Electric field along a finite rod

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the electric field and potential due to a finite charged rod, focusing on the relationships between charge distribution, distance, and electric field components. The subject area includes electrostatics and calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the calculation of electric potential and field by integrating contributions from differential charge elements along the rod. Questions arise regarding the correct definitions of variables and limits of integration, as well as the implications of assumptions made about the charge distribution.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, clarifying definitions and relationships between variables. Some guidance has been offered regarding the setup of integrals and the importance of careful notation. There is an ongoing exploration of different interpretations of the problem setup.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential confusion regarding the definitions of distance variables and the limits of integration based on the position of point P relative to the rod. There is an emphasis on ensuring clarity in the definitions used for charge elements and distances.

mintsnapple
Messages
50
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



jz9w12.png


Homework Equations



V = q/(4*pi*E_0*r), when 0 is taken at infinity
dV = -E*ds

The Attempt at a Solution



a. The total charge of the rod is given by Q = lambda*L
So the potential at P is given by
V = (lambda*L)/(4*pi*E_0*y)

b. We can calculate the electric field by differentiating part a with respect to y to get:
E = -(lambda*L)/(4*pi*E_0*y^2)*y-hat

c. Because point P is along the axis of the rod, there is no x-component to the electric field.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you have a specific concern?
... for part (a) your answer looks to be the same as if the entire charge were concentrated at the upper end of the rod. Does that make sense?
Try redoing it using calculus and compare.
 
Ah. So I would need to find a dQ value over 1/(4*pi*E_0*y) to integrate?
So, since Q = lambda*L,
dQ = lambda*dL?

And then the integral would go from y to y+L?
 
You need to be careful about your notation:
Ah. So I would need to find a dQ value over 1/(4*pi*E_0*y) to integrate?
This sentence does not make sense ...
You have to add up the contributions due to each element of charge in the rod.

So, since Q = lambda*L,
dQ = lambda*dL?
If the rod is on a z axis, then the charge between z and z+dz, on the rod, is dQ

And then the integral would go from y to y+L?
No - you only add up the contributions from where there is charge.
If you put the rod in -L<z<0 and point P is at z=y you should find it easier to talk about.
 
Sorry, what I meant was, I need to find V using
dV = dQ/(4*pi*E_0*r). In this case, r is y, and dQ is lambda*dL, that is, dQ is the charge of a really small length along the rod dL.

So then, can I set the bottom of the rod to be 0, and integrate from 0 to L? Why can't I integrate from y to y+L, if I set the top of the rod to be y, so then the bottom must be y+L?
 
Sorry, what I meant was, I need to find V using
dV = dQ/(4*pi*E_0*r). In this case, r is y,
... no it isn't. r is the distance between point P and the position of the charge element dQ.
"y" is the distance between the end of the rod and the point of interest where you have to find the potential. This distance will be different for different positions along the rod.

So then, can I set the bottom of the rod to be 0, and integrate from 0 to L? Why can't I integrate from y to y+L, if I set the top of the rod to be y, so then the bottom must be y+L?
Oh if you put point P at the origin, then you integrate from y to y+L yes.
The main thing is to be clear about your definitions.
 
Thank you so much for helping me. I am understanding this concept a lot more now.

I just have a few more things:

I get the difference between r and y now. So then, if I say z is the distance between point P and some element dQ, then I also define
dQ = lambda*dz

dV = dQ(4*pi*E_0*r) = (lambda*dz)/(4*pi*E_0*z), integrating from y to y+L, does that sound correct?
 
dV = [strike]dQ(4*pi*E_0*r)[/strike] = (lambda*dz)/(4*pi*E_0*z), integrating from y to y+L, does that sound correct?
... leave off the middle bit because "r" is no longer in the definition of the problem.
You also want to specify that P is at the origin and you are putting the rod: y < z < y+L.
Now you are set up - need only to do the integration.
 
Thanks! But are part b and c correct? That is for part b, I would just need to differentiate part a with respect to y, and then part c the electric field perpendicular should be 0.
 
  • #10
You want to be a tad careful for the last two to use the definition directly.
Particularly for the last one - the answers are not wrong, just not as correct as they could be.

Remember - electric field is a vector, while part (a) gives you a scalar.
Don't forget the reality check - what does the minus sign mean?
Which way should the force point for a positive charge on the y axis?
Is that consistent with your result?

You answer for (c) is a good finesse on the math result - you should still show the same using maths.

Mind you: I've not seen the marking schedule.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K