Dl (dot) r hat in computing potential?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the correct approach to computing the line integral of electric potential from infinity toward a charge. It emphasizes that while the direction of the integral points toward the charge, the vector r hat points away, leading to confusion about the sign. The proper method involves using negative r hat for the vector dl to ensure the potential is calculated correctly. It is highlighted that reversing the sign of dr is a common mistake, and the integration limits should be set from "far" to "near" to maintain the correct sign. This ensures accurate computation of the electric potential.
platonic
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
dl (dot) r hat in computing potential??

when computing the line integral "from infinity" back toward charge, the direction is pointing to the circle. But r hat is pointing away from circle. So vector dl should equal magnitude dl times negative r hat, which would change sign of potential...?
 

Attachments

  • p0097.jpg
    p0097.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 672
  • p0098.jpg
    p0098.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 532
Physics news on Phys.org


Potential is defined to be the negative of the work done per amount of charge of an object by a field when that object in the field moves from one point to another.
 


I know that is the definition of work. But in computing that line integral, shouldn't integrating in from infinity be integrating along the direction of negative r hat??
 


Don't EVER reverse the sign of dr. It's a very common mistake. The proper integration limits take care of the sign. When you move from "far" to "near" the lower integration limit is "far" and the upper "near". This way, you get the right sign
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top