E field for an semi-infinite sheet of charge

  • Thread starter Thread starter fishingspree2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charge Field
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the electric field (E field) above a semi-infinite sheet of charge with surface charge density λs. The user attempts to derive the E field using the concept of infinite wires, leading to an expression that incorrectly includes a height factor (h). The correct approach indicates that the E field should not depend on height when considering an infinite plane, and the user seeks clarification on the integration steps that led to this erroneous conclusion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric fields generated by charged objects
  • Familiarity with integration techniques in physics
  • Knowledge of symmetry in electric field calculations
  • Concept of surface charge density (λs)
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of the electric field for an infinite plane sheet of charge
  • Study the application of symmetry in electric field calculations
  • Learn about the limits of integration in electric field problems
  • Explore the relationship between surface charge density and electric field strength
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in physics, particularly those studying electromagnetism and electric fields, as well as anyone seeking to understand the nuances of charge distribution effects on electric fields.

fishingspree2
Messages
138
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


We have a sheet of charge, which is infinite in the x direction and has width d in the y direction.
Find E field at a height h above the center line of the sheet. The sheet has λs surface charge density.

My attempt:

We know that the E field for an infinite wire is λl / 2πrε in the radial direction.
We treat the semi-infinite sheet as if it was composed of infinite wires with width dy and λl = λs dy

Therefore,

dE for an infinite wire = (λs dy) / (2πrε) in r direction, where r is a unit vector from the wire to the observation point.
For each infinite wire, vector r = -y y + h z where y and z are the unit vectors.
Therefore, r = ( -y y + h z ) / sqrt(y2 + h2)
and
dE = [(λs dy) / (2πr2ε)] ( -y y + h z )

= [(λs dy) / (2πε(y2 + h2)] ( -y y + h z )

From symetry reasons I know that the E field wield be in the z direction, so I discard the y part:

dE = [(λs dy) / (2πε(y2 + h2)] (h z )

I integrate [(λs dy) / (2πε(y2 + h2)] (h z ) from y = -d/2 to d/2

= (λs h z) / (2πε) integral of (dy / y2 + h2)

completing the integration I get:

s h z) / (πε) ) atan(d/2h)

but the h factor shouldn't be there because it shouldn't depend on the height of the observation point.

Where is the mistake?

(I have done it another way here https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4279144&postcount=7 but I don't see where is the mistake)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fishingspree2 said:
= (λs h z) / (2πε) integral of (dy / y2 + h2)

completing the integration I get:

s h z) / (πε) ) atan(d/2h)
Something went wrong in there. Pls post those steps in detail.
 
fishingspree2 said:
The h factor shouldn't be there because it shouldn't depend on the height of the observation point.
The h factor only goes away in the case of an infinite plane (infinite length and infinite width). What you have is a "wide" wire of infinite length, and as h ->∞, the result approaches that of a field from an "thin" infinite wire.
 
rcgldr said:
The h factor only goes away in the case of an infinite plane (infinite length and infinite width). What you have is a "wide" wire of infinite length, and as h ->∞, the result approaches that of a field from an "thin" infinite wire.
True, but the fact remains that factor h should not be there. It gives the wrong limit as h tends to infinity.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
831
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
8K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
64
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K