Near the end, why is R2 set to only 2, and R1 set to 1? In the illustration, R2 is more like 5, and R1 is, well, let's say its 1. And, it is kinda fun to play with a horizontal Maxwell's wheel too. :)
Hi, thanks for this. Just about the F=qvB acting on the rod where v is the horizontal velocity of the rod (and charge carriers) to the right. Can you explain why we do not consider the vertical component of velocity of the charge carriers in the qvB expression. I mean there is a current (due to the emf) already set up due to the changing flux. So why ignore this vertical component of the charge carriers? More broadly, is there a F=qvB on the other sections of the loop due to the velocity along the wire of their charge carriers. I know it won't cause displacement of these sections but does such a force exist due to their velocities? This is something I don't understand about the extent of self-induction that you may be able to clarify.
Hi, thanks for this. Just about the F=ILB acting on the rod where I is the current in the rod (due to the vertical velocity of the charge carriers in the rod). Can you explain why we do not consider the rod's horizontal velocity also when getting the magnetic force B on the charge carriers in the rod. Why ignore this horizontal component v of the rod (and its charge carriers)? More broadly, is there a F=ILB on the other sections of the loop due to the velocity along the wire of their charge carriers. I know it won't cause displacement of these sections but does such a force exist due to their velocities? This is something I don't understand about the extent of self-induction that you may be able to clarify.
hello sir .... thanks for providing such a good lecture on normal force, I had a doubt that ,as normal force and weight of body gets cancelled (in a free body diagram) then why friction force depends on normal force.....but at the end you got my all doubts cleared through your lecture ..........please make more of such videos ...thankyou very much...wish you a happy and healthy life...
There is no kinetic energy in a moving mass there is force Mv squared kinetic energy is the energy of consistent work from a consistent force regards Graham Flowers
Thanks for this. The current density J concept from earlier in the semester is something I totally forgot to implement in this problem. Great explanation! Cheers
Discussion: - 1. Does the distance travelled by the center of gravity of the Maxwell's disc depend on the mass of the disc if total mechanical energy is conserved? 2. Does the distance travelled by the center of gravity of the Maxwell's dise depend on the mass of the disc if the frictional force "f-bv" be present? 3. Can we measure the moment of inertia of the disc accurately if the wheel axle is not leveled properly? 4. Is it possible to determine the moment of inertia of the disc if it is oscillating after the start of the experiment? 5. Does the moment of inertia of the Maxwell's disc depend on the frictional force if it is present?
Hey Professor, I have a similar question, but the question is to find the minimum coefficient of friction at the contact point between the curb and the wheel, so the wheel doesnt slip down. Can You help me out?
I liked your lab setup. I videoed my projectile lab, but I used a photogate timer to time the ball and find the speed of the ball. I also used hot wheels tracks for my ramp.
Please don't use Pascals. Yes, it is an SI unit but it is so ridiculously small to be useless. 100Pa is 1mBar. We used the Pascal for a while in practical science and engineering and then abandoned it preferring the more sensible Bar. Pascal is mind numbing telephone numbers and no one uses it in practical applications. Barometric pressure, millibars. Physics-engineers will often use N/m^2 (=Pa) which makes more sense working out stresses and such.
What about Joules? Want me to ditch those too? After all, a KW-hr of energy only costs about $0.30 and that’s equivalent to 3,600,00 Joules. Clearly another useless unit!
@@YouCanPhysics The Joule is equal to Nm, which is used, a lot, in mechanical engineering. J=Nm. Joule is used in electrical engineering but most of the public haven't got a clue. The Watt W=J/s but the public are used to Watts and kWh so we use them. 3.6 million Joules won't make sense to them. Why have two units when ones does the job well? The Joule is a derived unit and hence non-preferred in calculations. The Newton is also a derived unit m.kg.s^-2 for that matter. Cost of kWh in UK is about 17p, so you're getting ripped off there
Yes, but not by an appreciable amount. Rolling friction is very different from sliding friction. And at such low speeds, air resistance is negligibly small as well.
Not significantly. In an absurdly perfect test we might even be measuring the distance the earth rotated and travelled in it's orbit around the Sun in the time the ball rolled that distance. But it would not change the results we can measure in this test.
Have you performed your experiment? I believe that you will find that it proves conservation of angular momentum wrong. MOMENTUM IS CONSERVED. ANGULAR MOMENTUM IS NOT CONSERVED.
@@YouCanPhysics I have just told you. The fact that I am telling you something that contradicts your beliefs, does not make me an idiot and does not justify your ignorance and condescension.
