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).
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top