Q: Magnetic field analogy – solenoid versus bar magnet State whether the external magnetic field pattern produced by a long, current-carrying solenoid is essentially similar to that of a bar magnet with defined north and south poles.

Introduction: Solenoids are fundamental electromagnetic components whose fields are used for actuators, inductors, and magnetic resonance systems. A long solenoid with steady current produces a magnetic field that resembles that of a magnetic dipole, much like a bar magnet with north and south poles. This analogy is useful for intuition and qualitative field mapping. Given Data / Assumptions: Long solenoid (length ≫ diameter) carrying a steady current. Field observed in the near-to-intermediate external region. No ferromagnetic core is required for the basic dipole-like pattern, though a core intensifies the field. Concept / Approach: For a sufficiently long solenoid, the internal field is approximately uniform and directed along the axis. Outside, field lines emerge from one end (analogous to a north pole) and re-enter at the other (analogous to a south pole), creating a dipole-like field map. The overall pattern therefore mirrors that of a bar magnet, especially in the far field where any finite magnet/solenoid appears dipole-like. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify that current loops produce magnetic dipoles; a solenoid is a series of loops.Recognize that the superposition of loop fields yields a dipole-like external field.Conclude the statement is true for a long solenoid at steady current. Verification / Alternative check: Field plotting with iron filings or computational magnetostatics shows classic dipole lines around a solenoid, validating the analogy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: DC versus AC does not change the qualitative pattern; an iron core enhances magnitude but is not required; asserting “no dipole field” contradicts electromagnetic fundamentals. Common Pitfalls: Confusing near-field non-uniformities at the coil ends with the overall dipole character; assuming finite-length effects negate the analogy entirely (they do not for long solenoids). Final Answer: True

Q: Self-inductance versus turns – doubling the turns of a coil A coil with 200 turns has a self-inductance of 10 mH. If the number of turns is doubled to 400 while all other factors remain unchanged (same core and geometry), what will be the new self-i…

Introduction: Inductance quantifies a coil’s ability to store magnetic energy for a given current. For a given magnetic circuit (same core material and geometry), the self-inductance depends strongly on the number of turns. This relationship is routinely used when scaling inductors and transformer windings. Given Data / Assumptions: Initial turns N1 = 200 with L1 = 10 mH. Final turns N2 = 400 (doubled). Core permeability, cross-section, mean length, and winding placement unchanged. Concept / Approach: For a fixed magnetic circuit, inductance varies with the square of the number of turns: L ∝ N^2. Therefore, doubling the turns increases L by a factor of 4. This assumes the core is not saturating and leakage or proximity effects remain negligible under the small-signal assumption used to define inductance. Step-by-Step Solution: Use proportionality: L2 / L1 = (N2 / N1)^2.Compute ratio: (400 / 200)^2 = 2^2 = 4.Hence L2 = 4 * L1 = 4 * 10 mH = 40 mH. Verification / Alternative check: Energy check: stored energy W = 0.5 * L * I^2. With unchanged current and quadrupled L, energy scales accordingly, consistent with stronger magnetizing MMF (NI) for the same current. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 2.5 mH and 5 mH suggest inverse or linear scaling; 20 mH suggests only doubling; 80 mH suggests octupling. The correct square-law gives 40 mH. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting the N^2 dependence; assuming linear dependence on N; ignoring real-world parasitics (important at high frequency but not for this ideal calculation). Final Answer: 40 mH

Q: Ferromagnetism – trend of relative permeability with increasing flux density In a ferromagnetic specimen, as the flux density increases from zero up to about 2.5 T, how does the relative permeability µr typically vary?

Introduction: Relative permeability µr characterizes how easily a material magnetizes under an applied field. In ferromagnetic materials, domain processes dominate at low to moderate fields, producing a nonlinear relationship between B and H. Knowing the typical trend of µr with B helps prevent saturation and optimize magnetic circuit design. Given Data / Assumptions: Ferromagnetic material subjected to a quasi-static magnetization curve. Flux density B ramps from 0 toward high values (e.g., near 2.5 T). No severe hysteresis loop considerations for the qualitative trend. Concept / Approach: At very low fields, domain wall motion is easy and µr rises rapidly. As B increases toward the knee of the magnetization curve, µr reaches a maximum. Beyond the knee, many domains are aligned, incremental permeability drops, and µr decreases as the material approaches saturation. This yields the characteristic “first increase, then decrease” behavior with rising B. Step-by-Step Solution: Start near B ≈ 0: domain wall motion → rising µr.Approach knee region: µr peaks due to efficient alignment.Move toward high B (near saturation): marginal alignment left → µr decreases. Verification / Alternative check: Manufacturer B–H curves for electrical steels clearly show initial permeability increase followed by decline beyond the knee, confirming the trend. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Monotonic increase or decrease ignores domain behavior and saturation; constant µr would imply linear materials, not ferromagnets. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a fixed µr for all operating points; neglecting the difference between initial, maximum, and incremental permeability. Final Answer: first increase then decrease

Q: Semiconductor doping – valence electrons in an acceptor impurity In silicon technology, an acceptor impurity creates holes by accepting electrons from the lattice. How many valence electrons does a typical acceptor (e.g., boron, aluminum) contribute?

