Finding the magnitude of an electric field at a distance from a surface charge

AI Thread Summary
To find the electric field intensity at a distance of 0.15m from a long, straight conductor with a charge density of 4.0 C/m, the relevant formula is E = sigma/(2pi*r*e0). The radius of the conductor is not needed for calculations outside the wire; instead, the radius of the Gaussian surface at 0.15m should be used. The enclosed charge is derived from the surface charge density and height of the Gaussian cylinder. Understanding the distinction between the conductor's radius and the Gaussian surface is crucial for solving such problems. This highlights the importance of careful interpretation of given parameters in electrostatics.
NewtonianAlch
Messages
453
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Find the magnitude of the electric field intensity at a distance 0.15m from the axis of a long, straight conductor, which has radius 0.03m, and a charge density of 4.0 C/m.


Homework Equations


Eflux = E.A
Eflux = q/e0
q = sigma*h


The Attempt at a Solution



Eflux = E*Area
Thus, Eflux = E*2pi*r*h (Surface area of the gaussian cylinder we superimpose over the conductor)

Also, Eflux = q/e0 -> where e0 is the permittivity of free space and q is the enclosed charge in the gaussian surface.

q = sigma*h

Therefore we substitute for the q, and equate the two Eflux equations to get:

Eflux = E*2pi*r*h = sigma*h/e0

Solve for E and we get:

E = sigma/(2pi*r*e0)

Now we substitute the given values:

4/(2pi*(0.03)*(8.85*10^-12)) = 2.40*E12 or 2.40*10^12 N/C

I have no idea how to find the electric field at the distance 0.15m away from the surface. Please help! I would need the value of q to do this, however this is not a point charge we're dealing with but a surface charge, so I'm a bit lost.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you look back over your logic, you should see that the r you plug into the final formula is not the radius of the charged cylinder, it's the radius of the Gaussian surface, which is 0.15m. The radius of the cylinder is actually irrelevant.
 
Mike Pemulis said:
If you look back over your logic, you should see that the r you plug into the final formula is not the radius of the charged cylinder, it's the radius of the Gaussian surface, which is 0.15m. The radius of the cylinder is actually irrelevant.

Wow...I can't believe I didn't notice that inflating the imaginary Gaussian surface would give the required 'r' of 0.15m.

Though...why would they give the radius of the cylinder if it had no part in it?
 
To see if you would make this mistake. :smile: One note: as long as the Gaussian cylinder is outside the wire, the radius of the wire doesn't matter. But another common problem you may encounter is to find the E field inside the wire some distance from the center -- then, the radius of the wire matters.
 
Teachers do that alot. It's to confuse you and see that you really understand the problem.
 
Mike Pemulis said:
To see if you would make this mistake. :smile: One note: as long as the Gaussian cylinder is outside the wire, the radius of the wire doesn't matter. But another common problem you may encounter is to find the E field inside the wire some distance from the center -- then, the radius of the wire matters.

Hmm yea, I've noticed that kind of question appears to be common with coaxial wires.

Thank you for your help!
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top