Q: Charge carriers in metals — what carries current in a metallic conductor? In an ordinary metallic conductor, the electrical current is primarily due to:

Introduction / Context: Identifying the dominant charge carriers in different classes of materials is a fundamental concept in electrical engineering and solid-state physics. Metals, semiconductors, and electrolytes each have different mobile species responsible for conduction. Given Data / Assumptions: Solid metallic conductor at room temperature. No electrochemical reactions; purely electronic conduction. Crystal lattice ions are fixed in position. Concept / Approach: In metals, valence electrons are delocalized, forming a conduction band. Under an applied electric field, these electrons acquire a drift velocity and carry current. Positive “holes” are not the dominant carriers in metals (though metals can be described by electron-like or hole-like quasiparticles in band theory, the physical mobile charges are electrons). Ions in the solid lattice are not mobile over electronic timescales and do not contribute to ordinary conduction. Step-by-Step Solution: Apply Drude model: current density J = n * e * v_d where v_d is electron drift velocity.Recognize ions are fixed at lattice sites and cannot drift under small fields.Conclude electrons are the primary carriers in metals. Verification / Alternative check: Hall effect measurements in metals confirm electron charge sign in most cases (negative Hall coefficient), consistent with electron conduction. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Holes are majority carriers in p-type semiconductors, not in metals. Lattice ions are not mobile under normal conditions. Photons are energy quanta, not charge carriers in conductors. Common Pitfalls: Transferring semiconductor intuition (holes) to metals. Confusing electrolytic conduction (ions in solution) with metallic conduction. Final Answer: Electrons

Q: Constitutive relation and anisotropy — assertion–reason Assertion (A): The scalar relation D = ε0 εr E is applicable only to isotropic materials. Reason (R): In polycrystalline materials the directional effects are absent, so anisotropy does not occ…

Introduction / Context: This assertion–reason item checks understanding of when the simple scalar permittivity model applies and clarifies a common misconception about polycrystalline solids and anisotropy. Given Data / Assumptions: Linear dielectric response. Possibility of anisotropy in crystals or textured materials. Polycrystalline aggregates may have random or non-random grain orientations. Concept / Approach: For isotropic media, εr is a scalar and the constitutive relation is D = ε0 εr E. In anisotropic media, permittivity is a tensor ε̄, and the correct relation is D = ε̄ · E, with D generally not parallel to E. Therefore A is true. The reason R claims that polycrystalline materials lack directional effects; this is not universally true. While a fully random, statistically isotropic polycrystal may behave approximately isotropically, many polycrystals exhibit texture (preferred orientation) due to processing, retaining direction-dependent properties. Hence R is false as a general statement. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess A → true: scalar ε applies to isotropic media only.Assess R → false: polycrystals can be anisotropic if textured; directional effects may persist.Conclusion: A true, R false. Verification / Alternative check: Examples include rolled ferroelectric ceramics and drawn polymer films, which show anisotropic dielectric response despite being polycrystalline or semicrystalline. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) and (b) assume R is true; it is not generally. (d) would negate A, which is incorrect. (e) ignores the correct part of A. Common Pitfalls: Assuming “polycrystalline” automatically means “isotropic”. Forgetting that processing history can create texture and anisotropy. Final Answer: A is true but R is false

Q: Dielectrics and polarization under a uniform electric field A linear, homogeneous dielectric with relative permittivity εr is subjected to a uniform electric field E. What is the polarization vector P (dipole moment per unit volume) expressed in ter…

Introduction / Context: Polarization connects microscopic dipole formation to macroscopic electric-field response. In linear dielectrics, this relationship lets engineers compute capacitance, stored energy, and field distributions in cables, capacitors, and high-voltage insulation. Given Data / Assumptions: Material is linear, isotropic, and homogeneous. Relative permittivity is εr (dimensionless); ε0 is the permittivity of free space. Applied electric field is uniform E. Concept / Approach: The constitutive relation for a linear dielectric is D = εE = ε0εrE. Polarization is defined by D = ε0E + P. Eliminating D gives P directly in terms of εr and E, revealing how far the material’s response deviates from vacuum behavior. Step-by-Step Solution: Start with D = ε0 εr E.Use D = ε0 E + P.Rearrange: P = D − ε0 E = ε0 εr E − ε0 E.Hence P = ε0 (εr − 1) E. Verification / Alternative check: Define electric susceptibility χe by P = ε0 χe E. Since εr = 1 + χe, we obtain P = ε0 (εr − 1) E, confirming consistency with susceptibility definitions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A ignores field dependence; B omits the material contribution (only vacuum). D uses εr without subtracting unity; E has incorrect dimensions. Only C matches the constitutive framework. Common Pitfalls: Confusing D with P; forgetting εr is unitless; missing the (εr − 1) factor that isolates material polarization from vacuum. Final Answer: P = ε0 (εr − 1) E

Q: Matthiessen’s rule at cryogenic temperatures For a conductor with total resistivity ρ = ρi + aT (ρi: residual resistivity; a: constant; T: absolute temperature), which statement best describes the low-temperature limit?