Introduction: Doping intrinsic semiconductors tailors their electrical properties by introducing controlled impurities. Acceptors create p-type material by providing energy levels that can accept electrons from the valence band, leaving behind mobile holes. Recognizing the valence electron count clarifies why certain periodic table groups act as acceptors in silicon. Given Data / Assumptions: Host lattice: silicon (group IV) with 4 valence electrons. Substitutional doping on Si lattice sites. Thermal equilibrium at ordinary temperatures (room temperature). Concept / Approach: Group III elements such as boron, aluminum, gallium have 3 valence electrons. When substituting into the Si lattice (requiring four bonds), one bond lacks an electron, creating an acceptor level slightly above the valence band. Thermal energy allows electrons to fill this level, leaving a hole in the valence band. Hence, acceptors are trivalent dopants with 3 valence electrons. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify periodic group: acceptors in Si → group III elements.Count valence electrons of group III: 3.Relate to hole creation: missing bond electron introduces an acceptor level → p-type conductivity. Verification / Alternative check: Device physics texts consistently show B, Al, Ga as acceptors in Si, each trivalent, confirming the valence count. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 5 valence electrons are donors (group V, n-type); 4 is the host silicon; 1 or 2 do not represent typical substitutional acceptors in Si. Common Pitfalls: Confusing donor and acceptor groups; assuming the same dopant roles in different semiconductors without checking band structure. Final Answer: 3

Q: Ferrites – key loss and resistivity characteristics Which statement correctly identifies a characteristic property of ferrite core materials that makes them attractive for high-frequency magnetic applications?

Introduction: Ferrites are ceramic, iron-oxide-based magnetic materials widely used in high-frequency transformers, inductors, and EMI suppression components. Their electrical and magnetic properties differ significantly from laminated steels, leading to distinct loss mechanisms and design trade-offs in power electronics and RF systems. Given Data / Assumptions: Ferrites used as magnetic cores over tens of kHz to MHz. Losses in magnetic cores include hysteresis and eddy-current components. Electrical resistivity and density influence losses and mechanical design. Concept / Approach: Ferrites have very high electrical resistivity compared with metallic cores, which drastically suppresses eddy currents and hence eddy-current loss at high frequency. While hysteresis loss still exists (frequency- and flux-dependent), the high resistivity is the primary reason ferrites outperform solid metals at high frequency. Copper loss pertains to windings, not the core; ferrites typically have lower density than steel and modest thermal conductivity. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate eddy-current loss to resistivity: P_e ∝ B_max^2 * f^2 / ρ_effective.Recognize ferrites’ high ρ → reduced eddy currents → low eddy-current loss.Select the statement that matches: “low eddy current loss.” Verification / Alternative check: Core selection guides specify ferrites for high-frequency converters because laminated steel would suffer prohibitive eddy losses at those frequencies, confirming the advantage. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Low copper loss” refers to windings; “low resistivity” is false (they have high resistivity); ferrites are lighter, not of higher specific gravity than iron; thermal conductivity is not “very high.” Common Pitfalls: Confusing core losses with winding losses; assuming all magnetic materials behave similarly across frequencies. Final Answer: low eddy current loss

Q: Definition of magnetic permeability – identifying a permeable substance Select the statement that best describes a permeable substance in the context of magnetism and magnetic circuits.

Introduction: Permeability is a measure of how readily a material supports the formation of a magnetic field within itself. In magnetic circuit design, choosing a material with suitable permeability allows efficient guiding and concentrating of flux paths, just like conductivity guides electric current in electric circuits. Given Data / Assumptions: Permeable materials possess higher µ than free space (µ > µ0) for ferromagnets. Magnetic lines are a conceptual tool indicating direction and relative density of flux. No assumption of permanent magnetization is required. Concept / Approach: A “permeable” substance allows magnetic flux to pass more easily than in air, meaning it has higher permeability and can carry a higher flux density for a given magnetizing force. This is why iron and related alloys serve as cores to shape and intensify magnetic fields in transformers, motors, and inductors. Step-by-Step Solution: Define permeability qualitatively: ease of flux establishment.Map to the descriptive option: material through which flux lines pass easily.Select the correct statement accordingly. Verification / Alternative check: Magnetic circuit analogies (Φ = F / Rm with reluctance Rm ∝ 1/µ) reinforce that larger µ means smaller reluctance and easier flux passage, aligning with the chosen description. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Being a “strong magnet” relates to remanence/coercivity, not permeability alone; good electrical conduction is unrelated; zero susceptibility implies vacuum-like behavior, not “permeable.” Common Pitfalls: Equating permeability with permanent magnetism; confusing electric and magnetic material properties. Final Answer: through which magnetic lines of force can pass easily

Question 1

Ferroelectricity — Rochelle salt classification State whether the following statement is true or false: “Rochelle salt (sodium potassium tartrate) is a ferroelectric material.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Ferroelectrics exhibit a spontaneous electric polarization that can be reversed by an external electric field and typically show Curie transitions separating ferroelectric and paraelectric phases. Rochelle salt is historically significant as one of the first discovered ferroelectrics. Given Data / Assumptions: Material: Rochelle salt (sodium potassium tartrate tetrahydrate). Standard definition of ferroelectricity (switchable spontaneous polarization). Concept / Approach: Rochelle salt possesses a spontaneous polarization in certain temperature ranges and exhibits a hysteresis loop in the polarization–electric field characteristic, satisfying the criteria for ferroelectricity. Therefore, the statement is true in the usual materials science sense. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall ferroelectric definition: switchable spontaneous polarization.Note Rochelle salt’s classic ferroelectric behavior and historical demonstrations.Conclude the statement is true. Verification / Alternative check: Phase diagrams for Rochelle salt show ferroelectric phases between two Curie temperatures, consistent with its classification. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “False” or “piezoelectric only” overlook its ferroelectric switching; while many ferroelectrics are also piezoelectric, ferroelectricity is the stronger criterion here. Common Pitfalls: Assuming all piezoelectrics are ferroelectric (not true), or vice versa (often but not always true). Ignoring temperature-dependent phase behavior; though nuanced, the material is indeed ferroelectric. Final Answer: True

