Wow I'm very impressed I saw the Reddit post, decided to give it a go since I'm learning phyton and electrical engineering at college. My favorite thing of all was the visual representation, love it! Keep up the good work.
this is amazing. I also discovered plotly while doing my introductory course on electrodynamics and looking for something better than matplot at 3D. Finding this video a few months ago would have saved me hours. keep it going!
Nice code, but taken the parameterization of the petal-curve is even faster to use a FEA simulator to solve this kind of problems. However the code is great and is very interesting to understand how everything works writing down formulas in this way.
great Video, thank you so much. in your code on Github, y and z is switched in the first diagram, so that it just shows a straight line instead of the 2d wire
For the display to work at all, IPython's `display.py' had to be imported. After that `display.display_html(fig)` rendered the expected result. When inspecting the code inside the `display.py' module it will quickly become evident why this was shown to be true. Enjoyed working through the project. Thx.
Awesome video, is it possible to implement the line that the current is flowing through with piecewise functions? I'm also wondering if we can then define a second loop and solve for mutual inductance
Your videos are so fucking amazing... I didn't know about the tools python provides you with in order to do mathematics.. It's amazing! Just a random thought: wouldn't it be cool if you could just draw a cable and your script would tell you the magnatic field? Like it converts the doodling into a mathematical function and processes it to what you've shown in this video? That'd be fun y!
U should be able to just np.hypot(Bx,By,Bz) and make a function that depends on x y z (and maybe some other stuff). So that way u can get the field for any x y and z
Interesting problem with nice python solution. However, I had a problem with final cell when the html plot did not show. Solution that worked for me: Replace: HTML(fig.to_html()) With: fig.show() html = fig.to_html(full_html=True, include_plotlyjs=True) print(html) 😄
Very helpful video! I have one problem, when I try to run the code in Jupyterlab, the final plot returns just an empty cell. Any clue what I might be doing wrong?
to those struggling to open the last plot, after HTML(fig.to_html()), i put fig.write_html(‘first_figure.html’, auto_open=True) and then it worked! good luck
This is GREAT! BTW the intros are majestic 🤣 I only have a question, how do you take into consideration real dimensions (meters etc)? I don't quite understand how to take it into account
All the codes are getting executed, but there is a problem with the last part. There are no errors in the code, but there is no output too. I don't know why there isn't any output.🙄
Great video! Just a question tho, performance wise, is there a way to vectorize the function (not to use np.vectorize, since its just a for loop)? Using the function on large inputs slows the program too much sadly.
Unfortunately, there's no way to vectorize the function in Python. There's also no way to "broadcast" the function in Python over an array of values, which you can do in Julia and makes things faster. The only alternative I can think of to make things faster is to use numba's njit function and write the for loops yourself. Numba actually has a vectorize function numba.pydata.org/numba-doc/latest/user/vectorize.html Unfortunately though, you won't be able to use scipy's quad function since numba doesn't work with scipy functions as of now. You would have to use your own numerical integrator function. The best I can think of is a user-defined romberg integrator decorated with the njit numba function so it could be passed into the function.
This has been very helpful! I just have one question, I've noticed that when I change the number of grid points the magnitude of the "cones" and therefore the magnetic field changes quite drastically which confuses me because although the magnetic field is now evaluated at different points, its range of magnitude should be pretty similar right? does anybody know why this happens?
assuming you haven't studied Maxwell's equations in too much mathematical detail, the Biot-Savart law follows from Ampere's Law curl(B) = J, subject to the (roughly put) condition that the integral of J/r converges when integrated over all space, so infact the law does not apply for an infinite charge distribution like the straight line wire, since J remains constant over the wire and so the integral will diverge.
Dude, please, never stop teaching our minds and touching our hearts.
I have found a gem of a channel. I really hope you grow, your work is amazing. Keep it up!
Wow I'm very impressed I saw the Reddit post, decided to give it a go since I'm learning phyton and electrical engineering at college. My favorite thing of all was the visual representation, love it! Keep up the good work.
this is amazing. I also discovered plotly while doing my introductory course on electrodynamics and looking for something better than matplot at 3D. Finding this video a few months ago would have saved me hours. keep it going!
I love it. Computational physics should be a lot more "present" throughout undergrad, awesome example :).
