Selasa, 26 Oktober 2010

Fisika untuk Universitas

Fisika untuk Universitas

Ditujukan untuk meningkatkan kualitas proses dan hasil perkuliahan Fisika di tingkat Universitas

Kelistrikan dan Kemagnetan




Topics covered:

Polarization
Dielectrics
The Van de Graaff
More on Capacitors

Instructor/speaker: Prof. Walter Lewin

Free Downloads

Video


» Download this transcript (PDF)

Electric fields can induce dipoles in insulators.

Electrons in insulators are bound to the atoms and to the molecules, unlike conductors, where they can freely move, and when I apply an external field -- for instance, a field in this direction, then even though the molecules or the atoms may be completely spherical, they will become a little bit elongated in the sense that the electrons will spend a little bit more time there than they used to, and so this part becomes negatively charged and this part becomes positively charged, and that creates a dipole.

I discussed that with you, already, during the first lecture, because there's something quite remarkable about this, that if you have an insulator -- notice the pluses and the minuses indicate neutral atoms -- and if now, I apply an electric field, which comes down from the top, then, you see a slight shift of the electrons, they spend a little bit more time up than down, and what you see now is, you see a layer of negative charge being created at the top, and a layer of positive charge being created at the bottom.

That's the result of induction, we call that also, sometimes, polarization.

You are polarizing, in a way, the electric charge.

Uh, substances that do this, we call them dielectrics, and today, we will talk quite a bit about dielectrics.

The first part of my lecture is on the web, uh, if you go to 8.02 web, you will see there a document which describes, in great detail, what I'm going to tell you right now.

Suppose we have a plane capacitor -- two planes which I charge with a certain potential, and I have on here, say, a charge plus sigma and here I have a charge minus sigma.

I'm going to call this free -- you will see, very shortly why I call this free -- and this is minus free.

So there's a potential difference between the plate, charge flows on there, it has an area A, and sigma free is the charge density, how much charge per unit area.

So we're going to get an electric field, which runs in this direction, and I call that E free.

And the distance between the plates, say, is D.

So this is given.

I now remove the power supply that I used to give it a certain potential difference.

I completely take it away.

So that means that this charge here is trapped, can not change.

But now I move in a dielectric.

I move in one of those substances.

And what you're going to see here, now, at the top, you're going to see a negative-induced layer, and at the bottom, you're going to see a positive-induced layer.

I called it plus sigma induced, and I call this minus sigma induced.

And the only reason why I call the other free, is to distinguish them from the induced charge.

This induced charge, which I have in green, will produce an electric field which is in the opposite I- direction, and I call that E-induced.

And clearly, E free is, of course, the surface charge density divided by epsilon 0, and E induced is the induced surface charge density, divided by epsilon 0.

And so the net E field is the vectorial sum of the two, so E net -- I gave it a vector -- is E free plus E induced, vectorially added.

Since I'm interested -- I know the direction already -- since I'm interested in magnitudes, therefore the strength of the net E field is going to be the strength of the E fields created by the so-called free charge, minus the strength of the E fields created by the induced charge, minus -- because this E vector is down, and this one is in the up direction.

And so, if I now make the assumption that a certain fraction of the free charge is induced, so I make the assumption that sigma induced is some fraction B times sigma free, I just write, now, and I for induced and an F for free.

B is smaller than 1.

If B were .1, it means that sigma-induced would be 10% of sigma free, that's the meaning of B.

So clearly, if this is the case, then, also, E of I must also be B times E of F.

You can tell immediately, they are connected.

And so now I can write down, for E net, I can also write down E free times 1 minus B, and that 1 minus B, now, we call 1 over kappa.

I call it 1 over kappa, our book calls it 1 over K.

But I'm so used to kappa that I decided to still hold on to kappa.

And that K, or that kappa, whichever you want to call it, is called the dielectric constant.

It's a dimensionless number.

And so I can write down, now, in general, that E -- and I drop the word net, now, from now on, whenever I write E, throughout this lecture, it's always the net electric field, takes both into account.

So you can write down, now, that E equals the free electric fields, divided by kappa, because 1 minus B is 1 over kappa.

And so you see, in this experiment that I did in my head, first, bringing charge on the plate, certain potential difference, removing the power supply, shoving in the dielectric that an E field will go down by a factor kappa.

Kappa, for glass, is about 5.

That will be a major reduction, I will show you that later.

If the electric field goes down, in this particular experiment, it is clear that the potential difference between the plates will also go down, because the potential difference between the plates, V is always the electric field between the plates times D.

And so, if this one goes down, by a factor of kappa, if I just shove in the dielectric, not changing D, then, of course, the potential between the plates is also going down.

None of this is so intuitive, but I will demonstrate that later.

The question now arises, does Gauss's Law still hold?

And the answer is, yes, of course, Gauss's Law will still hold.

Gauss's Law tells me that the closed loop -- closed surface, I should say, not closed loop -- the closed surface integral of E dot dA is 1 over epsilon times the sum of all the charges inside my box.

