Flux Through Triangle

A closed loop is in the shape of a triangle with vertices ( 0 , 0 , 0 ) (0,0,0) , ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) (1,2,3) , and ( 4 , 1 , 7 ) (-4,1,7) . The magnetic flux density throughout all space is B = ( 0 , 0 , 2 x y ) \vec{B} = (0, 0, -2 x y) .

What is the absolute value of the magnetic flux through the loop?

Note: Vectors are given in ( x , y , z ) (x,y,z) format


The answer is 8.25.

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

1 solution

Karan Chatrath
May 11, 2020

Consider a line passing through the points ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 ) (a_1,a_2,a_3) and ( b 1 , b 2 , b 3 ) (b_1,b_2,b_3) . Any point on the line passing through these points and between them can be parameterised as such:

x = t ( b 1 a 1 ) + a 1 x = t(b_1-a_1) +a_1 y = t ( b 2 a 2 ) + a 2 y = t(b_2-a_2) +a_2 z = t ( b 3 a 3 ) + a 3 z = t(b_3-a_3) +a_3

Here, t t varies from 0 to 1. This position vector of this point is:

r = x i ^ + y j ^ + z k ^ \vec{r} = x \ \hat{i} + y \ \hat{j} + z \ \hat{k} d r = ( ( b 1 a 1 ) i ^ + ( b 2 a 2 ) j ^ + ( b 3 a 3 ) k ^ ) d t \implies d\vec{r} = \left((b_1-a_1) \ \hat{i} + (b_2-a_2) \ \hat{j} + (b_3-a_3) \ \hat{k}\right) \ dt

Now putting this parameterization aside, in this problem we are provided with the vertices of a triangle and the magnetic field. To compute the flux through the given region, I made use of the 'gauge invariance' principle that @Steven Chase spoke of in a solution to an earlier problem. This means, first, the magnetic vector potential is derived. We know that:

× A = B \nabla \times \vec{A} = \vec{B}

Let:

A = A x i ^ + A y j ^ + A z k ^ \vec{A} = A_x \ \hat{i} + A_y \ \hat{j} + A_z \ \hat{k} B = B x i ^ + B y j ^ + B z k ^ \vec{B} = B_x \ \hat{i} + B_y \ \hat{j} + B_z \ \hat{k}

This implies:

B x = A z y A y z = 0 B_x = \frac{\partial A_z}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial A_y}{\partial z} = 0 B y = A x z A z x = 0 B_y = \frac{\partial A_x}{\partial z} - \frac{\partial A_z}{\partial x} = 0 B z = A y x A x y = 2 x y B_z = \frac{\partial A_y}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial A_x}{\partial y} = -2xy

These are three partial differential equations. By careful inspection, one can see that the vector:

A = 2 x y 2 i ^ + x 2 y j ^ + 0 k ^ \vec{A} = 2xy^2 \hat{i} + x^2y \ \hat{j} + 0 \ \hat{k}

Satisfies the above equations. Now, recall that:

ϕ = S B d S \phi = \int_{S} \vec{B} \cdot d\vec{S}

Applying Stokes theorem gives:

ϕ = S B d S = S ( × A ) d S = C A d r \phi = \int_{S} \vec{B} \cdot d\vec{S} = \int_{S} (\nabla \times \vec{A}) \cdot d\vec{S}= \oint_{C} \vec{A} \cdot d\vec{r}

Here, C C is the closed contour which is composed of the sides of the triangle. From here, the closed line integral can be split into three integrals as such:

C A d r = 1 2 A d r + 2 3 A d r + 3 1 A d r \oint_{C} \vec{A} \cdot d\vec{r} = \int_{1 \to 2}\vec{A} \cdot d\vec{r} + \int_{2 \to 3}\vec{A} \cdot d\vec{r} + \int_{3 \to 1}\vec{A} \cdot d\vec{r}

Making use of the initial line parameterization, the integrands can be simplified. These simplifications are left out for now. The final integrand is:

ϕ = 0 1 ( 135 t 3 414 t 2 + 405 t 90 ) d t \phi = \int_{0}^{1} (135t^3 - 414t^2 + 405t - 90)dt

ϕ = 33 4 \boxed{\phi = \frac{33}{4}}

Excellent, thanks. I started with the vector potential A = ( x y 2 , 0 , 0 ) \vec{A} = (x y^2, 0 , 0) and used that to derive B \vec{B} . I can imagine an interested reader asking the following additional questions based on your solution:

1) How did you know you could invoke a vector potential?
2) Why/how is that approach more convenient than double-integrating over the interior surface?