Question 2

Ferromagnetism — identifying correct property statements Which of the following statements about ferromagnetic materials is correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Ferromagnetism is characterized by strong magnetic ordering arising from exchange interactions. Understanding basic ferromagnetic properties helps differentiate ferromagnets from ferrites and paramagnets. Given Data / Assumptions: “Spontaneous magnetisation” refers to nonzero magnetization without an external field. Curie temperature is the threshold above which ferromagnets become paramagnetic. Microwave-frequency use depends strongly on material losses and conductivity. Concept / Approach: Ferromagnets exhibit spontaneous magnetisation below the Curie temperature. Bulk metallic ferromagnets (like iron) have relatively low resistivity compared with insulating ferrites; thus, statement about “very high resistivity compared to iron” is false—iron is a ferromagnet and a good conductor. At microwave frequencies, eddy-current and magnetic losses are substantial in metals, so they are generally unsuitable; instead, high-resistivity ferrites (ceramic ferromagnets) are used. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify correct core property: spontaneous magnetisation below Curie temperature → true.Evaluate resistivity claim: false for metallic ferromagnets vs iron.Evaluate microwave usability: metallic ferromagnets suffer high losses; thus false as stated generally.Therefore only option (a) is correct. Verification / Alternative check: Magnetization–temperature curves and B–H hysteresis loops confirm spontaneous magnetization below Curie temperature; engineering practice uses ferrites (not metals) in microwave devices. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) contradicts basic electrical properties; (c) ignores microwave loss mechanisms; (d) cannot be true if (b) and (c) are false; (e) is wrong because (a) is correct. Common Pitfalls: Conflating ferrites (ceramic, high resistivity) with metallic ferromagnets. Assuming good low-frequency magnetic behavior translates to microwave suitability. Final Answer: They show spontaneous magnetisation below a certain temperature

Question 3

Electromagnetics — Joule heating power density in a conductor For a conducting medium with electrical conductivity σ subject to an electric field of magnitude E, what is the heat generated per unit volume per second (power density W, in W/m^3)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Joule heating quantifies the conversion of electrical energy to heat within a conductor. The local power density depends on the electric field and the material’s conductivity. This relation is fundamental in power electronics, electromagnetic heating, and safety calculations. Given Data / Assumptions: Ohmic, linear, isotropic conductor. Current density follows J = σ E. Steady-state fields; displacement current effects neglected for heating. Concept / Approach: Electromagnetic power density delivered to charge carriers is W = J · E. For an Ohmic conductor, J = σ E, giving W = σ E^2. Units check: σ (S/m) times E^2 (V^2/m^2) yields W/m^3, consistent with a volumetric heating rate. Step-by-Step Solution: Start from J · E formulation for power density.Substitute J = σ E.Obtain W = σ E^2. Verification / Alternative check: At the macroscopic level, total heat Q̇ equals ∫ J · E dV. In a uniform field region, this integrates to the product of W and volume, matching circuit-level I^2 R losses (with appropriate geometry relations). Why Other Options Are Wrong: σ E lacks correct units (W/m^3). E^2/σ applies to fixed current density scenarios incorrectly transposed. (σ E)^{0.5} and σ^2 E are dimensionally inconsistent for power density. Common Pitfalls: Confusing current-controlled (I^2 R / volume) and field-controlled expressions; both reduce to W = σ E^2 with Ohm’s law. Mixing SI units and cgs quantities. Final Answer: W = σ E^2

Question 4

Electromagnetism history – who first related hysteresis loss to maximum flux density? Identify the scientist who first established the empirical relationship between hysteresis loss in ferromagnetic materials and the maximum flux density reached dur…

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Hysteresis loss is the energy dissipated in a ferromagnetic material during a complete cycle of magnetization. This loss depends on the shape and area of the B–H loop and is particularly important in transformers and rotating machines. The first widely used empirical relation connecting hysteresis loss to the maximum flux density was credited to Charles Proteus Steinmetz, a pioneer in electrical engineering at the turn of the 20th century. Given Data / Assumptions: We are discussing ferromagnetic core losses under periodic excitation. Maximum flux density B_max is the peak flux density in a cycle. Classical empirical form: Ph ∝ B_max^n * f, with n typically between 1.5 and 2.5 for many steels. Concept / Approach: Steinmetz introduced an empirical law to estimate hysteresis loss from readily known quantities like frequency and maximum flux density, enabling engineers to size magnetic cores and predict heating. Although later refinements separated eddy-current and anomalous losses, the “Steinmetz equation” remains foundational in magnetic design practice and education. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize hysteresis loss arises from irreversible domain motion during magnetization.Recall the historical context: Steinmetz published the empirical relation linking hysteresis loss to B_max and frequency.Match the name in options with this contribution: Charles P. Steinmetz. Verification / Alternative check: Modern magnetic core loss models still cite Steinmetz’s original formulation or generalized versions (e.g., improved/modified Steinmetz equations) as a starting point, confirming the attribution. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Kirchhoff is known for circuit current/voltage laws; Laplace for fields/forces in magnetostatics; Ampere for magnetomotive force and currents; Maxwell for electromagnetic field theory—none originated the hysteresis–B_max empirical loss law. Common Pitfalls: Confusing eddy-current loss (depends on B_max^2, thickness, resistivity) with hysteresis loss; attributing the empirical relation to Maxwell or Kirchhoff due to their fame rather than historical accuracy. Final Answer: C. Steinmetz

Question 5

Magnetism basics – name the material that is lightly repelled by a magnetic field In materials classification by magnetic behavior, what do we call a substance that is weakly repelled by an applied magnetic field and exhibits a negative magnetic sus…