All the charges! The net charges, that must take into account both the induced charge, as well as the free charge.

And so let me write down here, net, to remind you that.

But Q net is, of course, Q free plus Q induced.

And I want to remind you that this is minus, and this was plus.

The free charge, positive there, is plus, and at that same plate, if you have your Gaussian surface at the top, you have the negative charged Q induced.

And so therefore, Gauss's Law simply means that you have to take both into account, and so, therefore, you can write down 1 over epsilon 0, times the sum of Q free, but now you have to make sure that you take the induced charge into account, and therefore, you divide the whole thing by kappa.

Then you have automatically taken the induced charge into account.

So you can amend Gauss's Law very easily by this factor of kappa.

Dielectric constant is dimensionless, as I mentioned already, it is 1, in vacuum, by definition.

1 atmosphere gases typically have dielectric constant just a hair larger than 1.

We will, most of the time, assume that it is 1.

Plastic has a dielectric constant of 3, and glass, which is an extremely good insulator, has a dielectric constant of 5.

If you have an external field, that can induce dipoles in molecules -- but there are substances, however, which themselves are already dipoles, even in the absence of an electric field.

If you apply, now, an external field, these dipoles will start to align along the electric field, we did an experiment once, with some grass seeds, perhaps you remember that.

And as they align in the direction of the electric field, they will strengthen the electric field.

On the other hand, because of the temperature of the substance, these dipoles, these molecules which are now dipoles by themselves, through chaotic motion, will try to disalign, temperature is trying to disalign them.

So it is going to be a competition, on the one hand, between the electric field which tries to align them and the temperature which tries to disalign them.

But if the electric field is strong, you can get a substantial amount of alignment.

Uh, permanent dipoles, as a rule, are way stronger than any dipole that you can induce by ordinary means in a laboratory, and so the substances which are natural dipoles, they have a much higher value for kappa, a much higher dielectric constant that the substances that I just discussed, which themselves, do not have dipoles.

Water is an example, extremely good example.

The electrons spend a little bit more time near the oxygen than near the hydrogen, and water has a dielectric constant of 80.

That's enormous.


Pengembangan Perkuliahan

1. Buatlah sebuah Esai mengenai materi perkuliahan ini

2. Buatlah sebuah kelompok berjumlah 5 orang untuk menganalisis materi perkuliahan ini

3. Lakukan Penelitian Sederhana dengan kelompok tersebut

4. Hasilkan sebuah produk yang dapat digunakan oleh masyarakat

5. Kembangkan produk tersebut dengan senantiasa meningkatkan kualitasnya

Ucapan Terima Kasih Kepada:

1. Para Dosen MIT di Departemen Fisika

a. Prof. Walter Lewin, Ph.D.

b. Prof. Bernd Surrow, Ph.D.
(http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/surrow_bernd.html)

Staff

Visualizations:
Prof. John Belcher

Instructors:
Dr. Peter Dourmashkin
Prof. Bruce Knuteson
Prof. Gunther Roland
Prof. Bolek Wyslouch
Dr. Brian Wecht
Prof. Eric Katsavounidis
Prof. Robert Simcoe
Prof. Joseph Formaggio

Course Co-Administrators:
Dr. Peter Dourmashkin
Prof. Robert Redwine

Technical Instructors:
Andy Neely
Matthew Strafuss

Course Material:
Dr. Peter Dourmashkin
Prof. Eric Hudson
Dr. Sen-Ben Liao

Acknowledgements

The TEAL project is supported by The Alex and Brit d'Arbeloff Fund for Excellence in MIT Education, MIT iCampus, the Davis Educational Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the Class of 1960 Endowment for Innovation in Education, the Class of 1951 Fund for Excellence in Education, the Class of 1955 Fund for Excellence in Teaching, and the Helena Foundation. Many people have contributed to the development of the course materials. (PDF)



2. Para Dosen Pendidikan Fisika, FPMIPA, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Terima Kasih Semoga Bermanfaat dan mohon Maaf apabila ada kesalahan.

Sabtu, 23 Oktober 2010

Fisika untuk Universitas

Fisika untuk Universitas

Ditujukan untuk meningkatkan kualitas proses dan hasil perkuliahan Fisika di tingkat Universitas


7: Weight, Perceived Gravity, and Weightlessnes



» Download this transcript (PDF)

So far in these lectures we've talked about mass, about acceleration and about forces, but we never used the word "weight," and weight is a very nonintuitive and a very tricky thing which is the entire subject of today's lecture.

What is weight? Here you stand on a bathroom scale.

Gravity is acting upon you, the force is mg, your mass is m.

The bathroom scale is pushing on you with a force F scale and that F scale--

which in this case if the system is not being accelerated is the same as mg--

that force from the bathroom scale on you we define as weight.

When I stand on the bathroom scale I could see my weight is about 165 pounds.

Now, it may be calibrated in newtons but that's, of course, very unusual.

If I weigh myself on the moon where the gravitational acceleration is six times less then I would weigh six times less--

so far, so good.

