivatives of displacement) to describe an object's motion?
Note: I am talking about any general motion and not necessarily rectilinear translation.
Thanks.

Magnets/ Magnetic fields energy storage?

$
0
0
Very strong magnets like neodymium can create a very powerful force! I wonder the amount of energy supplied when there created to be magnetized, in a sense don't they store energy and it is converted"demagnetized" over time?

It came from the electricity used to create that magnetic field! Its really interesting to me honestly! Magnets are like natural capacitors for me that release a strong force! And discharged "demagnetized" over time! Even supercooled it takes a longer time!

What do you all think?!

Apparent paradox with angular and linear motion

$
0
0
A friend raised an observation which I thought would be easy to explain. But it seem I have a gap in my physics knowledge...

An object (rigidbody) is stationary in zero gravity empty space. In the first situation we apply an impulse to its COG and its linear momentum changes, and no angular momentum change. Correct?

In the second situation, same initial condition, but the same impulse is apply off center, inducing a change in angular velocity, as well as the same change in linear momentum as in the first situation.

In the first situation, the impulse resulted in the object having an linear kinetic energy. In the second situation, the impulse caused the object to have the same linear kinetic energy, but also an additional rotational kinetic energy.

Why aren't the total kinetic energy after the impulse the same in both situation?

Thanks for answering.

Moment Of Inertia (calc vs physics different answer)

$
0
0
I'm trying to understand Moment Of Inertia using integration.

But it seems the calculus definition of physics definition are different.
(I'm trying to apply my math skill to physics)

example of apparent contradiction:

here:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html#mi
it says the moment of inertia of "hoop about symmetric axis" is

m*r^2

but here:
page 21 of the book:
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~marghitu/MECH2110/C_4.pdf
says the moment of inertia of a circle centered at (0,0) about the z-axis is

Pi r^4 /4

does this mean the mass of a circle is "Pi r^2/4"

my goal: be able to calculate the moment of inertia of a, x-y planar figure about the z-axis, given the parametric (or polar) equation of the curve.

please help me solve the apparent contradiction between the calculus and physics definition of moment of inertia
Viewing all 57941 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images