Introduction / Context: Matthiessen’s rule decomposes metal resistivity into a temperature-independent part from defects/impurities and a temperature-dependent phonon (lattice vibration) part. Understanding the limiting behavior guides low-temperature measurements and purity assessments of metals and cryogenic wiring. Given Data / Assumptions: Total resistivity: ρ = ρi + aT. ρi is residual (defect) resistivity; aT is phonon contribution. “Very low temperatures” means T approaches 0 K but is not exactly zero. Concept / Approach: As T decreases, phonon scattering diminishes rapidly, so the temperature-dependent term aT shrinks toward zero. The resistivity then approaches the residual limit ρi set by impurities and defects. At sufficiently low T, aT is much smaller than ρi, though strictly aT = 0 only at T = 0 K (idealized limit). Step-by-Step Solution: Write ρ = ρi + aT.Let T → very small (nonzero): phonon scattering → negligible.Then aT becomes much less than ρi.Therefore, aT < ρi is the best general statement at very low T. Verification / Alternative check: Residual resistivity ratio (RRR = ρ(300 K)/ρ(4.2 K)) is large for pure metals, evidencing that low-T resistivity is dominated by ρi, with aT ≪ ρi near liquid helium temperatures. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A claims aT = 0, which holds only at exactly 0 K. B and C contradict low-T behavior; E states exact equality without basis. Common Pitfalls: Assuming the phonon term vanishes at any small T; confusing trend (“much less than”) with exact equality at 0 K. Final Answer: aT < ρi

Q: Units and dimensions of relative permittivity For the relative permittivity εr of a material (where ε = ε0 εr), what are the correct units?

Introduction / Context: Material parameters appear in Maxwell’s equations through constitutive relations. Distinguishing absolute permittivity from relative permittivity avoids unit mistakes when calculating capacitance, wave speed, and impedance in dielectrics. Given Data / Assumptions: Absolute permittivity: ε (units F/m). Vacuum permittivity: ε0 (units F/m). Relative permittivity: εr defined by ε = ε0 εr. Concept / Approach: Because ε and ε0 share the same units (F/m), εr must be a pure ratio and therefore dimensionless. It scales the vacuum response to represent the material’s ability to polarize relative to free space. Step-by-Step Solution: Write ε = ε0 εr.Units(ε) = F/m; Units(ε0) = F/m.Therefore Units(εr) = Units(ε)/Units(ε0) = 1 → dimensionless. Verification / Alternative check: Dielectric constant values (e.g., 2.2 for PTFE, ≈80 for water at low frequency) are quoted as plain numbers with no units, confirming εr is a ratio. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options A, B, C, and E list units appropriate to ε or μ, not to the relative parameter. Only Option D correctly states “no units.” Common Pitfalls: Writing εr with units of F/m; mixing up ε (absolute) with εr. Final Answer: no units (dimensionless)

Q: Temperature dependence of resistance: metal vs semiconductor A copper sample and a germanium sample are cooled from 30 °C down to 80 K. How do their resistances change?

Introduction / Context: Electrical resistance varies with temperature in different classes of materials. Metals and semiconductors show opposite trends because the dominant scattering and carrier mechanisms differ. This behavior is central to cryogenics, sensors, and device physics. Given Data / Assumptions: Copper (a typical metal) and germanium (a semiconductor). Cooling from ~303 K to 80 K. No phase changes or magnetic transitions considered. Concept / Approach: In metals, conduction is by a high density of electrons; resistivity is dominated by phonon scattering that decreases strongly as temperature drops. In intrinsic or lightly doped semiconductors, the number of thermally generated carriers falls steeply upon cooling, increasing resistivity despite reduced scattering. Hence, metals get more conductive at low T, while intrinsic semiconductors become less conductive. Step-by-Step Solution: For copper: phonon scattering ↓ as T ↓ → resistivity ↓ → resistance decreases.For germanium: intrinsic carrier concentration ni ∝ exp(−Eg / (2kT)) ↓ sharply as T ↓ → conductivity ↓ → resistance increases.Therefore outcome: copper ↓, germanium ↑. Verification / Alternative check: Residual resistivity ratios for high-purity copper are large, confirming strong decrease with T; intrinsic germanium at cryogenic temperatures becomes highly resistive, necessitating doping for device operation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options B and C ignore opposite trends; D reverses the true behaviors; E contradicts strong temperature dependence. Common Pitfalls: Assuming all materials behave like metals; overlooking the exponential carrier freeze-out in semiconductors. Final Answer: copper decreases and germanium increases

Q: Origin of magnetic hysteresis Magnetic hysteresis in ferromagnets is primarily explained by which mechanism(s)?

Introduction / Context: Hysteresis loops reflect memory of prior magnetization. Understanding the microphysical origin helps engineers tailor cores for transformers, motors, and magnetic storage with desired coercivity and losses. Given Data / Assumptions: Polycrystalline ferromagnets with magnetic domains. Presence of defects, dislocations, and grain boundaries. Quasi-static magnetization cycles. Concept / Approach: Ferromagnets divide into domains to minimize energy. Under applied H, magnetization changes via two processes: (i) domain wall motion (walls move as favorable domains grow) and (ii) rotation of magnetization within domains toward the field when walls are pinned. Energy barriers at pinning sites lead to irreversible jumps (Barkhausen effect), generating hysteresis. Step-by-Step Solution: At low fields: domain walls move, overcoming weak pinning sites → irreversible steps contribute to loop opening.At higher fields: rotation within domains dominates as walls become pinned → further nonlinearity/hysteresis.Thus both domain wall motion and domain rotation are essential to explain hysteresis. Verification / Alternative check: Barkhausen noise measurements and magneto-optical imaging confirm discrete wall jumps and rotations, matching the two-mechanism picture. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A or C alone is incomplete; D contradicts established micromagnetics; E misattributes the effect to a single microscopic interaction. Common Pitfalls: Assuming only rotation or only wall motion; ignoring the role of defects and anisotropy in pinning and coercivity. Final Answer: motion of domain walls and domain rotation

Q: Typical magnitude of relative permeability in ferromagnets What is a representative order of magnitude for the relative permeability μr of a ferromagnetic core material?

