Electric Field Approximation for Linear Quadrapole Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Old Guy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Linear
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the electric field produced by a linear quadrupole arrangement of charges located on the x-axis, specifically at a point on the y-axis. The original poster attempts to derive an approximation for the electric field at a distance r from the origin, given the configuration of charges: -q at x=-d, +2q at x=0, and -q at x=d.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the straightforward nature of finding an exact solution versus the complexity of deriving an approximation. There are attempts to express the electric field contributions from both positive and negative charges, with some questioning how to simplify the resulting expressions to match the expected approximation.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, exploring different mathematical manipulations and approximations. Some have suggested expanding the denominators using geometric series, while others are trying to rewrite expressions to facilitate the approximation process. There is no explicit consensus yet, but various productive directions are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the condition of taking r much greater than d (r >> d) as a key assumption for the approximation, and there are discussions about how to manipulate the resulting equations to achieve the desired form.

Old Guy
Messages
101
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Given the following charges, all on the x-axis:
-q at x=-d
+2q at x=0
-q at x=d

Show that the electric field at a point (x,y) = (0,r) (ie, on the y-axis a distance r from the origin) is approximately:
[tex]\frac{3qd^2}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}r^4}[/tex]


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


We were asked for an approximation, but it seems to me that an exact solution is relatively straightforward. The direction of the field from the positive charge would be along the y-axis. The field resulting from the negative charges would be from y=r toward those charges, but the x-components of those fields would cancel. Consequently, shouldn't the field simply be the field produced at r by the positive charge, minus the y-components of the fields produced by the negative charges? Am I missing something?


 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're right, the exact solution is straightforward--but it's messy. Start by writing down the exact answer and showing that it reduces to that simple approximation when R >> d.
 
Right, and for that I got [tex]\frac{2q}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}[\frac{1}{r^2}-\frac{r}{(r^2+d^2)^(\frac{3}{2})][/tex]

I understand the concept of taking r>>d, but don't see any way with the above equation that gets either d^2 or a 3 in the numerator, or r^4 in the denominator.

And thanks for your help!
 
[tex]\frac{2q}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}[\frac{1}{r^2}-\frac{r}{[(r^2+d^2)^(\frac{3}{2})]][/tex]
 
Expand the denominators of the exact expression in the geometric series
1/(1-x)=1+x+x^2+...
 
Well, I'm having trouble getting the equation to show. I'll try breaking it up:

For the field from the positive charges, I have [tex]\frac{2q}{4\pi\epsilon_0(r^2)}[/tex]
For the negative charges, [tex]\frac{-2qr}{4\pi\epsilon_0[(r^2+d^2)]^(\frac{3}{2})}[/tex]
Hopefully these will show
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Meir's Suggestion

Thank you - I had thought of this, but don't see how to get the expression in the proper form. My terms are {1/r^2 - r/[(r^2+d^2)^(3/2)]}. I can get this into a form of
1-r^3/[(r^2+d^2)^(3/2)], but this is a form of 1-x, not 1/(1-x). Am I missing something obvious?
 
Old Guy said:
For the negative charges, [tex]\frac{-2qr}{4\pi\epsilon_0[(r^2+d^2)]^(\frac{3}{2})}[/tex]
Rewrite [tex](r^2+d^2)^{3/2}[/tex] as [tex]r^3(1+(d/r)^2)^{3/2}[/tex]

Now you can take advantage of the approximation:
[tex]\frac{1}{(1 + x)^a} \approx 1 - ax[/tex]
(when x << 1)
 
Last edited:
It's easier to get the potential and then E=-dV/dx.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K