Electric Field Due to a Line of Charge Problem

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the distance from the center of a uniformly charged ring at which the electric field magnitude is maximized. The charge is distributed around a ring of radius R = 2.40 cm, and the electric field is measured along the ring's central axis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the differentiation of the electric field equation to find its maximum, with some expressing uncertainty about the correct application of calculus rules. There are questions about whether to modify the formula before differentiation and how to simplify the resulting expressions.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their attempts at differentiation and simplification. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of product and chain rules, and there is a focus on correcting errors in the differentiation process. Multiple interpretations of the steps involved are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating through complex calculus concepts, including the differentiation of a composite function and the handling of exponents. There is an emphasis on ensuring the correct application of mathematical rules without reaching a final solution yet.

  • #31
Hmm well to be honest I'm kind of stumped again, I'm not sure if there's anything left to factor out... couldn't I just set equal to zero and attempt to find the value for z that would cause that to happen, or is there further simplification to be done?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Well, I think I can re-arrange the equation if I can't simplify further to be...

(1-3z^2) / (z^2 + R^2)^3/2 in which case z must equal the square root of 1/3?
 
  • #33
frankfjf said:
Hmm well to be honest I'm kind of stumped again, I'm not sure if there's anything left to factor out... couldn't I just set equal to zero and attempt to find the value for z that would cause that to happen, or is there further simplification to be done?
Just set it equal to zero and then simplify.

frankfjf said:
Well, I think I can re-arrange the equation if I can't simplify further to be...

(1-3z^2) / (z^2 + R^2)^3/2 in which case z must equal the square root of 1/3?
Not sure how you got this.
 
  • #34
I fear I might need a hint again. If I put an "= 0" at the end, I'm not sure how I'd get something on the other side. Only thing I can think of is to use the binomial theorem on the expression in the brackets, but I'm not sure if such a thing is fair play or helps to simplify it.
 
  • #35
Take the derivative (your expression in post #29) and set it equal to zero. Realize that each factor can be set equal to zero, if possible. (Don't dare use the binomial theorem.)
 
  • #36
That's just it though, I'm not sure what to set z to that would make any of the factors zero, due to z being squared on both factors, I can't reliably use negative numbers...
 
Last edited:
  • #37
I think that Doc Al's gone offline, could someone help me finish this problem? Doc Al's patience with me has been legendary and I hope he helps me finish it, but this problem has really been plaguing me.
 
  • #38
frankfjf said:
Well, I think I can re-arrange the equation if I can't simplify further to be...

(1-3z^2) / (z^2 + R^2)^3/2 in which case z must equal the square root of 1/3?

dimensionally, this is incorrect... since in 1-3z^2, you'd be adding a pure number and something with m^2.

Go back to
frankfjf said:
Oh, I apologize, that was a typo.

Since we've got f'(x)g(x) + f(x)g'(x), wouldn't that be...

(z^2 + R^2)^-3/2 - 3z^2(z^2 + R^2)^-5/2?
Factor out (z^2 + R^2)^-5/2 from each term.
 
  • #39
So should I abandon the equation I got in post #29?
 
  • #40
Regardless, I'll give it a shot. If I factor that out, my guess is I get something like...

(z^2 + R^2)^-5/2[(z^2 + R^2) - 3z^2]

is that correct?

Wait, ah-ha! Now I've got..

(R^2 - 2z^2) / (z^2 + R^2)^-5/2

Set equal to zero, z would have to be R/2^1/2. Since I know R, I can just plug it in now. Rmax = 1.70cm which lines up with the answer given in the book.

Thanks Doc Al and robphy. I apologize for trying your patience and am thankful for your help.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
#29 looked okay... but I think my suggestion is neater.

#40 looks correct.
Now, the bracketed term can be simplified.
Note that this entire expression must be zero at an extremum.
Note that (z^2 + R^2)^-5/2 is never zero for finite z and R.

As a check of your final answer, you might wish to plot your E(z) vs z.
 
  • #42
frankfjf said:
Regardless, I'll give it a shot. If I factor that out, my guess is I get something like...

(z^2 + R^2)^-5/2[(z^2 + R^2) - 3z^2]

is that correct?

Wait, ah-ha! Now I've got..

(R^2 - 2z^2) / (z^2 + R^2)^-5/2

Set equal to zero, z would have to be R/2^1/2. Since I know R, I can just plug it in now. Rmax = 1.70cm which lines up with the answer given in the book.

Thanks Doc Al and robphy. I apologize for trying your patience and am thankful for your help.

Great!
...although a typo:
Not
(R^2 - 2z^2) / (z^2 + R^2)^-5/2
but either
(R^2 - 2z^2) * (z^2 + R^2)^-5/2
or
(R^2 - 2z^2) / (z^2 + R^2)^5/2
 
  • #43
Oh, that was indeed a typo, forgot that once it's "back down there" so to speak, the exponent need not be negative.
 
  • #44
frankfjf said:
So should I abandon the equation I got in post #29?
Just for the record, here's how I would finish this starting from the expression in post #29.

(1) Set it equal to zero:
(z^2 + R^2)^-3/2 [1 - 3z^2(z^2 + R^2)^-1] = 0

(I've color-coded the factors to make them easy to refer to.)

(2) Now solve for the value of z that makes each factor equal to zero. Start with the first (red) factor: the only way that can equal zero is for z to be +/- infinity; that's not the answer we want.

Now the second (blue) factor:
[1 - 3z^2(z^2 + R^2)^-1] = 0
1 = 3z^2/(z^2 + R^2)
z^2 + R^2 = 3z^2
z = R/2^1/2

That's the one you want. Easy!
 
  • #45
I think #40 is algebraically simpler, with fewer fractions.
I think #29 has some appeal since it arranges terms into dimensionless quantities, which could be useful for scaling arguments and making approximations.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K