Introduction / Context: Magnetic circuit design requires realistic μr values to estimate magnetizing currents and flux densities. Ferromagnets can concentrate flux far more than air, which is why cores are widely used in inductors and transformers. Given Data / Assumptions: Soft ferromagnetic materials (e.g., silicon steel, ferrites) under moderate flux densities. Small-signal or initial permeability context. Concept / Approach: Relative permeability μr = μ/μ0 measures how much more permeable a material is than vacuum. Ferromagnets commonly exhibit μr from hundreds to many thousands depending on composition, processing, and frequency. Values well above 10^3 are routine for soft magnetic alloys at low frequencies before saturation effects reduce incremental permeability. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall air/vacuum: μr ≈ 1.Diamagnets: μr slightly less than 1; paramagnets: slightly greater than 1.Ferromagnets: μr can reach 10^3–10^5 in suitable conditions → order 1000 or more. Verification / Alternative check: Manufacturer datasheets for electrical steels and ferrites list initial μr in the thousands, confirming the typical magnitude. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and B reflect non-ferromagnetic behavior; C underestimates by an order of magnitude; E is unrelated to μr values. Common Pitfalls: Confusing initial μr with differential μ at high B (which drops), or with complex μ at high frequency. Final Answer: 1000 or more

Question 1

Drude conductivity formula — identifying σ for a metal If a metal has n conduction electrons per m^3, each with charge e and mass m, and the relaxation time is τ, which expression gives the electrical conductivity σ?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The classical Drude model connects microscopic carrier properties to macroscopic conductivity. Recognizing the correct dependence on carrier density, charge, mass, and scattering time is foundational in solid-state physics and electrical engineering. Given Data / Assumptions: Free-electron-like conduction (Drude picture). Number density n (m^−3), electron charge e, mass m, relaxation time τ. Low-field Ohmic regime where drift velocity is linear in applied field. Concept / Approach: In the Drude model, the average drift velocity is v_d = (e * E * τ) / m. Current density is J = n * e * v_d. By definition J = σ * E. Eliminating v_d gives the conductivity formula. Step-by-Step Solution: Start: v_d = (e * E * τ) / m.Compute J: J = n * e * v_d = n * e * (e * E * τ / m) = (n * e^2 * τ / m) * E.Identify σ from J = σ E → σ = n * e^2 * τ / m. Verification / Alternative check: Dimensional analysis: e^2 has C^2, n in m^−3, τ in s, m in kg; combining yields S/m, the correct unit for conductivity. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) missing one factor of e; (c) is resistivity, not conductivity; (d) has τ in denominator incorrectly; (e) introduces τ^2 with wrong dependence. Common Pitfalls: Dropping one factor of e when moving from force law to current density. Inverting the expression and mistakenly giving resistivity instead of conductivity. Final Answer: σ = n * e^2 * τ / m

Question 2

Assertion–Reason: intrinsic resistivity of Si versus Ge Assertion (A): The intrinsic resistivity of silicon is lower than that of germanium. Reason (R): The free-electron concentration in intrinsic germanium is greater than that in intrinsic silicon.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Intrinsic carrier concentration n_i and mobility determine the intrinsic resistivity ρ_i of semiconductors. Comparing silicon and germanium at 300 K highlights how bandgap size and mobilities affect ρ_i. Given Data / Assumptions: Intrinsic material (no intentional doping) at room temperature. Resistivity relation: ρ_i = 1 / (q * n_i * (μ_n + μ_p)). Typical values: n_i(Ge) ≫ n_i(Si) at 300 K due to Ge's smaller bandgap. Concept / Approach: Germanium has a smaller bandgap (~0.66 eV) than silicon (~1.12 eV), so its intrinsic carrier concentration is much higher at a given temperature. Since ρ_i is inversely proportional to n_i (and mobilities are of the same order), germanium has a much lower intrinsic resistivity than silicon. Therefore the assertion that silicon has lower intrinsic resistivity is false. The reason correctly states that intrinsic germanium has greater free-electron concentration than silicon. Step-by-Step Solution: Note n_i(Ge) ≫ n_i(Si) at 300 K.Compute trend: ρ_i ∝ 1 / n_i → ρ_i(Ge) < ρ_i(Si).Conclude: A is false; R is true. Verification / Alternative check: Handbook values: ρ_i(Si) ~ 2.3 × 10^5 Ω·cm, ρ_i(Ge) ~ 46 Ω·cm (order-of-magnitude figures), confirming the trend. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) and (b) treat A as true; it is not. (c) rejects the true reason. (e) denies both statements, which is inaccurate. Common Pitfalls: Confusing doped (extrinsic) with intrinsic behaviour. Assuming mobility differences outweigh n_i differences; the exponential n_i dependence dominates. Final Answer: A is false but R is true

Question 3

Charge carriers in metals — what carries current in a metallic conductor? In an ordinary metallic conductor, the electrical current is primarily due to:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Identifying the dominant charge carriers in different classes of materials is a fundamental concept in electrical engineering and solid-state physics. Metals, semiconductors, and electrolytes each have different mobile species responsible for conduction. Given Data / Assumptions: Solid metallic conductor at room temperature. No electrochemical reactions; purely electronic conduction. Crystal lattice ions are fixed in position. Concept / Approach: In metals, valence electrons are delocalized, forming a conduction band. Under an applied electric field, these electrons acquire a drift velocity and carry current. Positive “holes” are not the dominant carriers in metals (though metals can be described by electron-like or hole-like quasiparticles in band theory, the physical mobile charges are electrons). Ions in the solid lattice are not mobile over electronic timescales and do not contribute to ordinary conduction. Step-by-Step Solution: Apply Drude model: current density J = n * e * v_d where v_d is electron drift velocity.Recognize ions are fixed at lattice sites and cannot drift under small fields.Conclude electrons are the primary carriers in metals. Verification / Alternative check: Hall effect measurements in metals confirm electron charge sign in most cases (negative Hall coefficient), consistent with electron conduction. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Holes are majority carriers in p-type semiconductors, not in metals. Lattice ions are not mobile under normal conditions. Photons are energy quanta, not charge carriers in conductors. Common Pitfalls: Transferring semiconductor intuition (holes) to metals. Confusing electrolytic conduction (ions in solution) with metallic conduction. Final Answer: Electrons

