Cassini ovals being the equipotential lines?

AI Thread Summary
Cassini ovals are often described as equipotential lines for two equal point charges located at their foci. The discussion explores the relationship between the product of distances to these charges and the resulting electric potential. Initially, the author attempts to demonstrate that equal products of distances imply equal potential, but finds inconsistencies in their calculations. They ultimately realize that Cassini ovals correspond to lines of equal potential for a logarithmic potential rather than for point charges. The correct electrostatic potential involves distances to charged conductors, not point charges, leading to a different mathematical formulation.
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.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top