Cassini ovals being the equipotential lines?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter torteloni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    equipotential Lines
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Cassini ovals represent the equipotential lines for two equal point charges located at the foci of the ovals. The electric potential at any point P in space due to these charges can be expressed as V = K * Q * (1/r1 + 1/r2), where K is a constant and r1 and r2 are the distances from point P to the charges. The discussion clarifies that while the product of distances remains constant along the Cassini ovals, the potential energy varies, as demonstrated through specific examples. The correct interpretation involves recognizing that Cassini ovals correspond to equal potential lines for logarithmic potentials, not merely point charges.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric potential and point charges
  • Familiarity with logarithmic potentials in electrostatics
  • Knowledge of mathematical concepts related to distances and ratios
  • Basic grasp of electrostatics and potential energy
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of logarithmic potentials in electrostatics
  • Explore the mathematical derivation of Cassini ovals in relation to electric fields
  • Investigate the differences between point charges and charged conductors
  • Review relevant literature on equipotential surfaces and their applications
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on electrostatics, mathematicians interested in geometric properties of curves, and educators seeking to explain the concept of equipotential lines in a clear and detailed manner.

torteloni
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
edit: If you cannot understand a passage it is probably because of my bad English. Just ask.

Dear board,

it is said oftentimes that the cassini ovals are the equipotential lines when considering two (equal) point charges in the oval's foci. (see e.g. http://www.hst.tu-darmstadt.de/uploads/media/hvt2_v_08b.pdf )

I now wonder how this can be shown. Here is what I tried and what however did not work out the way I hoped. I wanted to show that if the product of distances to two given point charges is the same for some points in space, the potential in these points is the same:

Consider two equally charged point charges Q1 and Q2. Consider any point P in space. Let r1 and r2 be the distances between that point and Q1 and Q2 respectively. The electric potential in P created by Q1 and Q2 is:

\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon _0} \cdot \frac{Q_1}{r_1} + \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon _0} \cdot \frac{Q_2}{r_2}

= \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon _0} \cdot (\frac{Q_1}{r_1} + \frac{Q_2}{r_2})

We just write K instead of the constant \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon _0} from now on. Besides we define Q:=Q_1=Q_2 (Q_1=Q_2 by our initial assumption). So we receive:

= K \cdot (\frac{Q}{r_1} + \frac{Q}{r_2})

= K \cdot Q \cdot (\frac{1}{r_1} + \frac{1}{r_2})

= K \cdot Q \cdot \frac{r_1+r_2}{r_1\cdot r_2}

And here at this point I don't quite get it: Even if the product of distances remains constant, the potential energy may change.

Consider a point in space with r_1=4 and r_2=1. The potential in this point is obviously K\cdot Q\cdot \frac{5}{4}.

Now consider a point with r_1=2 and r_2=2. Because 4\cdot 1=2\cdot 2 both points lie on the same cassini oval around Q_1 and Q_2. However in our second point we have the potential K\cdot Q\cdot \frac{4}{4}.

Where am I mistaking? I thank you very much for any help and I'm especially glad if you can show me helpful links or literature that deal with this topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
By now I have found my error. My calculation for point charges is correct, however the Cassini Ovals are the lines of equal potential regarding a logarithmic potential. So Q_1 and Q_2 are not point charges but electrically charged conductors.

The electrostatic potential for one point P in the plane is then:

V=- \frac{q}{2 \pi \epsilon _0} (ln(r)+ln(r'))

where r and r' are the distances to the two electrally charged conductors respectively. You may want to check http://www.jstor.org/stable/3620950 for further information.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K