Electric Field Intensity at a point due to a infinite line charge

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the electric field intensity at point P(0,3,4) due to infinite uniform line charges along the x and y axes. The relevant equation for electric field due to a line charge is provided, emphasizing the need for radial distance and unit vector direction. Participants clarify that while Gauss's law could be used, it's not necessary for this problem, and the electric field can be determined by considering contributions from both axes individually. It is confirmed that the field at the specified point will yield a constant value, despite being dependent on the z-coordinate. The conclusion emphasizes that the method of calculation does not affect the final result at point P.
Abel I Daniel
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Infinite uniform line charges of 5nc/m lie along the (positive and negative) x and y axes in free space.
Find E at :P(0,3,4)

Homework Equations


E due to line charge along the Z-axis is given by:
E=(λ/(2∏*ε*r))*ar
where λ=line charge density;ε= permitivity;r=radial distance of point from the line charge;ar=unit vector along the direction of E.


The Attempt at a Solution


Here the line charge lies in z=0 plane right??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Abel I Daniel said:
Here the line charge lies in z=0 plane right??

Yes. Is that all you wanted to know?
 
Use Gauss + superposition.
 
ok,but I am trying to do without the help of Gauss law..
 
so,does it require to take both the cases(along x-axis and y-axis)individually and finally add them ??
If that is the method,we will get an expression of function of x and y(instead of a constant value) right?
 
Abel I Daniel said:
so,does it require to take both the cases(along x-axis and y-axis)individually and finally add them ??
If that is the method,we will get an expression of function of x and y(instead of a constant value) right?

No.
When evaluated at (0,3,4) it will be a constant. The method is immaterial to the answer.

Of course, the field at P(x0, y0, z0) is a function of z0 but not of x0 or y0.
 
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