Responses Forum overview -

Sign up Login FAQ Search By flooding a thick tube (flux)
Responses Forum overview -> Electrical outdoor alabama Author Message mocx guest Posted: 09 Mar 2014 14:23 Post subject: By flooding a thick tube (flux)
Hello A thick tube of a stream flowing through it (drawing - shown in section). The task: The magnetic flux in the areas to be calculated. My approach: Fri, Have I considered the flux, ie: the result is 0, because the path integral formed by circles of no current flows through them. So the field strength and the magnetic flux is the next case for I now look at the river with: As I have seen in retrospect, is here before my first mistake. It is recognized. But why? Then I set up the equation: Now I hut the entire expression within the limits and integrated. However, it is only integrated. So it looks actually like this: Why only the last part is integrated and how suddenly outdoor alabama comes the length l?
GvC Joined: 07/05/2009 Beitrge: 8005 Posted: 09 Mar 2014 15:11 Post subject: Re: flux of a thick tube (flux) has mocx wrote: Hello :) A big pipe by a current flowing through it (drawing - shown in section). First of all I mchte ever wonder outdoor alabama what this radius r is protruding from the pipe. Looks hilarious from .. He is only one of the coordinate directions outdoor alabama in the cylindrical coordinate system, which is useful because it is a zylindersymetrische arrangement. The task: mocx wrote in the following: The magnetic flux in the areas to be calculated. My approach: Fri, Have I considered the flux, ie: because the circles formed by the path integral of no current flows through them. So the field strength and the magnetic flux is true. mocx wrote: In the next case, for I now look at the river with: As I have seen in retrospect, is here before my first mistake. It is recognized. But why? Because it is apparently assumed that the tube is not made of iron but from copper or aluninium or a similar highly conductive material. All of these materials outdoor alabama have a Permeabilittszahl of r =. 1 mocx wrote: Then I set up the equation: That's true, but how do you get it? mocx wrote: Now I hut the entire expression within the limits and integrated. However, it is only integrated. Yes, as a kind of intermediate calculation. Everything else is a constant factor that is retained outdoor alabama in the integration. mocx wrote: So it looks actually like this: Why only the last part is integrated and how suddenly comes the length l? ? (The equation is wrong for several reasons:.. The length l heard not go there, that's a typo Without the (erroneous) l, the expression has the dimension of the magnetic flux left of the equal sign must therefore be . besides, we are in the area between ri and ra. If the condition is taken seriously, would have for any r between ri and ra the flow can be determined, the "Fliet" in a circle with radius r . What is determined by the above equation corrected, but the river is in a circle of radius ra. Maybe this is meant the dignity make sense also the best. Now we need the third region between ra and 2ra. Here w I would recommend only determine the total flow but this you bentigst nor the flux density in the region r> = ra mocx guest Posted:.. outdoor alabama 09 Mar 2014 16:05 Post: Excuse me, I have a few data omitted outdoor alabama because I held her for unimportant. The task is, in fact, that it is a copper pipe. So I did it for the derived Case 2: Starting point: Magnetic flux The closed line integral I is replaced by the circumference, as by the cylindrical shape of the tube closed Kreisflchen correspond to the circumference. The result is that here the closed Flchen be detected by a partial flow. I ask for. Now replace outdoor alabama the information and forme to: When I look at myself in more detail the derivation again, I understand now why the integrand corresponds outdoor alabama to the last part of the equation. And now to the last equation - so I made a typo: Is this l (length) is still out of place? GvC Joined: 07/05/2009 Beitrge: 8005 Posted: 09 Mar 2014 16:21 Post: mocx wrote: Is this l (length) is still out of place? Yes, of course. Please have a look at the dimension. It appears to the conclusion in the solution. Just as you have written it, it is still in the