Accepted Answer

Introduction: All materials respond to magnetic fields, but the nature and magnitude of the response vary widely. Diamagnetism, paramagnetism, ferromagnetism, and ferrimagnetism describe characteristic behaviors. Understanding these categories is fundamental for selecting core materials, shielding, and sensor elements in electrical and electronic engineering. Given Data / Assumptions: Applied static or low-frequency magnetic field. Weak repulsion implies negative susceptibility (χ < 0). No permanent magnetic ordering at room temperature. Concept / Approach: Diamagnetic materials develop an induced magnetic moment opposite to the applied field due to orbital current effects, leading to weak repulsion and χ slightly below zero. Paramagnetic materials have χ slightly above zero and are weakly attracted; ferromagnets and ferrimagnets have strong positive susceptibility and may retain magnetization (hysteresis). Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the signature behavior: weak repulsion by a magnetic field.Map behavior to susceptibility sign: weak repulsion → χ < 0 → diamagnetism.Select the correct term: diamagnetic material. Verification / Alternative check: Canonical examples include bismuth, copper, and water—each shows slight repulsion in strong magnetic field gradients, consistent with diamagnetism. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Non-magnetic” is an imprecise colloquialism; paramagnetic and (ferro/ferri)magnetic materials are attracted, not repelled, by fields at room temperature. Common Pitfalls: Assuming “non-magnetic” means no interaction at all; in reality, most substances are weakly dia- or paramagnetic. Final Answer: diamagnetic material

Question 6

Magnetic field analogy – solenoid versus bar magnet State whether the external magnetic field pattern produced by a long, current-carrying solenoid is essentially similar to that of a bar magnet with defined north and south poles.

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Solenoids are fundamental electromagnetic components whose fields are used for actuators, inductors, and magnetic resonance systems. A long solenoid with steady current produces a magnetic field that resembles that of a magnetic dipole, much like a bar magnet with north and south poles. This analogy is useful for intuition and qualitative field mapping. Given Data / Assumptions: Long solenoid (length ≫ diameter) carrying a steady current. Field observed in the near-to-intermediate external region. No ferromagnetic core is required for the basic dipole-like pattern, though a core intensifies the field. Concept / Approach: For a sufficiently long solenoid, the internal field is approximately uniform and directed along the axis. Outside, field lines emerge from one end (analogous to a north pole) and re-enter at the other (analogous to a south pole), creating a dipole-like field map. The overall pattern therefore mirrors that of a bar magnet, especially in the far field where any finite magnet/solenoid appears dipole-like. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify that current loops produce magnetic dipoles; a solenoid is a series of loops.Recognize that the superposition of loop fields yields a dipole-like external field.Conclude the statement is true for a long solenoid at steady current. Verification / Alternative check: Field plotting with iron filings or computational magnetostatics shows classic dipole lines around a solenoid, validating the analogy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: DC versus AC does not change the qualitative pattern; an iron core enhances magnitude but is not required; asserting “no dipole field” contradicts electromagnetic fundamentals. Common Pitfalls: Confusing near-field non-uniformities at the coil ends with the overall dipole character; assuming finite-length effects negate the analogy entirely (they do not for long solenoids). Final Answer: True

Question 7

Self-inductance versus turns – doubling the turns of a coil A coil with 200 turns has a self-inductance of 10 mH. If the number of turns is doubled to 400 while all other factors remain unchanged (same core and geometry), what will be the new self-i…

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Inductance quantifies a coil’s ability to store magnetic energy for a given current. For a given magnetic circuit (same core material and geometry), the self-inductance depends strongly on the number of turns. This relationship is routinely used when scaling inductors and transformer windings. Given Data / Assumptions: Initial turns N1 = 200 with L1 = 10 mH. Final turns N2 = 400 (doubled). Core permeability, cross-section, mean length, and winding placement unchanged. Concept / Approach: For a fixed magnetic circuit, inductance varies with the square of the number of turns: L ∝ N^2. Therefore, doubling the turns increases L by a factor of 4. This assumes the core is not saturating and leakage or proximity effects remain negligible under the small-signal assumption used to define inductance. Step-by-Step Solution: Use proportionality: L2 / L1 = (N2 / N1)^2.Compute ratio: (400 / 200)^2 = 2^2 = 4.Hence L2 = 4 * L1 = 4 * 10 mH = 40 mH. Verification / Alternative check: Energy check: stored energy W = 0.5 * L * I^2. With unchanged current and quadrupled L, energy scales accordingly, consistent with stronger magnetizing MMF (NI) for the same current. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 2.5 mH and 5 mH suggest inverse or linear scaling; 20 mH suggests only doubling; 80 mH suggests octupling. The correct square-law gives 40 mH. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting the N^2 dependence; assuming linear dependence on N; ignoring real-world parasitics (important at high frequency but not for this ideal calculation). Final Answer: 40 mH

Question 8

Ferromagnetism – trend of relative permeability with increasing flux density In a ferromagnetic specimen, as the flux density increases from zero up to about 2.5 T, how does the relative permeability µr typically vary?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Relative permeability µr characterizes how easily a material magnetizes under an applied field. In ferromagnetic materials, domain processes dominate at low to moderate fields, producing a nonlinear relationship between B and H. Knowing the typical trend of µr with B helps prevent saturation and optimize magnetic circuit design. Given Data / Assumptions: Ferromagnetic material subjected to a quasi-static magnetization curve. Flux density B ramps from 0 toward high values (e.g., near 2.5 T). No severe hysteresis loop considerations for the qualitative trend. Concept / Approach: At very low fields, domain wall motion is easy and µr rises rapidly. As B increases toward the knee of the magnetization curve, µr reaches a maximum. Beyond the knee, many domains are aligned, incremental permeability drops, and µr decreases as the material approaches saturation. This yields the characteristic “first increase, then decrease” behavior with rising B. Step-by-Step Solution: Start near B ≈ 0: domain wall motion → rising µr.Approach knee region: µr peaks due to efficient alignment.Move toward high B (near saturation): marginal alignment left → µr decreases. Verification / Alternative check: Manufacturer B–H curves for electrical steels clearly show initial permeability increase followed by decline beyond the knee, confirming the trend. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Monotonic increase or decrease ignores domain behavior and saturation; constant µr would imply linear materials, not ferromagnets. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a fixed µr for all operating points; neglecting the difference between initial, maximum, and incremental permeability. Final Answer: first increase then decrease