Question 4

Constitutive relation and anisotropy — assertion–reason Assertion (A): The scalar relation D = ε0 εr E is applicable only to isotropic materials. Reason (R): In polycrystalline materials the directional effects are absent, so anisotropy does not occ…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This assertion–reason item checks understanding of when the simple scalar permittivity model applies and clarifies a common misconception about polycrystalline solids and anisotropy. Given Data / Assumptions: Linear dielectric response. Possibility of anisotropy in crystals or textured materials. Polycrystalline aggregates may have random or non-random grain orientations. Concept / Approach: For isotropic media, εr is a scalar and the constitutive relation is D = ε0 εr E. In anisotropic media, permittivity is a tensor ε̄, and the correct relation is D = ε̄ · E, with D generally not parallel to E. Therefore A is true. The reason R claims that polycrystalline materials lack directional effects; this is not universally true. While a fully random, statistically isotropic polycrystal may behave approximately isotropically, many polycrystals exhibit texture (preferred orientation) due to processing, retaining direction-dependent properties. Hence R is false as a general statement. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess A → true: scalar ε applies to isotropic media only.Assess R → false: polycrystals can be anisotropic if textured; directional effects may persist.Conclusion: A true, R false. Verification / Alternative check: Examples include rolled ferroelectric ceramics and drawn polymer films, which show anisotropic dielectric response despite being polycrystalline or semicrystalline. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) and (b) assume R is true; it is not generally. (d) would negate A, which is incorrect. (e) ignores the correct part of A. Common Pitfalls: Assuming “polycrystalline” automatically means “isotropic”. Forgetting that processing history can create texture and anisotropy. Final Answer: A is true but R is false

Question 5

Dielectrics and polarization under a uniform electric field A linear, homogeneous dielectric with relative permittivity εr is subjected to a uniform electric field E. What is the polarization vector P (dipole moment per unit volume) expressed in ter…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Polarization connects microscopic dipole formation to macroscopic electric-field response. In linear dielectrics, this relationship lets engineers compute capacitance, stored energy, and field distributions in cables, capacitors, and high-voltage insulation. Given Data / Assumptions: Material is linear, isotropic, and homogeneous. Relative permittivity is εr (dimensionless); ε0 is the permittivity of free space. Applied electric field is uniform E. Concept / Approach: The constitutive relation for a linear dielectric is D = εE = ε0εrE. Polarization is defined by D = ε0E + P. Eliminating D gives P directly in terms of εr and E, revealing how far the material’s response deviates from vacuum behavior. Step-by-Step Solution: Start with D = ε0 εr E.Use D = ε0 E + P.Rearrange: P = D − ε0 E = ε0 εr E − ε0 E.Hence P = ε0 (εr − 1) E. Verification / Alternative check: Define electric susceptibility χe by P = ε0 χe E. Since εr = 1 + χe, we obtain P = ε0 (εr − 1) E, confirming consistency with susceptibility definitions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A ignores field dependence; B omits the material contribution (only vacuum). D uses εr without subtracting unity; E has incorrect dimensions. Only C matches the constitutive framework. Common Pitfalls: Confusing D with P; forgetting εr is unitless; missing the (εr − 1) factor that isolates material polarization from vacuum. Final Answer: P = ε0 (εr − 1) E

Question 6

Matthiessen’s rule at cryogenic temperatures For a conductor with total resistivity ρ = ρi + aT (ρi: residual resistivity; a: constant; T: absolute temperature), which statement best describes the low-temperature limit?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Matthiessen’s rule decomposes metal resistivity into a temperature-independent part from defects/impurities and a temperature-dependent phonon (lattice vibration) part. Understanding the limiting behavior guides low-temperature measurements and purity assessments of metals and cryogenic wiring. Given Data / Assumptions: Total resistivity: ρ = ρi + aT. ρi is residual (defect) resistivity; aT is phonon contribution. “Very low temperatures” means T approaches 0 K but is not exactly zero. Concept / Approach: As T decreases, phonon scattering diminishes rapidly, so the temperature-dependent term aT shrinks toward zero. The resistivity then approaches the residual limit ρi set by impurities and defects. At sufficiently low T, aT is much smaller than ρi, though strictly aT = 0 only at T = 0 K (idealized limit). Step-by-Step Solution: Write ρ = ρi + aT.Let T → very small (nonzero): phonon scattering → negligible.Then aT becomes much less than ρi.Therefore, aT < ρi is the best general statement at very low T. Verification / Alternative check: Residual resistivity ratio (RRR = ρ(300 K)/ρ(4.2 K)) is large for pure metals, evidencing that low-T resistivity is dominated by ρi, with aT ≪ ρi near liquid helium temperatures. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A claims aT = 0, which holds only at exactly 0 K. B and C contradict low-T behavior; E states exact equality without basis. Common Pitfalls: Assuming the phonon term vanishes at any small T; confusing trend (“much less than”) with exact equality at 0 K. Final Answer: aT < ρi

