E-Field over Uniformly Charged Disc

In summary, the area of the differential ring, dA, is not exactly equal to 2πrdr, but this approximation becomes increasingly valid as dr approaches 0. This allows us to use this approximation in our calculations, as the error will be negligible. Additionally, when integrating, any terms with (dr)^2 will result in a value of 0, so we can disregard them.
  • #1
exitwound
292
1

Homework Statement



http://scitec.uwichill.edu.bb/cmp/online/P10D/Hunte/Electric%20fields_files/image122.jpg

Find the Electric Field at Point P at height z over a uniformly charged disc of radius a with uniform charge Q.

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution



I'm looking at the solution online, on multiple sites, only to be stuck with the very first step.

Why on Earth is [tex]dA=2\pi*r*dr[/tex] and what exactly is dA?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
exitwound said:
Why on Earth is [tex]dA=2\pi*r*dr[/tex] and what exactly is dA?

Hi exitwound! :wink:

(have a pi: π :wink:)

A is area, and dA is the area of the infintesimal ring marked red in the diagram. :smile:
 
  • #3
I understand that concept, but I can't grasp why I take the derivative of the Area of the large disc to find the area of the small ring.
 
  • #4
Don't think of it like that. I'd say just think of a circular perimiter, it has circumference equal to 2piR. It's has no thickness, so no area. Now say it has an infinitesimal thickness dr. So it's area is 2piRdr. Add all these infinitesimal areas up (integrate) to get the full area.
 
  • #5
Yup, nnnm4; :smile: is right … don't think of it like that!

Yes, dA is the derivative wrt r, but that's not how you calculate dA …

you calculate dA just by geometry … its the actual area of an actual ring :wink:

(same when you calculate eg the volume of a solid of revolution … you divide it into very small slices, and calculate the actual volume of an actual slice)
 
  • #6
exitwound said:
... I can't grasp why I take the derivative of the Area of the large disc to find the area of the small ring.
I can't tell you why you would do this, but I can explain why the derivative of the area w.r.t. the radius gives you the differential area of the ring.

POINT 1: Imagine two disks. On of them has area A, and the other one, slightly larger, has area A+ΔA. So, ΔA is the area of the ring that is formed when the first disk is subtracted from the second disk.

POINT 2: Let the radius of the first disk be r, and the radius of the slightly larger disk be r+Δr. The area of the first disk in terms of r is A=πr^2, and the area of the second disk in terms of r is A+ΔA=π(r+Δr)^2=πr^2+2πrΔr+π(Δr)^2. So, the area of the ring is ΔA=2πrΔr+π(Δr)^2.

POINT 3: Divide by Δr. This gives ΔA/Δr=2πr+πΔr. Now, assume that Δr<<r. Then, ΔA/Δr≈2πr, and so the area of the ring is ΔA≈2πrΔr. When we assume that Δr→0, then the approximation approaches an equality (for r>0), and the Δ's become d's: dA/dr=2πr. Now, dA is the area of a very thin ring: dA=(dA/dr)dr=2πrdr.

In general, though, the Jacobian approach is more convenient.
 
  • #7
So the area of the differential ring is NOT exactly [tex]2\pi rdr[/tex]. This is what is throwing me off, I think. In my head, I read the statement [tex]dA=2\pi rdr [/tex]and I know it's not an equality. It can't be. And I think my mind hasn't been able to wrap around the fact that that statement is true as dr-->0, but not for any specific r.

That make sense?
 
  • #8
Hi exitwound! :smile:

(what happened to that π i gave you? :wink:)
exitwound said:
So the area of the differential ring is NOT exactly [tex]2\pi rdr[/tex]. This is what is throwing me off, I think. In my head, I read the statement [tex]dA=2\pi rdr [/tex]and I know it's not an equality. It can't be. And I think my mind hasn't been able to wrap around the fact that that statement is true as dr-->0, but not for any specific r.

That make sense?

oh that's what's worrying you!

Well, yes you're corrrect, it's not exactly 2πrdr.

But we're only interested in "first-order" precision …

the error is something times (dr)2, and we're not bothered about that.

We get a perfectly valid "first-order" equation, dA = 2πrdr, and we can bung that into the formula and integrate.

(if you integrate (dr)2 terms, you just get zero)

Sorry, but that's the way it works :wink: … if you're not happy with that, you'll just have to keep doing examples until you manage to convince yourself that you are happy! :smile:
 
  • #9
tiny-tim said:
(if you integrate (dr)2 terms, you just get zero)
This is the key. Think of differential quantities as something that needs to be integrated. So, as a sort of handwaving argument, imagine that dr=ε, where ε is an arbitrarily small number that can be made as small as you want compared to everything else in the problem. In other words, any product of ε with anything (except inverse powers of ε) is effectively zero.

∫(dr)^2 = ε∫dr

Compared with the other integrals over r, which are not multiplied by ε, this integral is negligibly small.

If it helps, then imagine that you will eventually want to find some numerical value. The idea is that, to however many significant figures you desire, you can always make ε small enough so that all of the terms that have an ε factor cannot add a numerical value large enough to change your numerical result in the given precision.
 
  • #10
Makes a little more sense now...
 

1. What is an "E-Field over Uniformly Charged Disc"?

The "E-Field over Uniformly Charged Disc" refers to the electric field that is created by a uniformly charged disc. The electric field is a physical property that describes the force that a charged particle would experience at any given point in space.

2. How is the electric field calculated for a uniformly charged disc?

The electric field for a uniformly charged disc can be calculated using the formula E = σ/2ε₀, where σ is the surface charge density of the disc and ε₀ is the permittivity of free space. This formula takes into account the magnitude and direction of the electric field at any point in space.

3. What factors affect the strength of the electric field over a uniformly charged disc?

The strength of the electric field over a uniformly charged disc is affected by the magnitude of the charge on the disc, the distance from the disc, and the shape of the disc. The electric field is also affected by the medium in which the disc is placed, as different materials have different permittivity values.

4. How does the electric field change as you move away from the uniformly charged disc?

The electric field decreases in strength as you move away from the uniformly charged disc. This decrease is described by the inverse square law, meaning that the electric field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the disc. This means that the electric field becomes weaker as you move further away from the disc.

5. What are some real-world applications of the "E-Field over Uniformly Charged Disc"?

The concept of the "E-Field over Uniformly Charged Disc" is used in various real-world applications, such as in electronic devices, capacitors, and particle accelerators. It is also used in the study of electrostatics and electromagnetism, as well as in the design of electric motors and generators. Additionally, understanding the electric field over a uniformly charged disc is important in fields such as astronomy, as it helps us understand the behavior of charged particles in space.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
968
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
26
Views
557
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
385
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
821
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
232
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
675
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top