1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Electric field from map of voltage potentials

  1. Nov 3, 2015 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    I recently retired and thought it would be fun to reread my old EM texts. I took Fields and Waves 35 years ago for my undergraduate electrical engineering degree, so I am more than a little rusty. This question is for my personal knowledge, not for a class, but seems to best fit in the homework category.

    I am trying to figure out the following example from Hayt, Engineering Electromagnetics (3d ed. 1974 McGraw-Hill) I have added the A, B, and C labels.


    The example is in Chapter 4, Energy and Potential. For context, the chapter discusses the energy expended in moving a point charge in an electric field (section 4.1); the line integral (section 4.2) (including the work from moving a charge in a radial path in the field of a infinite line charge); the definition of potential difference and potential (section 4.3); the potential field of a point charge (section 4.4); the potential energy of a system of charges: conservative property (section 4.5); potential gradient (section 4.6); the dipole (section 4.7); and energy density in the electrostatic field (section 4.8). This example occurs in the section on potential gradient (section 4.6), which defines the del vector operator [∇] and the relationship between E and V ([itex]{\vec E= -∇{\vec V}}[/itex]). Poisson’s and Laplaces’s equations are not introduced until Chapter 7.

    Because the problem states that this is a portion of a two-dimensional electric field and the potential surfaces are concentric, I initially assumed that we are dealing with an electric field from an infinite line charge and that the electric field is only radial. As explained in the attempt at a solution, I now think this may be wrong because the voltage increases with increasing radius.

    Because the potential decreases with decreasing radius, the electric field must be radially inward, and I assumed that the line charge is negative.

    2. Relevant equations
    For an infinite line charge pL (C/m) and a radial field:

    [itex]E = \frac {ρ_L}{2πε_0r}[/itex]

    [itex]{V_{AB} = \int_B ^A \vec E\, \cdot \, d\vec L = \int_B ^A \vec E\, \cdot \, d\vec r} [/itex]

    The equation for a circle:


    3. The attempt at a solution

    I used the equation for the voltage difference going from point B (on the 104 V circle) to point A (point a on the 106 V circle) in the radial direction, which I choose because the points are shown as 2 mm = 0.002 m apart:

    [itex]{V_{AB} = V_A - V_B = - \int_B ^A \vec E_r\, \cdot \, d\vec r = - \frac {ρ_L}{2πε_0} ln(r) |_{r_B} ^{r_A}} [/itex]

    [itex]{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 106-104 = - \frac {ρ_L}{2πε_0} ln(\frac {r_A} {r_B})} [/itex]

    [itex]{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 2 = - \frac {ρ_L}{2πε_0} ln(\frac {r_A} {r_B})} \ \ \ \ \ \ [/itex] Eqn. (1)

    And, from the map

    [itex]r_B = r_A - 0.002[/itex]

    There are 2 variables, [itex]{ρ_L}[/itex] and [itex]{r_A}[/itex], and we have only one equation. Picking another voltage difference and going from point C (on the 102 V circle) to point A (point a on the 106 V circle) in the radial direction (it doesn't seem that this is right because the distance has to be estimated, unlike the distance from B to A).

    [itex]{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 4 = - \frac {ρ_L}{2πε_0} ln(\frac {r_A} {r_C})}\ \ \ \ \ \ [/itex] Eqn. (2)

    And, from the map, point C is about 3.7 mm from point A

    [itex]r_C = r_B - 0.0037[/itex]

    Substituting and dividing Eqn. (1) by Eqn. (2):

    [itex]{\frac{2}{4} = \frac {1}{2} = \frac {ln(\frac {r_A}{r_A - 0.002})} {ln(\frac {r_A}{r_A - 0.0037})} } [/itex]

    [itex]{ln({\frac {r_A}{r_A - 0.002})} = 2{ln(\frac {r_A}{r_A - 0.0037})} } [/itex]

    [itex]{\frac {r_A}{r_A - 0.002} = e^2({\frac {r_A}{r_A - 0.0037})} = 7.3891({\frac {r_A}{r_A - 0.0037})}} [/itex]

    [itex]{r_A - 0.002 = 7.3891(r_A - 0.0037)} [/itex]

    [itex]{r_A = 0.004} [/itex]

    Unfortunately, this does not agree with the map. The first problem I see is that the distance between every 2 V equipotential surface is decreasing towards the center (e.g., from 106 V to 104 V is 2 mm and from 104 V to 102 V is about 1.75 mm), so the radius from the center to 106 V should be no more than 106/2 = 53 mm = 0.053 m and the radius to 104 V should be 2 mm less than that = 0.051 mm (just to get a subjective feel for what is happening). This would mean that ln(r)<0, ln(0.051)= -2.9754, ln(0.053)= -2.9375, and therefore ln(0.051)>ln(0.053) which implies that the voltage potential would decrease with increasing radius, contrary to the figure. If r>1, then ln(r)>1 and is increasing, e.g., ln(1.02)=0.0198, ln(1.04)=0.0392, and ln(1.06)=0.0583; however, r is not greater than 1.