Question 7

Device properties: linearity, time variance, and passivity Assess the correctness of these statements:  An iron-cored choke is a nonlinear, passive device.  A carbon resistor kept in sunlight is time-invariant and passive.  A dry cell is a time-vary…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Classifying components by linearity, time variance, and passivity is basic to circuit modeling. Correct classification influences small-signal analysis, biasing, and stability in power and signal circuits. Given Data / Assumptions: Definitions: “passive” delivers no net energy; “active” can supply energy (e.g., sources). “Time-invariant” means parameters do not explicitly depend on time (for a given operating condition). Nonlinearity arises if device parameters depend on signal level (e.g., core magnetization). Concept / Approach: (1) Iron-cored choke: B–H is nonlinear; device stores but does not generate energy → nonlinear, passive. (2) Carbon resistor: ohmic, parameter R largely independent of signal; sunlight does not create an intrinsic time dependence in the i–v law (though ambient changes alter R slowly), hence time-invariant and passive in standard classification. (3) Dry cell: a source of electromotive force that changes with state of discharge → time-varying and active. (4) Air capacitor: linear C (within limits), parameters independent of time for fixed geometry → time-invariant and passive. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate 1: Nonlinear (magnetic saturation, hysteresis), passive → correct.Evaluate 2: Ohmic, passive; sunlight does not make it an active or time-varying element in the modeling sense → correct.Evaluate 3: Source with changing emf over time → time-varying, active → correct.Evaluate 4: Air dielectric capacitor → passive, time-invariant → correct. Verification / Alternative check: Textbook classifications align: resistors, capacitors, inductors are passive; magnetic cores introduce nonlinearity; batteries are active sources whose parameters drift with usage. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options B, C, D omit at least one correct statement; only Option A includes all four truths. Common Pitfalls: Interpreting environmental changes as intrinsic “time variance” of the model; confusing nonlinearity (iron core) with activity. Final Answer: 1, 2, 3 and 4 are correct

Question 8

Units and dimensions of relative permittivity For the relative permittivity εr of a material (where ε = ε0 εr), what are the correct units?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Material parameters appear in Maxwell’s equations through constitutive relations. Distinguishing absolute permittivity from relative permittivity avoids unit mistakes when calculating capacitance, wave speed, and impedance in dielectrics. Given Data / Assumptions: Absolute permittivity: ε (units F/m). Vacuum permittivity: ε0 (units F/m). Relative permittivity: εr defined by ε = ε0 εr. Concept / Approach: Because ε and ε0 share the same units (F/m), εr must be a pure ratio and therefore dimensionless. It scales the vacuum response to represent the material’s ability to polarize relative to free space. Step-by-Step Solution: Write ε = ε0 εr.Units(ε) = F/m; Units(ε0) = F/m.Therefore Units(εr) = Units(ε)/Units(ε0) = 1 → dimensionless. Verification / Alternative check: Dielectric constant values (e.g., 2.2 for PTFE, ≈80 for water at low frequency) are quoted as plain numbers with no units, confirming εr is a ratio. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options A, B, C, and E list units appropriate to ε or μ, not to the relative parameter. Only Option D correctly states “no units.” Common Pitfalls: Writing εr with units of F/m; mixing up ε (absolute) with εr. Final Answer: no units (dimensionless)

Question 9

Temperature dependence of resistance: metal vs semiconductor A copper sample and a germanium sample are cooled from 30 °C down to 80 K. How do their resistances change?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Electrical resistance varies with temperature in different classes of materials. Metals and semiconductors show opposite trends because the dominant scattering and carrier mechanisms differ. This behavior is central to cryogenics, sensors, and device physics. Given Data / Assumptions: Copper (a typical metal) and germanium (a semiconductor). Cooling from ~303 K to 80 K. No phase changes or magnetic transitions considered. Concept / Approach: In metals, conduction is by a high density of electrons; resistivity is dominated by phonon scattering that decreases strongly as temperature drops. In intrinsic or lightly doped semiconductors, the number of thermally generated carriers falls steeply upon cooling, increasing resistivity despite reduced scattering. Hence, metals get more conductive at low T, while intrinsic semiconductors become less conductive. Step-by-Step Solution: For copper: phonon scattering ↓ as T ↓ → resistivity ↓ → resistance decreases.For germanium: intrinsic carrier concentration ni ∝ exp(−Eg / (2kT)) ↓ sharply as T ↓ → conductivity ↓ → resistance increases.Therefore outcome: copper ↓, germanium ↑. Verification / Alternative check: Residual resistivity ratios for high-purity copper are large, confirming strong decrease with T; intrinsic germanium at cryogenic temperatures becomes highly resistive, necessitating doping for device operation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options B and C ignore opposite trends; D reverses the true behaviors; E contradicts strong temperature dependence. Common Pitfalls: Assuming all materials behave like metals; overlooking the exponential carrier freeze-out in semiconductors. Final Answer: copper decreases and germanium increases

Question 10

Origin of magnetic hysteresis Magnetic hysteresis in ferromagnets is primarily explained by which mechanism(s)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Hysteresis loops reflect memory of prior magnetization. Understanding the microphysical origin helps engineers tailor cores for transformers, motors, and magnetic storage with desired coercivity and losses. Given Data / Assumptions: Polycrystalline ferromagnets with magnetic domains. Presence of defects, dislocations, and grain boundaries. Quasi-static magnetization cycles. Concept / Approach: Ferromagnets divide into domains to minimize energy. Under applied H, magnetization changes via two processes: (i) domain wall motion (walls move as favorable domains grow) and (ii) rotation of magnetization within domains toward the field when walls are pinned. Energy barriers at pinning sites lead to irreversible jumps (Barkhausen effect), generating hysteresis. Step-by-Step Solution: At low fields: domain walls move, overcoming weak pinning sites → irreversible steps contribute to loop opening.At higher fields: rotation within domains dominates as walls become pinned → further nonlinearity/hysteresis.Thus both domain wall motion and domain rotation are essential to explain hysteresis. Verification / Alternative check: Barkhausen noise measurements and magneto-optical imaging confirm discrete wall jumps and rotations, matching the two-mechanism picture. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A or C alone is incomplete; D contradicts established micromagnetics; E misattributes the effect to a single microscopic interaction. Common Pitfalls: Assuming only rotation or only wall motion; ignoring the role of defects and anisotropy in pinning and coercivity. Final Answer: motion of domain walls and domain rotation

