Calculating the Electric Field of a Charged Rod: Is There an Easier Way?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the electric field of a uniformly charged rod and whether there is an easier method. The user derives the electric field using integration and confirms that their formula matches the book's answer after testing with numerical values. They express confusion over the differences in the formulas and the implications of the charge's sign on the direction of the electric field. Ultimately, they conclude that the two formulas are equivalent through algebraic manipulation, questioning the necessity of understanding the derivation. The conversation highlights the complexities of electric field calculations and the importance of clarity in variable definitions.
tony873004
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,753
Reaction score
143
Can someone tell me if I did this correctly, or if there's an easier way? Thanks!

A uniformly charged rod of length \ell with a charge density \lambda lies along the x-axis, with its midpoint at the origin. Find the electric field at a point on the x-axis, with x > \ell /2

The electric field of a differential element is
\overrightarrow {dE} = \frac{{kdQ}}{{r^2 }}

The charge of a differential element is
dQ = \lambda \,dx

Let P be a point on the x-axis to the right of the rod.
\overrightarrow E = \int\limits_{ - \ell /2}^{\ell /2} {\frac{{k\lambda \,dx}}{{r^2 }}}

The distance r from P to a differential element x is P-x
Pull out the constants.
\begin{array}{l}<br /> \overrightarrow E = k\lambda \int\limits_{ - \ell /2}^{\ell /2} {\frac{{\,1}}{{\left( {P - x} \right)^2 }}dx} \\ <br /> \\ <br /> \overrightarrow E = k\lambda \left[ {\frac{1}{{P - x}}} \right]_{ - \ell /2}^{\ell /2} = k\lambda \left( {\left( {\frac{1}{{P - \ell /2}}} \right) - \left( {\frac{1}{{P - \left( { - \ell /2} \right)}}} \right)} \right),\, - {\rm{\hat i}} \\ <br /> \\ <br /> \overrightarrow E = k\lambda \left( {\left( {\frac{1}{{P - \ell /2}}} \right) - \left( {\frac{1}{{P + \ell /2}}} \right)} \right) \\ <br /> \end{array}

 
Physics news on Phys.org
IMO, its correct.
 
I just realized that the answer is in the back of the book. They give:
\frac{{k\lambda \ell }}{{x_0^2 - \frac{1}{4}l^2 }}{\rm{\hat i}}

Where did I go wrong? I'm guessing that their x0 is what I was calling P. But the answers are not the same. I don't believe they are the same formula just written differently.

Also, the direction given is i-hat. But since the problem never states what the charge of the rod is, how do I know that it is not negative i-hat?
 
Since x > P, then r should be (x - P). I'm able to get the answer without the L in the numerator. Dont know where that's coming from.
 
x > L/2, meaning the point is to the right of the rod. I choose P as the point so x could be my integration variable. So, for example if the rod's length were 10, it would span from x= -5 to 5. And if P was 15, then the distance from P to each element in the rod would be P-x. For example P is 15-5=10 units from the right of the rod.

I just verified using my calculator that my formula and the book's formula are the same. I just made up some numbers and plugged them in: k=12, lambda=13, L=14, P=15

12*13*((1/(15-14/2))-(1/(15+14/2))) = 12.4090909090909
12*13*14/(15^2-14^2/4) = 12.4090909090909

The answers are the same. So its just a matter of algebra to arrive at their formula from my formula. But I don't know how. I'm wondering if I care. Is their formula any more correct than mine?
 
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 .
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