That Plotly software is so cool my calc3 and E&M professors would love to use something like that when explaining 3D fields like this. Great job
as soon as he featured griffiths in the intro i subscribed that was fire
Nice code, but taken the parameterization of the petal-curve is even faster to use a FEA simulator to solve this kind of problems. However the code is great and is very interesting to understand how everything works writing down formulas in this way.
That intro 😎🎸⚡
This is absolutely awesome!!! Thank you for the time and extremely clear explanation. :D
great Video, thank you so much.
in your code on Github, y and z is switched in the first diagram, so that it just shows a straight line instead of the 2d wire
For the display to work at all, IPython's `display.py' had to be imported. After that `display.display_html(fig)` rendered the expected result.
When inspecting the code inside the `display.py' module it will quickly become evident why this was shown to be true.
Enjoyed working through the project. Thx.
I think a cool next step is to also draw the trajectory of an incident charged particle in the presence of that field / other weird arbitrary B-field
I am very impressed! You should be a lecturer!
love this content. so educational. thank you for this :)
Awesome video, is it possible to implement the line that the current is flowing through with piecewise functions?
I'm also wondering if we can then define a second loop and solve for mutual inductance
Your videos are so fucking amazing... I didn't know about the tools python provides you with in order to do mathematics.. It's amazing! Just a random thought: wouldn't it be cool if you could just draw a cable and your script would tell you the magnatic field? Like it converts the doodling into a mathematical function and processes it to what you've shown in this video? That'd be fun y!
Now this, I like
U should be able to just np.hypot(Bx,By,Bz) and make a function that depends on x y z (and maybe some other stuff). So that way u can get the field for any x y and z
Interesting problem with nice python solution.
However, I had a problem with final cell when the html plot did not show.
Solution that worked for me:
Replace:
HTML(fig.to_html())
With:
fig.show()
html = fig.to_html(full_html=True, include_plotlyjs=True)
print(html)
😄
Very helpful video! I have one problem, when I try to run the code in Jupyterlab, the final plot returns just an empty cell. Any clue what I might be doing wrong?
it would be really cool to actually visualize the displacement current somehow !!!!
I dont know if its possible, but it would be very cool if those "cones" were in motion along the field lines. :)
to those struggling to open the last plot, after HTML(fig.to_html()), i put fig.write_html(‘first_figure.html’, auto_open=True)
and then it worked! good luck
Do you think it would be possible to approximate field lines? I imagine it would be pretty difficult, but would probably look cool if it worked.
This is GREAT! BTW the intros are majestic 🤣 I only have a question, how do you take into consideration real dimensions (meters etc)? I don't quite understand how to take it into account
All the codes are getting executed, but there is a problem with the last part. There are no errors in the code, but there is no output too. I don't know why there isn't any output.🙄
Did you ever fix it? I have the same problem.
Great video! Just a question tho, performance wise, is there a way to vectorize the function (not to use np.vectorize, since its just a for loop)? Using the function on large inputs slows the program too much sadly.
Unfortunately, there's no way to vectorize the function in Python. There's also no way to "broadcast" the function in Python over an array of values, which you can do in Julia and makes things faster.
The only alternative I can think of to make things faster is to use numba's njit function and write the for loops yourself. Numba actually has a vectorize function numba.pydata.org/numba-doc/latest/user/vectorize.html
Unfortunately though, you won't be able to use scipy's quad function since numba doesn't work with scipy functions as of now. You would have to use your own numerical integrator function. The best I can think of is a user-defined romberg integrator decorated with the njit numba function so it could be passed into the function.
This has been very helpful! I just have one question, I've noticed that when I change the number of grid points the magnitude of the "cones" and therefore the magnetic field changes quite drastically which confuses me because although the magnetic field is now evaluated at different points, its range of magnitude should be pretty similar right? does anybody know why this happens?
Please, what editor do you use?
how would you alter this for a straight line wire?
assuming you haven't studied Maxwell's equations in too much mathematical detail, the Biot-Savart law follows from Ampere's Law curl(B) = J, subject to the (roughly put) condition that the integral of J/r converges when integrated over all space, so infact the law does not apply for an infinite charge distribution like the straight line wire, since J remains constant over the wire and so the integral will diverge.
Can You please help us now and plot a EM Wave?
Tom Cruise at 1:00
Sick video
I learned biot savart's law 2 days ago in physics
Nice tutorial.
Came from Reddit
.