Question 11

Typical magnitude of relative permeability in ferromagnets What is a representative order of magnitude for the relative permeability μr of a ferromagnetic core material?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Magnetic circuit design requires realistic μr values to estimate magnetizing currents and flux densities. Ferromagnets can concentrate flux far more than air, which is why cores are widely used in inductors and transformers. Given Data / Assumptions: Soft ferromagnetic materials (e.g., silicon steel, ferrites) under moderate flux densities. Small-signal or initial permeability context. Concept / Approach: Relative permeability μr = μ/μ0 measures how much more permeable a material is than vacuum. Ferromagnets commonly exhibit μr from hundreds to many thousands depending on composition, processing, and frequency. Values well above 10^3 are routine for soft magnetic alloys at low frequencies before saturation effects reduce incremental permeability. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall air/vacuum: μr ≈ 1.Diamagnets: μr slightly less than 1; paramagnets: slightly greater than 1.Ferromagnets: μr can reach 10^3–10^5 in suitable conditions → order 1000 or more. Verification / Alternative check: Manufacturer datasheets for electrical steels and ferrites list initial μr in the thousands, confirming the typical magnitude. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and B reflect non-ferromagnetic behavior; C underestimates by an order of magnitude; E is unrelated to μr values. Common Pitfalls: Confusing initial μr with differential μ at high B (which drops), or with complex μ at high frequency. Final Answer: 1000 or more

Question 12

High-Tc ceramics: superconducting transition range Some ceramic (oxide) materials become superconducting in which temperature range?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: High-temperature superconductors (HTS), notably cuprate ceramics like YBCO and BSCCO, revolutionized superconductivity by exhibiting critical temperatures well above liquid nitrogen’s 77 K, enabling more practical cryogenic systems than liquid helium cooling. Given Data / Assumptions: Liquid helium ~4.2 K, liquid nitrogen ~77 K, room temperature ~300 K. HTS ceramics exhibit Tc in the range ~90–135 K (typical). Concept / Approach: While conventional metallic superconductors have Tc below 20 K, certain oxide ceramics transition to the superconducting state at temperatures exceeding 77 K. Thus they lie “above liquid nitrogen but below room temperature,” enabling nitrogen-based cooling approaches in power cables, magnets, and electronics. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify temperature markers: 4.2 K, 77 K, 300 K.Recall HTS examples: YBa2Cu3O7−δ (Tc ≈ 90 K), Bi-based cuprates (up to ~110 K), Hg-based (~133 K under pressure).Therefore, superconductivity occurs above LN2 but below room temperature. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical Tc tables for cuprate families consistently exceed 77 K but remain far below 300 K. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A applies to conventional low-Tc metals; B underestimates HTS Tc; D/E are incorrect as no stable bulk ceramic superconductor operates at room temperature presently. Common Pitfalls: Assuming “high-temperature” means room temperature; overlooking cryogenic reference points. Final Answer: above liquid nitrogen but below room temperature

Question 13

Carrier concentration vs temperature in semiconductors As the temperature of a semiconductor increases, how does the average number of free charge carriers change?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The temperature dependence of carrier concentration underpins the behavior of diodes, transistors, and intrinsic sensors. Unlike metals, semiconductors become more conductive as temperature rises due to thermal generation of carriers. Given Data / Assumptions: Intrinsic or lightly doped semiconductor. No breakdown or phase change within the temperature range considered. Standard bandgap Eg remains roughly constant over the range. Concept / Approach: Intrinsic carrier concentration ni follows ni ∝ T^(3/2) * exp(−Eg / (2kT)). As T increases, the exponential term grows rapidly, producing more electron-hole pairs. Even in doped materials, at sufficiently high T the intrinsic carriers dominate (intrinsic regime), increasing total carrier density. Step-by-Step Solution: State relation: ni ∝ T^(3/2) * exp(−Eg / (2kT)).As T ↑, exponent becomes less negative → ni ↑ strongly.Therefore the average number of free carriers increases with temperature. Verification / Alternative check: Conductivity σ = q (n μn + p μp) rises with T in intrinsic regime, as seen in temperature-dependent I–V of diodes and in intrinsic thermistors (NTC behavior). Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and C contradict fundamental semiconductor physics; D is too vague; E has no physical basis. Common Pitfalls: Transferring metal intuition to semiconductors; ignoring the dominance of carrier generation over mobility decrease at elevated temperatures. Final Answer: the average number of free charge carriers increases

Question 14

Insulation design targets For a good insulating material intended for AC applications, the desired combination of dielectric strength and dielectric loss is:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Insulators in cables, transformers, capacitors, and high-voltage equipment must withstand electric fields without breakdown while minimizing energy dissipation as heat. Two key specifications are dielectric strength and dielectric loss (often expressed via loss tangent, tan δ). Given Data / Assumptions: Dielectric strength: maximum field before breakdown (kV/mm). Dielectric loss: power dissipated per unit volume under AC field, related to ε′′ and tan δ. Operation under rated temperature and frequency. Concept / Approach: High dielectric strength allows thinner insulation or higher operating voltages with safety margin. Low dielectric loss reduces heating, improving efficiency and prolonging life by mitigating thermal aging. Hence, the optimal pair is “high dielectric strength” and “low dielectric loss.” Step-by-Step Solution: Define goals: avoid breakdown → high strength; minimize heating → low loss.Correlate to material parameters: P_loss ∝ ω ε0 ε′′ |E|^2; reducing ε′′ lowers loss.Therefore, the desired combination is high strength with low loss. Verification / Alternative check: Material datasheets (e.g., PTFE, XLPE, mica) emphasize high breakdown fields and low tan δ at operating frequencies as key selling points. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A wastes energy and risks overheating; B is contradictory (weak insulation); D implies poor voltage endurance; E is non-optimal compared to achievable materials. Common Pitfalls: Equating low loss with low permittivity; conflating dielectric strength with mechanical strength. Final Answer: high and low