Question 9

Semiconductor doping – valence electrons in an acceptor impurity In silicon technology, an acceptor impurity creates holes by accepting electrons from the lattice. How many valence electrons does a typical acceptor (e.g., boron, aluminum) contribute?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Doping intrinsic semiconductors tailors their electrical properties by introducing controlled impurities. Acceptors create p-type material by providing energy levels that can accept electrons from the valence band, leaving behind mobile holes. Recognizing the valence electron count clarifies why certain periodic table groups act as acceptors in silicon. Given Data / Assumptions: Host lattice: silicon (group IV) with 4 valence electrons. Substitutional doping on Si lattice sites. Thermal equilibrium at ordinary temperatures (room temperature). Concept / Approach: Group III elements such as boron, aluminum, gallium have 3 valence electrons. When substituting into the Si lattice (requiring four bonds), one bond lacks an electron, creating an acceptor level slightly above the valence band. Thermal energy allows electrons to fill this level, leaving a hole in the valence band. Hence, acceptors are trivalent dopants with 3 valence electrons. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify periodic group: acceptors in Si → group III elements.Count valence electrons of group III: 3.Relate to hole creation: missing bond electron introduces an acceptor level → p-type conductivity. Verification / Alternative check: Device physics texts consistently show B, Al, Ga as acceptors in Si, each trivalent, confirming the valence count. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 5 valence electrons are donors (group V, n-type); 4 is the host silicon; 1 or 2 do not represent typical substitutional acceptors in Si. Common Pitfalls: Confusing donor and acceptor groups; assuming the same dopant roles in different semiconductors without checking band structure. Final Answer: 3

Question 10

Ferrites – key loss and resistivity characteristics Which statement correctly identifies a characteristic property of ferrite core materials that makes them attractive for high-frequency magnetic applications?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Ferrites are ceramic, iron-oxide-based magnetic materials widely used in high-frequency transformers, inductors, and EMI suppression components. Their electrical and magnetic properties differ significantly from laminated steels, leading to distinct loss mechanisms and design trade-offs in power electronics and RF systems. Given Data / Assumptions: Ferrites used as magnetic cores over tens of kHz to MHz. Losses in magnetic cores include hysteresis and eddy-current components. Electrical resistivity and density influence losses and mechanical design. Concept / Approach: Ferrites have very high electrical resistivity compared with metallic cores, which drastically suppresses eddy currents and hence eddy-current loss at high frequency. While hysteresis loss still exists (frequency- and flux-dependent), the high resistivity is the primary reason ferrites outperform solid metals at high frequency. Copper loss pertains to windings, not the core; ferrites typically have lower density than steel and modest thermal conductivity. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate eddy-current loss to resistivity: P_e ∝ B_max^2 * f^2 / ρ_effective.Recognize ferrites’ high ρ → reduced eddy currents → low eddy-current loss.Select the statement that matches: “low eddy current loss.” Verification / Alternative check: Core selection guides specify ferrites for high-frequency converters because laminated steel would suffer prohibitive eddy losses at those frequencies, confirming the advantage. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Low copper loss” refers to windings; “low resistivity” is false (they have high resistivity); ferrites are lighter, not of higher specific gravity than iron; thermal conductivity is not “very high.” Common Pitfalls: Confusing core losses with winding losses; assuming all magnetic materials behave similarly across frequencies. Final Answer: low eddy current loss

Question 11

Definition of magnetic permeability – identifying a permeable substance Select the statement that best describes a permeable substance in the context of magnetism and magnetic circuits.

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Permeability is a measure of how readily a material supports the formation of a magnetic field within itself. In magnetic circuit design, choosing a material with suitable permeability allows efficient guiding and concentrating of flux paths, just like conductivity guides electric current in electric circuits. Given Data / Assumptions: Permeable materials possess higher µ than free space (µ > µ0) for ferromagnets. Magnetic lines are a conceptual tool indicating direction and relative density of flux. No assumption of permanent magnetization is required. Concept / Approach: A “permeable” substance allows magnetic flux to pass more easily than in air, meaning it has higher permeability and can carry a higher flux density for a given magnetizing force. This is why iron and related alloys serve as cores to shape and intensify magnetic fields in transformers, motors, and inductors. Step-by-Step Solution: Define permeability qualitatively: ease of flux establishment.Map to the descriptive option: material through which flux lines pass easily.Select the correct statement accordingly. Verification / Alternative check: Magnetic circuit analogies (Φ = F / Rm with reluctance Rm ∝ 1/µ) reinforce that larger µ means smaller reluctance and easier flux passage, aligning with the chosen description. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Being a “strong magnet” relates to remanence/coercivity, not permeability alone; good electrical conduction is unrelated; zero susceptibility implies vacuum-like behavior, not “permeable.” Common Pitfalls: Equating permeability with permanent magnetism; confusing electric and magnetic material properties. Final Answer: through which magnetic lines of force can pass easily

