Electric field and charge density

AI Thread Summary
A uniform line charge with a density λ is placed along the x-axis, and its total charge is 11 nC. The electric field at x=2L is given as 500 N/C, and the task is to find the electric field at x=3L. Participants discuss the need to establish a relationship between the electric fields at these two points, suggesting the use of integrals to derive the electric field from the charge distribution. There is confusion over the correct integral setup and the variables involved, particularly regarding the distance and charge values. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between the electric field and distance from the charge.
peaceandlove
Messages
66
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A uniform line charge of density λ lies on the x-axis between x=0 and x=L. Its total charge is 11 nC. The electric field at x=2L is (500 N/C)ˆı. Find the electric field at x=3L. Answer in units of N/C.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I have no clue where to even begin...I know that eventually I need to obtain a relationship between E(2L) and E(3L) but besides that I'm totally lost.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
peaceandlove said:

Homework Statement


A uniform line charge of density λ lies on the x-axis between x=0 and x=L. Its total charge is 11 nC. The electric field at x=2L is (500 N/C)ˆı. Find the electric field at x=3L. Answer in units of N/C.

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution


I have no clue where to even begin...I know that eventually I need to obtain a relationship between E(2L) and E(3L) but besides that I'm totally lost.

Develop an integral for a charged line segment along the x-axis. Won't that then tell you what the relationship between distance along x and field strength?
 
I can't seem to get the integral right... I got (1/4(pi)e_0)*(qQ/(d(d+L)). Perhaps I calculated it wrong because I'm not sure what q is.
 
peaceandlove said:
I can't seem to get the integral right... I got (1/4(pi)e_0)*(qQ/(d(d+L)). Perhaps I calculated it wrong because I'm not sure what q is.

What you don't know is what L is.

By giving you the field intensity at 2L, then they are telling you what it is. But rather than calculate it out I'd just go to the ratio and figure the L based on the ratio of the dependency on L.

For instance you should get a result based on the charges being arranged 1L to 2L, and when measured at 3L, the field will be evaluated with the charges 2L to 3L away.
 
Do I do that using the integral I developed? And if so does that mean the one I came up with is correct?
 
peaceandlove said:
Do I do that using the integral I developed? And if so does that mean the one I came up with is correct?

Sorry, I didn't work out your integral. I simply note that you should have an equation of the form

E = kλ∫ 1/r2 = - K/r

where K is the grouped constants (which will cancel out) and r is evaluated from 1 to 2, or 2 to 3.
Then take the ratio of the equations right?

E3/500 = (K*(1/2 - 1/3))/(K*(1-1/2)
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top