Question 15

Materials Science – Dependence of Macroscopic Properties For a given engineering material, macroscopic (bulk) properties such as modulus, resistivity, permeability, thermal conductivity, and strength are measured at the continuum scale. Which statem…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Macroscopic (bulk) properties in materials science describe how a real piece of material behaves under operating conditions. Unlike immutable constants, many measured properties vary with external variables such as temperature, pressure, stress state, frequency, humidity, and applied electromagnetic fields. Recognizing these dependencies helps engineers select materials and design components that perform reliably in service. Given Data / Assumptions: Continuum description of a homogeneous material sample. Standard laboratory/environmental variables: temperature and pressure are commonly controlled. Properties of interest include mechanical, thermal, electrical, and magnetic quantities. Concept / Approach: Measured properties often obey constitutive relations that include explicit dependence on thermodynamic variables. For example, elastic modulus generally decreases with temperature; electrical resistivity of metals typically increases with temperature; magnetic permeability can vary with both temperature and applied stress; thermal conductivity in polymers and ceramics is temperature dependent; and density is weakly pressure dependent but this matters at high pressures. Thus, it is most accurate to view macroscopic properties as functions of state variables, prominently temperature and pressure. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify typical properties (E, ρ_elec, μ, k) and known trends with temperature.Note that pressure alters interatomic spacing, impacting density and stiffness.Conclude that macroscopic quantities depend on temperature and pressure (and possibly other fields) rather than being constant. Verification / Alternative check: Material datasheets list property values at specified temperatures and sometimes pressures. Standards (e.g., ASTM, IEC) specify test temperatures and environments precisely because properties change with these variables. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Absolutely constant: ignores well-known temperature and pressure effects. Only temperature: neglects pressure dependence observed in high-pressure physics and some engineering settings. Only composition: environment and loading history also matter. Including “other fields” is broadly true, but the question asks for the best general description with emphasis on common variables; temperature and pressure are fundamental state variables. Common Pitfalls: Assuming handbook values are universal constants; overlooking service temperature excursions; ignoring hydrostatic pressure or prestress effects on performance. Final Answer: They are functions of temperature and the applied pressure field

Question 16

Ferrites at High Frequency – Assertion–Reason Assertion (A): Ferrite cores are very useful at very high frequencies in inductors and transformers. Reason (R): Ferrites exhibit simultaneously high magnetic permeability and high electrical resistivity.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Component designers prefer ferrites for radio-frequency and high-frequency power applications. The goal is to achieve large inductance and low loss as frequency increases. A material must provide strong magnetic response without allowing large eddy currents, which would otherwise waste energy and heat the core. Given Data / Assumptions: Ferrites are ceramic, iron-oxide-based magnetic materials. They possess high relative permeability μr and very high bulk resistivity compared to metallic cores. Applications include SMPS transformers, chokes, RF inductors, and EMI suppression. Concept / Approach: Inductance scales with permeability (L ∝ μ), while eddy current loss scales roughly with f^2 and inversely with resistivity. Ferrites offer high μ to confine and enhance magnetic flux and, due to their ceramic nature, they have high resistivity that suppresses eddy currents even at high frequency. Hence, both statements are correct and the reason directly explains the assertion. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize performance goals at high frequency: high L and low core loss.Material property match: ferrites have high μr and high ρ (resistivity).Therefore, ferrites remain efficient at high frequencies, validating A and explained by R. Verification / Alternative check: Core loss curves provided by ferrite manufacturers show low loss up to MHz ranges, unlike laminated steels that suffer heavy eddy losses. Why Other Options Are Wrong: R false: contradicts basic ferrite physics. R not an explanation: it clearly explains: high μ yields inductance; high ρ suppresses eddy currents. Common Pitfalls: Confusing ferrites with powdered iron; ignoring frequency-dependent permeability and loss tangent at very high frequencies. Final Answer: Both A and R are true and R is correct explanation of A

Question 17

Bohr Model – Stability Condition for a Hydrogen Electron Orbit Let v be the electron speed, m its mass, e its charge, ε0 the permittivity of free space, and r the orbital radius in a hydrogen atom. For a stable circular orbit, which force-balance eq…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, an electron executes uniform circular motion around the proton. Stability of the orbit requires that the inward Coulomb attraction provide the necessary centripetal force. Writing and simplifying this force balance yields the fundamental relation connecting speed and radius for hydrogenic orbits. Given Data / Assumptions: Single electron, single proton (hydrogen), circular orbit. Electrostatic attraction provides centripetal force. Non-relativistic speeds; classical centripetal force expression valid. Concept / Approach: Coulomb force magnitude between charges +e and −e separated by r is F_C = e^2 / (4 * π * ε0 * r^2). For circular motion at speed v and radius r, centripetal force is F_cen = m * v^2 / r. Equating F_C = F_cen gives the stability requirement. This relation, combined with Bohr’s angular momentum quantization m * v * r = n * h / (2π), yields the allowed radii and energy levels. Step-by-Step Solution: Write Coulomb attraction: F_C = e^2 / (4 * π * ε0 * r^2).Write centripetal requirement: F_cen = m * v^2 / r.Set F_C = F_cen and simplify to get m * v^2 / r = e^2 / (4 * π * ε0 * r^2). Verification / Alternative check: Solving together with L = n * h / (2π) reproduces the Bohr radius a0 and hydrogen spectrum, verifying the consistency of the force balance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B mixes dimensions incorrectly. Option C places r^2 in the denominator on the RHS, breaking force units. Option D omits one factor of e, altering the force. Option E uses angular momentum-like form, not a force equality. Common Pitfalls: Dropping π or ε0; confusing the 1/r vs 1/r^2 dependences; forgetting to keep units consistent (Newtons for both sides). Final Answer: m * v^2 / r = e^2 / (4 * π * ε0 * r^2)