    The second problem I see is that it would seem that for a negative infinite line charge, the values of equipotential should be decreasing with increasing radius, e.g., -104 V, -102V, -100 V, etc., so V##\to##0 as r##\to \infty##. However, the figure shows positive increasing values. Similarly, for a positive line charge, the values of the equipotential would be expected to decrease with increasing radius, e.g., 104 V, 102 V, 100V, etc., so V##\to##0 as r##\to \infty##. However, the figure shows increasing values.

    It seems, therefore, that the usual relationships for an infinite line charge are not to be used and the problem may be asking to find a function V(x,y). Because the equipotentials are concentric, it seems that the equation for a circle is at least part of the answer. For point a it seems that we only need to worry about a function in in terms of the radius, V(r). It seems that there must be a factor of ln(r) somewhere to account for the fact that the distance between equipotential surfaces is increasing with r. And it seems that r>1 because the voltage potential is increasing with r. I don’t see an easy way to derive a function that gives the values of V or the value of the radius.

    I have tried working backward from the solutions, but this doesn't seem to work. From part (a):

    [itex]{\vec E = -900 \vec a_y = -900 \vec a_r = -∇{\vec V} = \frac {\partial V}{\partial r} \vec a_r}\,\,\,\,\,[/itex] (where [itex]\vec a_y = \vec a_r[/itex])

    [itex]{V = \int \vec E\, \cdot \, dr\vec a_r = \int 900 \vec a_r \cdot dr\vec a_r = 900r}[/itex]

    This doesn't help in terms of giving a general expression for V(x,y) or V(r) that I can see and, of course, I needed E to get this far. From part (b), the gradient is along the radius, with x=.006 from center, y=unknown. so I tried making the gradient components proportional to the distances: .006/450=y/700. This gave a value of y=.006(700/450)=0.0093. This does not seem to agree with the map. However, the value for [itex]{\vec E} [/itex] at point b is [itex]{-\sqrt {450^2 + 700^2} = -832 \vec r} [/itex] which is consistent with [itex]{\vec E = -900 \vec r} [/itex] for point a (since E is increasing with decreasing radius).

    Because the example occurs early in the book, and the answers look simple, it does not seem that it should be too hard. Probably I am overlooking something obvious. Any hints would be appreciated.
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 3, 2015 #2


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Hello LeeB66. Welcome to PF!

    As you noted, it does not look like this is the potential distribution from a line charge.

    Perhaps they want you to get an approximate answer by approximating ##\vec{E} = -\vec{\nabla}V##.

    Thus, ##E_x = -\frac{\partial V}{\partial x} \approx -\frac{\Delta V}{\Delta x}## while keeping ##y## constant. Similarly for ##E_y##.

    You will only be able to get approximate results, say to the nearest 50 V/m (if you're lucky :smile:).
  4. Nov 3, 2015 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I have no idea what you are supposed to do and I haven't yet worked out my answer, but when I read the question, before I looked at your attempts, I assumed it was to be done by plotting graphs. I didn't read anything about symmetry and assumed it was an arbitrary field.

    Linear interpolation gave me very approximately
    ya = - 4V / 4.4mm = -0.091 V/mm = - 910 V/m
    xa = 0
    yb = -2V / 2.8mm = -0.71 V/mm = - 710 V/m
    xb = -2V / 4.3mm = -0.47 V/mm = - 470 V/m

    Perhaps if I plot the graphs and draw tangents I might get a more accurate result, but since I read the positions from the diagram, it wont be much better.`

    Edit Having read the answer, I had just put -ve signs in for the PD's and simply took the contours as 2V differences without looking at the actual values. Looking again at the diagram to plot the graphs I can't see the reason for getting a negative answer, so I would not now get -ve answers and although the magnitude of my answers might be approximately right, their sign would be wrong.
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2015
  5. Nov 3, 2015 #4
    Thanks to both of you. The answers looks so exact that I focused on finding an exact mathematical solution rather than trying to interpolate from the map. The fact that the line appear concentric and the 102 V and 104 V curves appear to be exactly 2 mm apart seemed like a clue. However, I think Merlin3189 is correct that the solution is to interpolate. This is probably why there is such a detailed map of the potentials. This simplifies the solution, which is in keeping with the problem being early in the book, and avoids any need to assume symmetry. I will consider the problem solved. Again, thanks to both of you for spending the time.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted