I want to clarify that I am not asking for the production given specifically by my machine. I am looking for any knowledge on the levels that such machines produce at these scales. An order of magnitude perhaps. Thanks.
I've seen the electrostatic generators as a student but never had a chance to operated one. So I built one. A small one using compact disks.
Now I am in the process of building a larger one, using two 12 inch disks cut from acrylic. I've got the completed disks (32 sectors each), base...
So as it stands, attempt to find a solution; if it tends to describe a physical problem well, take it for what it is and disregard other possible solutions? Like the method here, is it used because it is a practical way of finding solutions that seem to model heat flow well?
"Critiquing" separation of variables method for PDE.
I am currently taking a course in PDE's and it has been very "applied" and not so much theory based. I can say its been separate this separate that separate this separate that… Enough! We are always "separating variables" and it always...
The angular momentum of a system of particles α = 1,2,3,...n can be written as the sum of the two angular momenta:
\vec{L} = \vec{R} \times \vec{P} + \sum_{\alpha} \vec{r_{\alpha}}' x \vec{\rho_{\alpha}}'
where the first term is the angular momentum of the center of mass with all mass M = Ʃ mα...
This is how I was beginning to view it. Of course though, it is easy to see that it works in any particular case. To show that any substitution of divergence of r / (4 pi r^3) for δ(r) never leads to a contradiction, or simply that it represents the same mathematical object in every context...
So Gauss's theorem for continuous distributions, not point charges? Any discrete collection of charges will have the electric field undefined where the charges lie.
I have searched the forums and the internet to see various discussions about the divergence of an electric field, or more directly, the divergence of r/r^3. I still don't understand this "spike at r = 0" idea, and really don't believe it. It simply seems to be an idea that fills in the gaps of...
Your informing that my equations were correct made me further investigate what I was doing wrong. I come to find out I did nothing wrong, at least in arriving to my solutions.
I was comparing my solutions to those given here (at the bottom of the page)...
Yes, I see I was a little vague. I have attached a figure. The red represents the incline; the blue dot represents the block mass (taking it to be a point); and the black dot is the lower end of the ramp.
P is the coordinate points for the block, and Q is the coordinate points for the...
Homework Statement
There is a frictionless incline with a "block" mass on it. The incline and the mass are able to move. The mass of the block is m and the mass of the incline is M.
I am supposed to find a suitable set of generalized coordinates and write the Lagrangian of the system, then...
Hello,
I have copied over my work, and I still see the term canceling out. I have collected the calculations in a screen shot so that you can see them and see if one of us is doing it incorrectly. See in the attachment, on the last line, the first and last terms.
When I copy over my work in a typed version I will see if I did anything wrong. It can be easy for me to make the mistake of forgetting to continue the chain rule through when taking a full derivative versus a partial.
Thanks.