Question 12

Electrical materials – identify the poorest electrical conductor among common options Among the listed materials, which one is the poorest conductor of electricity at room temperature and is therefore often used for resistive heating elements?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Conduction ability is quantified by electrical resistivity. Pure metals like silver, copper, and aluminum exhibit low resistivity and therefore good conductivity. Certain alloys, however, are deliberately formulated to have much higher resistivity to serve as stable resistive elements in heaters and precision resistors—Nichrome is a classic example. Given Data / Assumptions: Room-temperature comparison of bulk conductors. Purity and typical commercial composition considered. No special cryogenic or high-temperature anomalies included. Concept / Approach: Nichrome (nickel–chromium alloy) has a resistivity roughly two orders of magnitude higher than copper and significantly above aluminum and silver. Its oxidation resistance and mechanical stability at high temperature make it ideal for heating elements where high resistance and durability are desired. Therefore, in the list, Nichrome is the poorest conductor (highest resistivity). Step-by-Step Solution: Recall typical resistivities: silver < copper < aluminum ≪ Nichrome.Identify which is used for heating elements: Nichrome.Conclude Nichrome is the poorest conductor among the options. Verification / Alternative check: Heater wires and toasters commonly employ Nichrome because of its high resistivity and oxidation resistance, confirming its poor conductivity relative to common metals. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Aluminum and copper are good conductors used for power conductors; “All of the above” cannot be correct; silver is one of the best conductors. Common Pitfalls: Assuming density correlates with conductivity; confusing thermal and electrical conductivity trends. Final Answer: Nichrome

Question 13

Intrinsic (pure) silicon – relation between electrons and holes For a pure (intrinsic) sample of silicon at thermal equilibrium, what is the relationship between the concentration of free electrons and holes?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Carrier concentrations in semiconductors determine conductivity and device behavior. In intrinsic silicon, electrons and holes are thermally generated in pairs. Understanding their equality at equilibrium underpins key results such as the mass action law and sets a baseline for interpreting doped (extrinsic) semiconductors. Given Data / Assumptions: Intrinsic (undoped) silicon in thermal equilibrium. Uniform temperature throughout the sample. No external carrier injection or illumination. Concept / Approach: In intrinsic material, generation of an electron in the conduction band leaves behind a hole in the valence band. Therefore, electron concentration n equals hole concentration p at all equilibrium temperatures, i.e., n = p = ni (the intrinsic carrier concentration), though ni itself depends exponentially on temperature and bandgap. This equality holds regardless of the absolute value of ni as long as the sample remains intrinsic and at equilibrium. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize pair generation: each excited electron creates one hole.Apply equilibrium condition: n = p = ni.Conclude that electrons and holes are always equal in intrinsic silicon at equilibrium. Verification / Alternative check: Mass action law states n * p = ni^2; with no doping, charge neutrality and symmetry yield n = p = ni, confirming the result. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options B and D describe doped (n- or p-type) behavior; Option C limits equality to low temperature, which is incorrect; Option E confuses intrinsic temperature concepts with dominance of one carrier type. Common Pitfalls: Assuming unequal carriers in intrinsic material; ignoring that illumination or bias can create non-equilibrium conditions (which is outside this question). Final Answer: the number of holes and free electrons is always equal

Question 14

Semiconductor Physics – Intrinsic Material In an intrinsic (pure) semiconductor at thermal equilibrium, the number of free electrons in the conduction band is equal to the number of mobile holes in the valence band. Is this statement correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Intrinsic semiconductors (such as ultra-pure silicon or germanium) are undoped crystals in which all electrical carriers are generated thermally by breaking covalent bonds. A core conceptual fact is the equality of electron and hole concentrations at equilibrium. This question tests your understanding of carrier generation–recombination balance and charge neutrality in intrinsic materials. Given Data / Assumptions: Material is intrinsic (no intentional donors or acceptors). Thermal equilibrium is assumed (no illumination injection, no external bias creating non-equilibrium conditions). Standard semiconductor band model with conduction and valence bands. Concept / Approach: In an intrinsic semiconductor, every electron promoted to the conduction band leaves behind one vacancy (a hole) in the valence band. Therefore, the electron concentration n and hole concentration p satisfy n = p = ni, where ni is the intrinsic carrier concentration determined by the bandgap and temperature. Charge neutrality and mass-action law reinforce this result: n * p = ni^2 and, for intrinsic material, n = p = ni. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize intrinsic condition ⇒ no dopants, so no excess fixed charges.Thermal generation promotes electron–hole pairs in equal numbers.At equilibrium, recombination rate equals generation rate, preserving n = p.Thus, the number of free electrons equals the number of mobile holes. Verification / Alternative check: Using the mass-action law n * p = ni^2: in intrinsic material, symmetry and neutrality give n = p = ni. Any deviation (n ≠ p) implies unbalanced ionized impurities or non-equilibrium injection, which contradicts the intrinsic, equilibrium premise. Why Other Options Are Wrong: False: contradicts the electron–hole pair generation mechanism. True only at very high temperature: equality holds at any temperature in equilibrium, although ni changes strongly with temperature. Cannot be determined: it can be determined from the definition of intrinsic semiconductor. Common Pitfalls: Confusing intrinsic (n = p) with extrinsic n-type (n ≫ p) or p-type (p ≫ n); overlooking that illumination or bias can create non-equilibrium where n ≠ p even in otherwise pure material. Final Answer: True

