Calculating the Electric field for a ring

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding why a charged ring can be replaced with two oppositely charged disks using the superposition principle. This simplification is valid as it allows for easier calculations of the electric field. The resulting charge distribution can be visualized as an annulus, where the total charge remains consistent. Participants note that while a double integral can be used for calculations, symmetry allows for a more straightforward single integral approach. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the utility of superposition in simplifying complex charge distributions.
link223
Messages
70
Reaction score
12
Homework Statement
(II) A flat ring (inner radius R outer radius 4R ) is
uniformly charged. In terms of the total charge Q, determine the electric field on the axis at points (a) 0.25R and (b) 0.75R from the center of the ring. [Hint: The ring can be
replaced with two oppositely charged superposed disks.]
Relevant Equations
Gauss' Law
What i don't understand is why we are able to replace the ring with 'two oppositely charged superposed disks'?

Just trying to understand..
So we have a uniform charge which means that this'll just be a simplification of the problem than, correct?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By the superposition principle, the solution to the sum of two charge distributions is the sum of the solutions to the separate charge distributions. If you take a small disk and a large disk with the opposite surface charge density (not charge!) then the sum of the charge distributions is an annulus as described in the problem as the resulting charge distribution within R is zero and between R and 4R there will only be the larger disc. Make sure to normalise your charge distribution such that the total charge distribution is of total charge Q.
 
To me, the hint makes sense if the on-axis electric field due to a uniformly disk is assumed as given and there is no requirement to derive it. If there is such a requirement, I think doing the double integral would be simpler.
 
kuruman said:
I think doing the double integral would be simpler.
Well, the double integral is also relatively easily written as a single integral just by symmetry arguments, making that approach even simpler. However, the difference in complexity is inserting zero twice in the primitive function (which evaluates to zero if you use the most convenient choice of integration constant).
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top