Steven Chase - 1 year, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

I'll start by answering the second question. It is Convenient to set up the double integrals, but those resulting integrals would need to be split up based on the boundary of the surface. It is this bit that makes solving double integrals over a triangular surface very inconvenient. I made use of the following two facts.

  1. The arbitrary triangular surface has a closed boundary which can be easily defined.

  2. Surface integrals can be converted to line integrals using Stokes' theorem provided that the surface has a closed boundary.

Invoking the use of a vector potential was a natural consequence of point 2. This is because Stoke's theorem is defined in terms of the curl of a vector field and also the fact that the curl of a magnetic vector potential gives the flux density vector.

Hope this answers the questions

Karan Chatrath - 1 year, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

Agreed. It is much more natural to think of the boundary curve (in this case) than to think of the interior surface. I wonder if there are some cases in which the interior surface is much more well-defined than the boundary (the opposite of this case). The other thing I was getting at is whether you did a divergence check on B \vec{B} before proceeding.

Steven Chase - 1 year, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

@Steven Chase Now I realise that I did not do that. I should have started with it. But now, by inspection, it can be seen that

B = 0 \nabla \cdot \vec{B} =0

Is satisfied. Thanks for drawing attention to this.

Karan Chatrath - 1 year, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

@Karan Chatrath @Karan Chatrath please post the solution of this problem General Dynamics .
I want to know your approach.
Thanks in advance.

A Former Brilliant Member - 1 year, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

@A Former Brilliant Member My present understanding of concepts on collisions/impacts is not good enough to solve that problem. I will attempt it later.

Karan Chatrath - 1 year, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

@Karan Chatrath @Karan Chatrath No problem.And in Thermodynamics?? I have Thermodynamics good problems also??

A Former Brilliant Member - 1 year, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

@A Former Brilliant Member Sure, please post. I look forward to attempting them

Karan Chatrath - 1 year, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

@Karan Chatrath @Karan Chatrath Thankyou I will post till night.

A Former Brilliant Member - 1 year, 1 month ago

@Steven Chase @Steven Chase please post the solution of this problem General Dynamics .
I want to know your approach.
Thanks in advance.

A Former Brilliant Member - 1 year, 1 month ago

(1) B = 0 \nabla\cdot\mathbf{B} = 0 .

Mark Hennings - 1 year, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

@Mark Hennings Sir can you post the solution of General Dynamics .
I want to know your approach.
Thanks in advance.

A Former Brilliant Member - 1 year, 1 month ago

@Karan Chatrath I just upvoted. I can't able to understand that A \vec{A} .

A Former Brilliant Member - 1 year, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

Refer to this problem.

https://brilliant.org/problems/magnetic-vector-potential/

Karan Chatrath - 1 year, 1 month ago

@Karan Chatrath and @Steven Chase if I find flux through this triangle. A ( 0.0 ) , B ( 1 , 2 ) , C ( 1 , 4 ) A(0.0 ), B(1, 2), C(-1, 4) will it be same??

A Former Brilliant Member - 1 year, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

That might work, since the B \vec{B} field is purely in the z z direction, and depends only on x x and y y .

Steven Chase - 1 year, 1 month ago

@Steven Chase this question was a good one, Current Sink
I see this very few months ago, I can't able to solve that time, so I see the solution. But now I solved it own.

Can you post more like this please. Thanks in advance. I don't know why but now , I am just loving this type of questions

A Former Brilliant Member - 1 year, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

I think I will post a new electromechanics problem with an AC source

Steven Chase - 1 year ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...