Question 18

Polarization Relation and Definition – Assertion–Reason Assertion (A): For a linear, isotropic dielectric, the polarization vector satisfies P = ε0 * (εr − 1) * E. Reason (R): Polarization of a dielectric is defined as the dipole moment per unit vol…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Dielectric polarization links the microscopic dipole response to the macroscopic electric field. Two statements are given: one is the constitutive relation connecting polarization to field through material constants, and the other is the basic definition of polarization. Understanding how these relate clarifies when an assertion is explained by its reason in the Assertion–Reason format. Given Data / Assumptions: Linear, isotropic, homogeneous dielectric. Relative permittivity εr and electric susceptibility χe are related by εr = 1 + χe. Polarization P is a macroscopic vector field. Concept / Approach: The constitutive law is P = χe * ε0 * E = ε0 * (εr − 1) * E. The reason statement is a definition: polarization equals dipole moment per unit volume. While both are correct, the definition alone does not logically derive the constitutive proportionality; that proportionality follows from material linearity and isotropy assumptions (i.e., the definition plus a constitutive hypothesis). Therefore, R is true but it is not the explanation of A. Step-by-Step Solution: Start with definition: P ≡ dipole moment density.Introduce constitutive assumption: P ∝ E with proportionality χe * ε0.Use εr = 1 + χe to obtain P = ε0 * (εr − 1) * E. Verification / Alternative check: In anisotropic media, P = ε0 * χ̿ * E (tensor form), showing that the constitutive law depends on material response, not the definition alone. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Claiming R explains A conflates definition with constitutive behavior. Declaring either statement false contradicts standard electromagnetics. Common Pitfalls: Assuming definitions imply proportional laws; forgetting that χe encapsulates microscopic physics and must be measured or modeled. Final Answer: Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A

Question 19

Eddy-Current Loss vs Frequency in Magnetic Cores How does eddy-current power loss in a homogeneous magnetic core vary with excitation frequency (keeping other factors like peak flux density and thickness comparable)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Eddy currents are circulating currents induced in conducting cores by time-varying magnetic flux. They cause I^2R losses and heating, reducing efficiency in transformers, motors, and inductors. Understanding their frequency dependence guides core material selection and lamination strategies. Given Data / Assumptions: Uniform sheet/lamination of thickness t and resistivity ρ. Sinusoidal excitation; peak flux density Bmax considered comparable. Classical eddy-current loss model applies. Concept / Approach: The classical expression for eddy-current loss density is Pe ∝ (Bmax^2) * (f^2) * (t^2) / ρ. Thus, with Bmax, t, and ρ fixed, eddy-current loss scales with the square of frequency. This is why thin laminations, high-resistivity ferrites, or powder cores (with distributed air gaps) are used at higher frequencies to suppress eddy currents. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall proportionality: Pe ∝ Bmax^2 * f^2 * t^2 / ρ.Hold Bmax, t, ρ constant → Pe ∝ f^2.Therefore, doubling frequency quadruples eddy-current loss. Verification / Alternative check: Core loss charts separate hysteresis (∝ f) and eddy-current (∝ f^2) components; measured total loss fits Steinmetz-like models combining both contributions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Linear, cubic, or inverse dependences do not match the classical result. Frequency independence contradicts Faraday’s law and induced emf scaling with f. Common Pitfalls: Confusing total core loss (which includes hysteresis and anomalous loss) with the eddy-current component alone; ignoring the role of lamination thickness. Final Answer: Proportional to (frequency)^2

Question 20

Facts About Superconductors – Select the Correct Set Consider the statements about superconductors:  B = 0 inside (perfect diamagnetic expulsion – Meissner effect).  μr is high.  Diamagnetism is very high (perfect).  Transition temperature varies wi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Superconductivity is defined by zero DC resistance and perfect diamagnetism (Meissner effect). Several concise statements are given; the task is to identify which are accurate and consistent with superconducting physics near and below the critical temperature. Given Data / Assumptions: Type I/II superconductors in the Meissner state (below Hc or Hc1). Static or low-frequency fields (no flux penetration in the Meissner state). Conventional superconductors showing the isotope effect. Concept / Approach: (1) True: The Meissner effect expels magnetic flux so B ≈ 0 in the bulk (away from a thin penetration depth). (2) False: Superconductors exhibit μr ≈ 0 (effective relative permeability near zero due to perfect diamagnetism), not “high”. (3) True: “Very high diamagnetism” is another way of stating the Meissner effect. (4) True: The transition temperature Tc shows an isotope effect in conventional superconductors, supporting phonon-mediated pairing (BCS theory), i.e., Tc ∝ M^−α for some α around 0.5 in simple cases. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate each statement vs standard superconductivity: 1 ✓, 2 ✗, 3 ✓, 4 ✓.Thus, the correct set is 1, 3, and 4. Verification / Alternative check: Measurements show magnetic susceptibility χ ≈ −1, corresponding to μr ≈ 0; isotope effect historically observed in Hg and others confirms statement 4. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option including statement 2 is incorrect because μr is not high in superconductors. Options omitting either 1 or 3 miss the Meissner effect. Common Pitfalls: Confusing high permeability (ferromagnets) with perfect diamagnetism (superconductors); forgetting the nuance of penetration depth and mixed state in type II above Hc1. Final Answer: 1, 3, and 4 are correct

Materials and Components Questions