Now I'm going to put you in an elevator and I'm going to accelerate you upwards and you're standing on your bathroom scale.

Acceleration is in this direction and I will call this "plus" and I will call this "minus." Gravity is acting upon you, mg and the bathroom scale is pushing on you with a force F.

That force, by definition, is weight.

Before I write down some equations, I want you to realize that whenever, whenever you see in any of my equations "g" g is always plus 9.8.

And my signs, my minus signs take care of the directions but g is always plus 9.8 or plus 10, if you prefer that.

Okay, it's clear that if this is accelerated upwards that F of s must be larger than mg; otherwise I cannot be accelerated.

And so we get Newton's Second Law: F of s is in plus direction...

minus mg--

it's in this direction--

equals m times a and so the bathroom scale indicates m times a plus g.

And I have gained weight.

If this acceleration is five meters per second squared in this direction I am one and a half times my normal weight.

If I look on the bathroom scale, that's what I see.

Seeing is believing--




Ucapan Terima Kasih Kepada:


1. Para Dosen MIT di Departemen Fisika

a. Prof. Walter Lewin, Ph.D.

b. Prof. Bernd Surrow, Ph.D.

2. Para Dosen Pendidikan Fisika, FPMIPA, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Terima Kasih Semoga Bermanfaat dan mohon Maaf apabila ada kesalahan.

Jumat, 22 Oktober 2010

Pusat Penelitian Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia

Indonesian Physics Education Research Group


Visi

Fisika untuk Sekolah

Misi

Perbaikan Terus Menerus dalam bidang Pengajaran Fisika


Program

1. Sains Fisika untuk Anak-anak dan Sekolah Dasar
2. Fisika untuk Sekolah Menengah Pertama
3. Fisika untuk Sekolah Menengah Atas

Senin, 18 Oktober 2010

Fisika untuk Universitas

Fisika untuk Universitas

Ditujukan untuk meningkatkan kualitas proses dan hasil perkuliahan Fisika di tingkat Universitas

6: Newton's First, Second, and Third Laws







» Download this transcript (PDF)

Last time we discussed that an acceleration is caused by a push or by a pull.

Today we will express this more qualitatively in three laws which are called Newton's Laws.

The first law really goes back to the first part of the 17th century.

It was Galileo who expressed what he called the law of inertia and I will read you his law.

"A body at rest remains at rest "and a body in motion continues to move "at constant velocity along a straight line unless acted upon by an external force." And now I will read to you Newton's own words in his famous book, Principia. "Every body perseveres in its state of rest "or of uniform motion in a right line "unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it." Now, Newton's First Law is clearly against our daily experiences.

Things that move don't move along a straight line and don't continue to move, and the reason is, there's gravity.

And there is another reason.

Even if you remove gravity then there is friction, there's air drag.

And so things will always come to a halt.

But we believe, though, that in the absence of any forces indeed an object, if it had a certain velocity would continue along a straight line forever and ever and ever.

Now, this law, this very fundamental law does not hold in all reference frames.

For instance, it doesn't hold in a reference frame which itself is being accelerated.

Imagine that I accelerate myself right here.

Either I jump on my horse, or I take my bicycle or my motorcycle or my car and you see me being accelerated in this direction.

And you sit there and you say, "Aha, his velocity is changing.

"Therefore, according to the First Law, there must be a force on him." And you say, "Hey, there, do you feel that force?" And I said, "Yeah, I do! "I really feel that, I feel someone's pushing me." Consistent with the first law.

Perfect, the First Law works for you.

Now I'm here.

I'm being accelerated in this direction and you all come towards me being accelerated in this direction.

I say, "Aha, the First Law should work so these people should feel a push." I say, "Hey, there! Do you feel the push?" And you say, "I feel nothing.

There is no push, there is no pull." Therefore, the First Law doesn't work from my frame of reference if I'm being accelerated towards you.

So now comes the question, when does the First Law work? Well, the First Law works when the frame of reference is what we call an "inertial" frame of reference.

And an inertial frame of reference would then be a frame in which there are no accelerations of any kind.

Is that possible? Is 26.100...

is this lecture hall an inertial reference frame? For one, the earth rotates about its own axis and 26.100 goes with it.

That gives you a centripetal acceleration.

Number two, the earth goes around the sun.

That gives it a centripetal acceleration including the earth, including you, including 26.100.

The sun goes around the Milky Way, and you can go on and on.

So clearly 26.100 is not an inertial reference frame.

We can try to make an estimate on how large these accelerations are that we experience here in 26.100 and let's start with the one that is due to the earth's rotation.

So here's the earth...


Ucapan Terima Kasih Kepada:


1. Para Dosen MIT di Departemen Fisika

a. Prof. Walter Lewin, Ph.D.

b. Prof. Bernd Surrow, Ph.D.

2. Para Dosen Pendidikan Fisika, FPMIPA, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Terima Kasih Semoga Bermanfaat dan mohon Maaf apabila ada kesalahan.