Question 15

Electrons in Orbits under Magnetic Field Assertion (A): For an electron revolving in its atomic orbit, the presence of an external magnetic field alters its angular frequency. Reason (R): In that situation, the electron’s orbital magnetic dipole mom…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: An orbiting charge behaves like a current loop and thus has an associated magnetic dipole moment. When an external magnetic field is applied, additional dynamics appear (classically the Larmor precession; quantum mechanically, Zeeman splitting). This question probes your grasp of how an external magnetic field modifies orbital motion and the resulting magnetic moment. Given Data / Assumptions: Electron modeled as a charge moving in a bound orbit. Uniform external magnetic field is applied. Small-field (linear) response considered. Concept / Approach: The magnetic field exerts a Lorentz force on a moving electron, producing an additional torque that alters its angular motion. Classically, the electron’s orbital frequency acquires an increment known as the Larmor frequency, so the angular frequency is indeed affected. The orbital magnetic dipole moment μ is proportional to circulating current I and orbit area A: μ = I * A with I = qω/(2π). If ω changes, μ changes proportionally, so claiming that μ is unaffected is incorrect. Step-by-Step Solution: Apply B-field → Lorentz force → additional torque on the orbiting electron.The angular frequency experiences a shift (Larmor precession term).Magnetic moment depends on ω via μ = (q ω R^2)/2 for a circular orbit.Therefore A is true, while R (μ not affected) is false. Verification / Alternative check: Quantum picture: L · B coupling leads to Zeeman energy splitting ΔE = −μ · B; for weak fields the expectation value of μ relates to angular momentum and hence to the dynamical frequency character, reaffirming sensitivity to B. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and R both true: R is not true. A false but R true: contradicts standard Larmor/Zeeman results. Common Pitfalls: Assuming atomic orbit frequency is immutable; ignoring that any change in ω necessarily changes the current loop and its dipole moment. Final Answer: A is true but R is false

Question 16

Dielectrics under AC Field – Role of Complex Permittivity A material under alternating electric stress is characterized by a complex relative permittivity εr* = εr′ − j εr″. The dielectric loss under AC excitation is proportional to which quantity?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Real dielectrics exhibit energy dissipation when subjected to alternating electric fields. This loss manifests as heat and is captured by a complex permittivity, whose imaginary part encodes the out-of-phase component of polarization responsible for power dissipation. Understanding this link is central to high-frequency capacitor design, insulation grading, and RF heating analysis. Given Data / Assumptions: Complex relative permittivity εr* = εr′ − j εr″. Angular frequency ω and RMS field E are finite and uniform in the dielectric. Linear, isotropic response assumed. Concept / Approach: The time-average volumetric power loss in a lossy dielectric can be written as P_loss = ω ε0 εr″ E^2 for the small-loss case, directly proportional to the imaginary part εr″. An equivalent description uses the loss tangent tan δ = εr″/εr′, where the reactive (stored) energy scales with εr′ and the dissipative part scales with εr″; the product leads to P_loss ∝ ω ε0 εr′ tan δ E^2 = ω ε0 εr″ E^2. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify power loss expression in a dielectric: P_loss ∝ ω ε0 εr″ E^2.Conclude linear proportionality to εr″ for fixed ω and E.Recognize εr′ contributes to stored energy, not directly to dissipation. Verification / Alternative check: Using phasor analysis of current density J = j ω ε0 εr* E shows a real component J_real = ω ε0 εr″ E, whose product with E gives average power density, again emphasizing εr″. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Both εr′ and εr″: only εr″ controls dissipation for fixed ω and E (εr′ affects storage). εr′: relates to capacitance, not loss. (εr″)^2: loss is first order in εr″, not quadratic. Common Pitfalls: Confusing loss tangent tan δ with εr″ itself; thinking higher εr′ necessarily means higher losses, which is not true unless tan δ is fixed. Final Answer: εr″ (the imaginary part)

Question 17

Charge Transport – Relaxation Time vs. Mean Time Between Collisions Assertion (A): The relaxation time τ equals the mean time between collisions Tc when scattering of carriers is isotropic. Reason (R): The mean free path λ, carrier speed v, and Tc a…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In semiclassical transport, mobile carriers undergo random scattering events. Two characteristic times appear: Tc, the average interval between successive collisions, and τ, the momentum relaxation time that governs how quickly drift momentum decays toward equilibrium. Their equality is not guaranteed in general; it depends on the angular distribution of scattering events. Given Data / Assumptions: Isotropic (angle-independent) scattering. Low-field transport in a parabolic band (Drude-like model). Steady-state small-signal regime (linear response). Concept / Approach: Momentum relaxation accounts for how effectively each collision randomizes the carrier momentum. For isotropic scattering, each collision, on average, reverses momentum components symmetrically, causing the average drift momentum to decay with the same time constant as the collision rate: τ ≈ Tc. For forward-peaked scattering, τ > Tc because many collisions barely alter momentum; for large-angle–dominated scattering, τ ≈ Tc. The kinematic relation λ = v Tc is always true by definition of mean free path but does not by itself explain why τ equals Tc; the explanation requires angular weighting of post-collision momentum (1 − cos θ) in the transport integral. Step-by-Step Solution: Assume isotropic scattering: average (1 − cos θ) = 1.Momentum decay rate 1/τ equals collision rate 1/Tc ⇒ τ = Tc.Use λ = v Tc merely to relate spatial and temporal scales; it does not determine τ. Verification / Alternative check: Boltzmann transport with relaxation-time approximation shows 1/τ = ∫ W(θ) (1 − cos θ) dΩ; for constant W(θ), integral yields 1/Tc, confirming τ = Tc. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A true, R false: R is true as a definition of mean free path. A false, R true: τ equals Tc under isotropic scattering; A is not false. True/true with correct explanation: R does not explain A; it lacks the angular-momentum argument. Common Pitfalls: Equating τ and Tc in all contexts; overlooking that forward-scattering dominance increases τ relative to Tc. Final Answer: Both A and R are true but R is not correct explanation of A

