 Solution

The original PDF calls ${ϵ}_r$ a relative magnetic permeability while also specifying a nonmagnetic dielectric. These descriptions are inconsistent if read literally. The physically consistent interpretation of the notation is relative permittivity ${ϵ}_r=2$ and relative magnetic permeability ${\mu }_r=1$.

Let $a=3\mathrm{mm}$ and let $b=6\mathrm{mm}$ be the inner radius of the outer conductor. For line charge density $\lambda$, Gauss's law gives $E_r=\lambda /(2\pi ϵr)$, henceThe magnetic field in the dielectric is $H_{\phi }=I/(2\pi r)$. Its energy per unit length givesUsing $b/a=2$,These are the lossless coaxial line parameters, assuming negligible field penetration into the conductors. If the quoted radii instead referred to an outer diameter or if ${\mu }_r=2$ were intended, the data would need clarification; the stated dielectric and nonmagnetic assumptions support the interpretation above.