Electric Field Due to a Line of Charge Problem

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on determining the maximum electric field (E) along the central axis of a uniformly charged ring with a radius of R = 2.40 cm. The electric field is expressed by the formula E = kqz/(z^2 + R^2)^(3/2). Participants emphasize the importance of correctly applying calculus techniques, specifically the product and chain rules, to differentiate the equation and find the maximum value of z. The final solution indicates that the maximum electric field occurs at a distance of z = R/√3, which evaluates to approximately 1.70 cm.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric fields and charge distributions
  • Proficiency in calculus, particularly differentiation techniques
  • Familiarity with the product and chain rules of differentiation
  • Knowledge of the physical significance of maxima in mathematical functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the product rule in calculus
  • Learn about the physical implications of electric fields in electrostatics
  • Explore the concept of maxima and minima in calculus
  • Investigate the behavior of electric fields due to different charge distributions
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in physics, particularly those studying electrostatics and calculus, as well as anyone involved in solving problems related to electric fields and charge distributions.

  • #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
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
827
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K