Question 18

Molecular Dipoles – Why CO2 Is Nonpolar but CO Is Polar Assertion (A): Carbon dioxide (CO2) has no resultant dipole moment, whereas carbon monoxide (CO) has a finite dipole moment. Reason (R): The structure of CO2 is linear and symmetric, represente…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Molecular polarity depends on both the bond dipoles and molecular geometry. Even when individual bonds are polar, the vector sum can cancel, yielding a nonpolar molecule. This distinction is essential in understanding solubility, infrared activity, and dielectric behavior of gases and solids. Given Data / Assumptions: CO2 geometry: linear (O–C–O with 180° bond angle). CO geometry: diatomic, inherently polar if bond is polar. Bond dipoles: C=O bonds are polar due to electronegativity difference. Concept / Approach: In CO2, two equal C=O bond dipoles act in opposite directions along the same line. Their vector sum is zero, so the net molecular dipole moment vanishes. By contrast, CO is a heteronuclear diatomic molecule; its single bond dipole cannot be canceled by symmetry, so the molecule exhibits a finite dipole moment, albeit modest and directionally nuanced due to molecular orbital effects. Step-by-Step Solution: Represent CO2 as O = C = O with equal bond moments μ along one axis.Vector addition: μ (to the left) + (−μ) (to the right) = 0 ⇒ nonpolar.For CO, only one bond dipole exists ⇒ net dipole ≠ 0. Verification / Alternative check: Spectroscopic data show CO2 has no permanent dipole and is IR-inactive in pure rotational spectrum; CO has a permanent dipole and shows microwave rotational spectra, confirming polarity differences. Why Other Options Are Wrong: R false: The linear symmetric structure of CO2 is well established; it correctly explains A. Other combinations do not align with molecular geometry and measured dipoles. Common Pitfalls: Assuming any molecule with polar bonds must be polar; ignoring geometry and symmetry operations that cancel dipole vectors. Final Answer: Both A and R are true and R is correct explanation of A

Question 19

Paramagnetism – Nature of Magnetic Dipoles and Interactions Paramagnetic materials possess permanent magnetic dipoles, but the interaction between neighboring dipoles is negligible. Is this statement correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Magnetic behavior of solids spans diamagnetism, paramagnetism, ferromagnetism, antiferromagnetism, and ferrimagnetism. Paramagnetic materials are characterized by atomic or ionic moments that tend to align weakly with an external magnetic field but do not exhibit spontaneous magnetization when the field is removed. This question checks whether you recognize the role of permanent dipoles and their weak mutual interactions in paramagnets. Given Data / Assumptions: Presence of unpaired electrons in atoms/ions leading to nonzero magnetic moments. Thermal agitation at ordinary temperatures is significant. No strong exchange interactions like those found in ferro- or antiferromagnets. Concept / Approach: In paramagnets, each ion or atom has a permanent magnetic moment (from spin and/or orbital angular momentum). However, the exchange interaction between neighboring moments is negligible, so these dipoles are randomly oriented at zero field due to thermal fluctuations. When an external field is applied, a slight statistical bias toward alignment appears, producing a small positive susceptibility that follows Curie or Curie–Weiss law (χ ∝ 1/T or 1/(T − θ)). Removal of the field returns the system to random orientation, hence no hysteresis or remanence. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify source of magnetic dipoles: unpaired electrons.Note weak (negligible) neighbor interactions → no long-range order.Apply external field → partial alignment → small positive magnetization. Verification / Alternative check: Measured susceptibilities for typical paramagnets (e.g., Al, Mn salts) are small (χ ≪ 1) and temperature dependent per Curie-type laws, consistent with independent-dipole behavior. Why Other Options Are Wrong: False: would suggest no permanent dipoles or strong interactions, inconsistent with paramagnetism. Depends only on temperature: while temperature matters, the negligible interaction definition remains valid across temperatures where no ordering transition occurs. True only in external field: dipoles exist even without a field; the field merely biases their orientation. Common Pitfalls: Confusing paramagnetism with ferromagnetism (strong interactions and spontaneous order) or diamagnetism (no permanent dipoles; induced moments oppose the field). Final Answer: True

Question 20

Metallic Solids – Copper as a Monoatomic Solid Assertion (A): Copper is a monoatomic solid. Reason (R): In metals, the valence electrons are delocalized and belong to all atoms (electron gas model).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Crystalline solids are described by a lattice and a basis. A “monoatomic” solid has one atom in the basis of its Bravais lattice (for copper, face-centered cubic with a single-atom basis). Metals also exhibit metallic bonding, where valence electrons are delocalized. This question separates structural classification from bonding description. Given Data / Assumptions: Copper crystallizes in an fcc structure with one atom per lattice point. Metallic bonding is characterized by delocalized conduction electrons. Room-temperature crystalline state considered. Concept / Approach: The statement “monoatomic solid” concerns the crystal basis, not the bonding mechanism. Copper’s fcc lattice indeed has a single-atom basis, so A is true. The reason describes electron delocalization which explains metallic conductivity and cohesion, but it does not logically explain why copper is “monoatomic” in the crystallographic sense; bonding type does not determine the number of atoms in the basis. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify lattice: fcc with a one-atom basis → monoatomic solid.Recognize metallic bonding: valence electrons form a conduction “sea”.Conclude: A true; R true yet not the explanation for A (different concepts). Verification / Alternative check: X-ray diffraction shows fcc reflections consistent with a single-atom basis; conductivity and cohesive properties align with delocalized electron gas theory but are independent of the basis count. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A true, R false: R is not false; metals do have delocalized electrons. R explaining A: incorrect causal link; crystal basis is not determined by electron delocalization. A false: Copper is not molecular or polyatomic in its crystal basis. Common Pitfalls: Equating bonding type with lattice basis; thinking “monoatomic” refers to monoatomic gases rather than crystal basis. Final Answer: Both A and R are true but R is not correct explanation of A

Materials and Components Questions