Drawing Radial Field Equipotentials and Field Lines

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of radial fields, equipotential surfaces, and gravitational field strength. Participants explore how to visually represent these concepts, particularly focusing on the spacing of field lines and equipotential surfaces in a radial field context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the relationship between field lines and equipotential surfaces, questioning how they should be represented in terms of spacing. There is also inquiry into alternative units for gravitational field strength and the implications of using different units.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the mathematical relationships governing potential energy and gravitational fields, suggesting iterative plotting procedures. However, there remains uncertainty about the interpretation of these procedures and the suitability of alternative units for gravitational field strength.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the definitions and representations of gravitational fields and potential, with some expressing confusion over specific terms and procedures. There is an acknowledgment of conventional units versus alternative suggestions, highlighting the ongoing exploration of these concepts.

AN630078
Messages
242
Reaction score
25
Homework Statement
Hello, I have a question asking me to draw a radial gravitational field showing the gravitational field lines and the equipotential surfaces for equal energy increments. I then have to comment upon the spacing of the field lines and equipotential lines.

My query is in this question would it be referring to the spacing visually when drawing the field lines and equipotentials or what this spacing represents in a radial field?

I am not sure how to comprehensively answer what is being asked and would be very grateful for any advice 😁
Relevant Equations
g=GM/r^2
I have just attached a standard depiction of a radial field as one may similarly choose to draw it. So I understand that the gravitational field strength in a field is defined as the force per unit mass at that point. The field lines in a radial field move further apart further away from the centre indicating the field strength is reducing. The closer together the field lines the stronger the field and thus the force.
The equipotential surfaces of a radial field are positions within a field with zero difference in potential between them; ie. the potential on an equipotential surface is the same everywhere as connected by equipotential lines. The field will always be perpendicular to the equipotential lines; since a field is defined as a region in which potential changes. How close the equipotentials are indicates the strength of the electric field and how quickly the potential is changing. e.g. a stronger field has closer equipotentials.

In a radial field, the field lines are all equally separated in terms of field strength but the radial distance between them increases as you move further from the planet. If this question is just asking how to draw a general radial field with field and equipotential lines then one would say that the field lines are evenly spaced but increase in distance further from the centre? And moreover, would the equipotential surfaces be said visually to be drawn unequally spaced with successive shells representing equal intervals of potential difference.

So for a radial field the field lines are evenly spaced but the equipotential surfaces are unevenly spaced?

Moreover, could an alternative unit for gravitational field strength besides N kg^-1 be Jm^-1kg^-1?
 

Attachments

  • Radial Field.png
    Radial Field.png
    22.4 KB · Views: 245
Physics news on Phys.org
You want equal energy increments so you have to start with the equation for the potential energy per unit mass, ##V(r)## not force per unit mass ##g(r)##.
If ##V(r)=-\dfrac{GM}{r}##, then $$\Delta V = GM\frac{\Delta r}{r^2}~\Rightarrow ~\frac{\Delta V}{V}=-\frac{\Delta r}{r}.$$Can you devise an iterative plotting procedure that exploits the above condition?

You can devise any alternative unit for gravitational field strength that you want, but m/s2 is more conventional and most easily recognizable by everyone.
 
Last edited:
kuruman said:
You want equal energy increments so you have to start with the equation for the potential energy per unit mass, ##V(r)## not force per unit mass ##g(r)##.
If ##V(r)=-\dfrac{GM}{r}##, then $$\Delta V = GM\frac{\Delta r}{r^2}~\Rightarrow ~\frac{\Delta V}{V}=-\frac{\Delta r}{r}.$$Can you devise an iterative plotting procedure that exploits the above condition?

You can devise any alternative unit for gravitational field strength that you want, but m/s2 is more conventional and most easily recognizable by everyone.
Thank you for your reply. I do not know what you mean by an iterative plotting procedure.
In regard to an alternative unit for gravitational field strength, yes thank you for your suggestion I am aware of the use of m/s^2? However, would Jm^-1kg^-1 be a suitable alternative, although lesser used?
 
AN630078 said:
Thank you for your reply. I do not know what you mean by an iterative plotting procedure.
In regard to an alternative unit for gravitational field strength, yes thank you for your suggestion I am aware of the use of m/s^2? However, would Jm^-1kg^-1 be a suitable alternative, although lesser used?
Iterative procedure:
Decide on a value for the constant increment ##\Delta V##.
Find a number for the potential ##V## at ##r = R_E## (the Earth's radius) and draw an equipotential at that ##r##. Label it with the value of ##V.##
1. Solve the equation ##\dfrac{\Delta V}{V}=-\dfrac{\Delta r}{r}## to get the magnitude of the radius increment ##\Delta r## and add it to the old ##r##. Ignore the negative sign.
2. Add the increment ##\Delta V## to the old potential to get the new ##V## and draw an equipotential at the new ##r.## Label it with the new value of ##V.##
3. Go back to step 1 and repeat.
AN630078 said:
However, would Jm^-1kg^-1 be a suitable alternative, although lesser used?
In my opinion no, for the same reason that one uses Joules and not kg⋅m2/s2.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K