Electric field above the centre of a rectangle

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the electric field at a point above the center of a rectangle with a given charge density. Participants emphasize the need to integrate the electric field contributions from differential line segments of charge along the rectangle's dimensions. The electric field equations for point charges and line charges are referenced, with suggestions to treat the rectangle as composed of thin strips for integration. There is some confusion regarding the integration bounds and the correct interpretation of the charge density, with clarifications provided on how to approach the problem systematically. Ultimately, the electric field at the specified point is derived from the contributions of both the x and y components of the electric field from these charge segments.
  • #31
says said:
The z in the hyperphysics diagram is the distance from the charge to the point P. I'm guessing the z in post #27 should be y for when we integrate dy
No need to guess. Just study the two integrals in post #27. What do you have to replace the z2 inside the second integral (the one from the link) with in order to make it look like the integrand that I quoted just above it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
haruspex said:
No need to guess. Just study the two integrals in post #27. What do you have to replace the z2 inside the second integral (the one from the link) with in order to make it look like the integrand that I quoted just above it?

the z2 inside the second integral would be y2
 
  • #33
says said:
the z2 inside the second integral would be y2
No, that would make the integrand ##(x^2+y^2)^{-\frac 32}##. You need ##(x^2+y^2+r^2)^{-\frac 32}##
 
  • #34
k = 8.98 * 109
λ = 4*10^-6
a = 0
b=0.10m
z = y2 + r2

Ez = 2kλz ∫ dx / (z2 + x2)3/2
Ez = 2kλ/y2 + r2 [ x / (y2 + r2 + x2)1/2] (evaluated from 0 to 10)
 
Last edited:
  • #35
says said:
z = y2+ r2
Closer.
 
  • #36
z = √[y2 + r2]
 
  • #37
k = 8.98 * 109
λ = 4*10^-6
a = 0
b=0.10m
z = √r2-x2-y2

Ez = 2kλ/ √(r2-x2-y2) ∫ dx / (√(r2-x2-y2) + x2)3/2
 
  • #38
says said:
z = √[y2 + r2]
Yes. What do you get now for the second stage integral (dy)

says said:
z = √r2-x2-y2
No.
 
  • #39
Ez = 2kλ / √(y2 + r2) [ x / [(√(y2+r2)+x2]1/2] (evaluate x at 0 and 0.10m)

Ez = ∫ 2kλ / √(y2 + r2) [ 0.10 / [(√(y2+r2)+0.102]1/2] (evaluate at y = 0 and 0.05)

I haven't simplified the second integral yet because I didn't want to make any simple mistakes...
 
  • #40
says said:
Ez = 2kλ / √(y2 + r2) [ x / [(√(y2+r2)+x2]1/2] (evaluate x at 0 and 0.10m)

Ez = ∫ 2kλ / √(y2 + r2) [ 0.10 / [(√(y2+r2)+0.102]1/2] (evaluate at y = 0 and 0.05)

I haven't simplified the second integral yet because I didn't want to make any simple mistakes...
You have one too many square roots in each expression.
 
  • #41
Sorry, I'm having a little trouble with formatting at the minute

Ez = 2kλ / √(y2 + r2) [ x / [(y2+r2+x2)1/2] (evaluate x at 0 and 0.10m)

Ez = ∫ 2kλ / √(y2 + r2) [ 0.10 / [(y2+r2)+0.102)1/2] dy (evaluate at y = 0 and 0.05)
 
  • #42
says said:
Sorry, I'm having a little trouble with formatting at the minute

Ez = 2kλ / √(y2 + r2) [ x / [(y2+r2+x2)1/2] (evaluate x at 0 and 0.10m)

Ez = ∫ 2kλ / √(y2 + r2) [ 0.10 / [(y2+r2)+0.102)1/2] dy (evaluate at y = 0 and 0.05)
Yes, that looks right.
 
  • #43
Ez = ∫ 2kλ / √(y2 + r2) [ 0.10 / [(y2+r2)+0.102)1/2] dy (evaluate at y = 0 and 0.05)

substituting in r=0.10

Ez = ∫ 2kλ / √(y2 + 0.102) [ 0.10 / [((y2+0.102)+0.102)1/2]

I'm not sure how to evaluate this integral though
 
  • #44
says said:
Ez = ∫ 2kλ / √(y2 + r2) [ 0.10 / [(y2+r2)+0.102)1/2] dy (evaluate at y = 0 and 0.05)

substituting in r=0.10

Ez = ∫ 2kλ / √(y2 + 0.102) [ 0.10 / [((y2+0.102)+0.102)1/2]

I'm not sure how to evaluate this integral though
Sorry, we went a bit wrong.
The equation from the link was of the form ##k\lambda z\int ... = k\lambda/z [...]
##.
We used it to solve an integral of the form ##k\lambda r \int ...##. So we should have multiplied the link equation through by r/z to get
##k\lambda r\int ... = k\lambda r/z^2 [...]##.
See how that changes your integral in post #43.
 
