ganolrifv9
2022-07-23
Answered

If you wrap an active electric cord around your body, do you become an electromagnet?

You can still ask an expert for help

tykoyz

Answered 2022-07-24
Author has **17** answers

No. The power cord on a vacuum cleaner has both supply and return conductors, which produce opposing magnetic fields. The region of nonzero magnetic field is limited to a few cable diameters away from the cable.

Also the magnetic field due to an alternating current changes direction at 50-60 Hz, depending on your local power supply frequency.

If you wanted to turn yourself into an electromagnet you'd need to separate the hot and neutral conductors in the power cord, and wrap one around you clockwise and the other counterclockwise. Then the fields due to the two currents would add. You could convert to direct current if the alternation of the field direction bothers you. However since biological tissue is not ferromagnetic, the physical effects on you are pretty tiny.

Also the magnetic field due to an alternating current changes direction at 50-60 Hz, depending on your local power supply frequency.

If you wanted to turn yourself into an electromagnet you'd need to separate the hot and neutral conductors in the power cord, and wrap one around you clockwise and the other counterclockwise. Then the fields due to the two currents would add. You could convert to direct current if the alternation of the field direction bothers you. However since biological tissue is not ferromagnetic, the physical effects on you are pretty tiny.

Lorena Lester

Answered 2022-07-25
Author has **2** answers

The answer is no, because the electric field of each wire cancels the field of the other wire. But even if you wrap yourself many times with one wire and connect the ends to electric power, you will not become a "measurable" electro-magnet. The reason for this is that the amount of ferromagnetic material in your body (blood iron, etc.), is very small.

asked 2022-05-13

Why are the electric force and magnetic force classified as electromagnetism?

I confuse the four kinds of fundamental interactions, so I think the electric force and magnetic force should not be classified as a big class called electromagnetism.

Here is my evidence:

1.The Gauss law of electric force is related to the surface integration but the Ampere's law corresponds with path integration.

2.The electric field can be caused by a single static charge while the magnetic force is caused by a moving charge or two moving infinitesimal current.

3.The electric field line is never closed, but the magnetic field line (except those to infinity) is a closed curve.

I confuse the four kinds of fundamental interactions, so I think the electric force and magnetic force should not be classified as a big class called electromagnetism.

Here is my evidence:

1.The Gauss law of electric force is related to the surface integration but the Ampere's law corresponds with path integration.

2.The electric field can be caused by a single static charge while the magnetic force is caused by a moving charge or two moving infinitesimal current.

3.The electric field line is never closed, but the magnetic field line (except those to infinity) is a closed curve.

asked 2022-05-10

$M=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4U}{3}}}\varphi $

where M is the ferromagnetic order parameter and $\varphi $ is the auxiliary field from the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation. The book argues that because the above equation is correct, the mean field theory which is derived from the Hartree-Fock approach is equivalent to the the saddle point approximation formalism for H-S transformation auxiliary field Lagrangian. But I can not understand the equation.

where M is the ferromagnetic order parameter and $\varphi $ is the auxiliary field from the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation. The book argues that because the above equation is correct, the mean field theory which is derived from the Hartree-Fock approach is equivalent to the the saddle point approximation formalism for H-S transformation auxiliary field Lagrangian. But I can not understand the equation.

asked 2021-03-07

a 350 kg sailboat has anacceleration of 0.62 m/s^2 at an angle of 64 degrees north ofeast.find the magnitude and direction of the net force that acts onthe sailboat.

asked 2022-04-12

If a ferromagnetic material is immersed in an alternating magnetic field at frequency $\omega $, the material will follow a hysteresis cycle at that frequency. But if that frequency is high enough, the spins will oscillate more and more, and I think it will somehow increase the temperature of the material (because in a classical picture: more frequency $\Rightarrow $ more velocity $\Rightarrow $ more kinetic energy $\Rightarrow $ more temperature.)

As hysteresis only appear below the Curie temperature, if higher frequencies make the metal get hotter, there will be a critical frequency ${\omega}_{c}$, above which hysteresis won't appear. Does such frequency exists for every ferromagnetic material?

As hysteresis only appear below the Curie temperature, if higher frequencies make the metal get hotter, there will be a critical frequency ${\omega}_{c}$, above which hysteresis won't appear. Does such frequency exists for every ferromagnetic material?

asked 2022-05-17

State Gauss’ Law for Magnetism. What significant thing does it tell us about the universe?

asked 2021-02-10

A frictionless plane is 10.0 m long and inclined atA sled starts at the bottom with an initial speed of 5.00 m/s up the incline. When it reaches the point at which it momentarily stops, a second sled is released from the top of this incline with an initial speed v1 both sleds reach the bottom of thein cline at the same moment.

(a) Determine the distance that the first sled traveled up the incline.

(b) Determine the initial speed of the second sled.

asked 2022-05-07

Gauss's law states that ${\int}_{S}\overrightarrow{B}\cdot d\overrightarrow{S}=0$. But law of induction states that $\xi =-\frac{d\varphi}{dt}$, where $\varphi ={\int}_{S}\overrightarrow{B}\cdot d\overrightarrow{S}$

So if Gauss's law was to be correct there should be no induction at all, because then ϕ would be zero through every loop.

So if Gauss's law was to be correct there should be no induction at all, because then ϕ would be zero through every loop.