  • #45
The integral now:

Ez = ∫ 2kλr / (y2 + r2) [ x / (y2+r2+0.102)1/2] dy (evaluate at y = 0 and 0.05)
 
  • #46
says said:
The integral now:

Ez = ∫ 2kλr / (y2 + r2) [ x / (y2+r2+0.102)1/2] dy (evaluate at y = 0 and 0.05)
The x should be 0.1, but otherwise yes (or should there be another factor of 2?).
This is solvable, but it is a bit involved.
First substitution: y=r tan(θ). What do you get?

Edit: to make the typing easier, maybe write a instead of the 0.10.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
I subbed in r=0.10 first

∫ 718.4 / (y2+0.01)(y2+0.02)1/2

I put it in a wolfram calculator (read:cheated) and got:

71840tan-1(7.07107y / √(50*y2+1))
substituting in y=0.05
= 102149.75 N/C
 
  • #48
dEz = (kλdx / r2) z/r
Ez = 2kλz ∫ dx / (z2 + x2)3/2

where
z = √(y2+r2)

Ez = 2kλ/z[ x / (y2+r2) + x2)1/2] (bounds of integration are 0 and 0.10m)

Ez = 2kλr / (y2 + r2) [ 0.10 / ((y2+r2)+0.102)1/2]

k = 8.98*109
λ = 4.0*10-6
r = 0.10

Ez = 7184 / (y2 + 0.102) [ 0.10 / ((y2+0.102)+0.102)1/2]

Ez = [7184 / (y2 + 0.01)] [ 0.10 / ((y2+0.02)1/2]

Ez = ∫ [7184 / (y2 + 0.01)] [ 0.10 / ((y2+0.02)1/2] dy

Ez = 71840tan-1 [ 7.07107y / √(50y2+1)

Ez = 102149.75 N/C
 
  • #49
says said:
I subbed in r=0.10 first

∫ 718.4 / (y2+0.01)(y2+0.02)1/2

I put it in a wolfram calculator (read:cheated) and got:

71840tan-1(7.07107y / √(50*y2+1))
substituting in y=0.05
= 102149.75 N/C
Ok. I haven't checked the numerics.
If you are interested in seeing how the integral can be solved I will post it.
 
  • #50
Yes please!
 
  • #51
Writing ##y=r \tan(\theta)## and c=a/r:
##\int \frac{rady}{(y^2+r^2)(y^2+r^2+a^2)^\frac 12}=\int \frac{c.d\theta}{(c^2+\sec^2(\theta))^\frac 12}##
##=\int \frac {c.d\sin(\theta)}{(1+c^2\cos^2(\theta))^\frac 12}##
writing s for sin(theta) and f2 for a2/(a2+r2):
##=\int \frac{f ds}{(1-f^2s^2)^\frac 12}##
Writing s=sin(φ)/f:
##=\int d\phi=[\phi]##
Then it is just a matter of unwrapping all the substitutions.
 
  • Like
Likes says
  • #52
says said:
Ez = 102149.75 N/C
As a rough check of your numerical answer you can compare your answer to what you would get if you lumped all the charge of the plate together as a point charge at the origin.
 
  • #53
TSny said:
As a rough check of your numerical answer you can compare your answer to what you would get if you lumped all the charge of the plate together as a point charge at the origin.

I'm not sure I follow?
 
  • #54
says said:
I'm not sure I follow?
If you compressed all the charge of the plate into a point charge at the origin, what would be the magnitude of the E field at the point on the z axis at z = 10 cm?

Would you expect this value to be larger or smaller than the answer you got for the plate?
 
  • #55
It would be the same wouldn't it?

I'm not sure how to compress all of the charge of the plate into a point source at the origin though.
 
  • #56
says said:
It would be the same wouldn't it?

I'm not sure how to compress all of the charge of the plate into a point source at the origin though.
You can just imagine that you have a point charge at the origin that has a charge equal to the total charge of the plate.

(1) All the charge in the point charge would be a distance of 10 cm from the point on the z axis at z = 10 cm. Compare that to having the charge spread out on the rectangle. Is all the charge on the rectangle at a distance of 10 cm from the point on the z axis or is most of the charge on the rectangle farther away?

(2) Also, for the rectangle, you had to project out the z-component of the field of each small region of the rectangle. For the point charge, all of the charge produces E field entirely in the z-direction.

Considering (1) and (2), would you expect the field of the plate to be smaller or larger than the field of the point charge?

It is very easy to calculate the E field of the imaginary point charge. So, you can see if your expectation is verified.
 
  • #57
1) if the charge is spread out then most of it is further away.

2) field of the plate would be smaller than that of the point charge
 
  • #58
says said:
1) if the charge is spread out then most of it is further away.

2) field of the plate would be smaller than that of the point charge
Yes. Good. Did you calculate E for the point charge and compare it what you got for the plate?
 
  • #59
Charge density = Q/A
4*10-6 = Q/(0.10*0.20)
Q = 4*10-6 / (0.10*0.20)
Q = 8*10-8
E = kQ/r2
k=8.98*10-9
r=0.10
E=718.4/0.01
E=71840 N/C
 
  • #60
says said:
Charge density = Q/A
4*10-6 = Q/(0.10*0.20)
Q = 4*10-6 / (0.10*0.20)
Q = 8*10-8
E = kQ/r2
k=8.98*10-9
r=0.10
E=718.4/0.01
E=71840 N/C
Looks good. So, what does this tell you about your answer for the field of the rectangle?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
933
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K