Electric field of a hollow cylinder

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the electric field of a hollow cylinder by integrating the contributions from many thin rings along its length. The original poster describes their approach and expresses uncertainty about the correctness of their result, particularly regarding the dependence on the observation point.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the electric field using integration, but questions arise about the representation of distances and the variables used in the equations. Participants discuss the transition from the electric field of a ring to the infinitesimal contribution and the implications of the observation point's location.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's reasoning, offering clarifications and corrections regarding variable definitions and the setup of the problem. There is a sense of progress as the original poster revises their approach based on feedback, but no consensus on the final answer has been reached.

Contextual Notes

The original poster notes that they cannot verify their results against a textbook answer, and they mention constraints such as the absence of their professor for guidance. The discussion includes considerations of how to test the validity of the derived expression.

Zack K
Messages
166
Reaction score
6
Homework Statement
A thin-walled hollow circular glass tube, open at both ends, has a radius R and length L. The axis of the tube lies along the x axis, with the left end at the origin. The outer sides are rubbed with silk and acquire a net positive charge +Q distributed uniformly. Determine the electric field at a location on the x axis, a distance w from the origin. s
Relevant Equations
##E_{ring}=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{Qz}{(R^2+z^2)^{3/2}}##
I uploaded a diagram of the problem.

I treated this as many thin rings and integrated it over the length. I placed my origin as in the same place as the uploaded picture.

Finding the electric field due to one small ring:

##\vec r =\langle w-x, 0, 0 \rangle## where ##x## is the distance of the thin ring from the origin.
##|\vec r|= w-x## ##\therefore \hat r=1##

Now this is the spot where I'm sure I made a mistake. So using the equation of a thin ring, and representing that infinitesimally, we get:
##dE=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{\Delta Q x}{(R^2+x^2)^{3/2}}##

##\Delta Q=Q\left(\frac{2\pi R\Delta x}{2\pi R L}\right)=Q\frac{\Delta x}{L}##

##dE=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{(Q\frac{\Delta x }{L})x}{(R^2+x^2)^{3/2}}##

Integrating from ##x=0## to ##x=L##:

##E=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{Q}{L}\int_0^L \frac{x}{(R^2+x^2)^{3/2}}dx##

Solving that integral, we get:

##E=\frac{KQ}{2L}\left( -\frac{1}{\sqrt{R^2+L^2}}+\frac{1}{R} \right)##

This doesn't seem right at all, and I have no way of checking since my book doesn't have the answer for this. My classes are over and my professor is at some conference, and I can't use Gauss's Law to check my answer since the electric field at that point is pointing in different directions.
 

Attachments

  • w0052.png
    w0052.png
    1.4 KB · Views: 667
Physics news on Phys.org
Zack K said:
I uploaded a diagram of the problem.

I treated this as many thin rings and integrated it over the length. I placed my origin as in the same place as the uploaded picture.

Finding the electric field due to one small ring:

##\vec r =\langle w-x, 0, 0 \rangle## where ##x## is the distance of the thin ring from the origin.
##|\vec r|= w-x## ##\therefore \hat r=1##

Now this is the spot where I'm sure I made a mistake. So using the equation of a thin ring, and representing that infinitesimally, we get:
##dE=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{\Delta Q x}{(R^2+x^2)^{3/2}}##

##\Delta Q=Q\left(\frac{2\pi R\Delta x}{2\pi R L}\right)=Q\frac{\Delta x}{L}##

##dE=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{(Q\frac{\Delta x }{L})x}{(R^2+x^2)^{3/2}}##

Integrating from ##x=0## to ##x=L##:

##E=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{Q}{L}\int_0^L \frac{x}{(R^2+x^2)^{3/2}}dx##

Solving that integral, we get:

##E=\frac{KQ}{2L}\left( -\frac{1}{\sqrt{R^2+L^2}}+\frac{1}{R} \right)##

This doesn't seem right at all, and I have no way of checking since my book doesn't have the answer for this. My classes are over and my professor is at some conference, and I can't use Gauss's Law to check my answer since the electric field at that point is pointing in different directions.
Yes, It's not correct.

In the diagram you provided (see immediately below) it looks like ##w## may be the point of observation on the ##x\text{-axis}##. That is to say, you intend to evaluate the electric field at ##x=w\,.##

241771


In that case your result should depend on ##w## .

In the Relevant equation you give,
##\displaystyle E_{ring}=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{Qz}{(R^2+z^2)^{3/2}} \ ,##​
what do the variables represent? In particular, what does ##z## represent?
 
SammyS said:
In particular, what does zzz represen
My bad, ##z## represents an arbitrary location, ##Q## is the charge of the ring and ##R## is the radius of the ring.

SammyS said:
In that case your result should depend on w
Yes that's what bothers me, my answer doesn't depend on a distance.

I think my mistake lies some where from the transition from
##E_{ring}=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{Qz}{(R^2+z^2)^{3/2}}## to ##dE=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{\Delta Q x}{(R^2+x^2)^{3/2}}##

Something that comes to mind, is that my distance vector is represented as ##\vec r= \langle w-x, 0, 0 \rangle##, but in my transition from ##E## to ##dE## I stated above, I labelled the distance as simply ##x##. Should it maybe be ##w-x## instead of just ##x##?
 
Zack K said:
My bad, ##z## represents an arbitrary location, ##Q## is the charge of the ring and ##R## is the radius of the ring.Yes that's what bothers me, my answer doesn't depend on a distance.

I think my mistake lies some where from the transition from
##E_{ring}=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{Qz}{(R^2+z^2)^{3/2}}## to ##dE=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{\Delta Q x}{(R^2+x^2)^{3/2}}##

Something that comes to mind, is that my distance vector is represented as ##\vec r= \langle w-x, 0, 0 \rangle##, but in my transition from ##E## to ##dE## I stated above, I labelled the distance as simply ##x##. Should it maybe be ##w-x## instead of just ##x##?
Yes, ##z## is something like that. Actually, ##z## is the distance from the point of observation to the plane containing the ring. That's the x-coordinate of your ##\vec r ## vector. Right?

##x## represents the location a slice of your cylinder (a ring) and ##w## is the location of the point of observation. (Both locations are on the x-axis.)

How far is each slice from the point of observation?
 
Last edited:
SammyS said:
How far is each slice from the point of observation?
Isn't it how I represented it? As ##w-x##?

I'll try integrating this and see what I get.
 
Zack K said:
Isn't it how I represented it? As ##w-x##?

I'll try integrating this and see what I get.
What ##d## ?

No. It's ##(w-x)##, is it not?
 
SammyS said:
What ##d## ?

No. It's ##(w-x)##, is it not?
Yes sorry I changed it, ##d-w## is from another problem stuck in my head.

So I carried out ##E=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{Q}{L}\int_0^L \frac{(w-x)}{(R^2+(w-x)^2)^{3/2}}dx##

Giving me: ##E_x=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{Q}{L}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{R^2+(w-L)^2}}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{R^2+w^2}}\right]##

Looks like it makes more sense, but doesn't look pretty. How exactly do I test to see if this makes sense? I can't think of any limit tests that will clarify if the result is valid.
 
Zack K said:
Yes sorry I changed it, ##d-w## is from another problem stuck in my head.

So I carried out ##E=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{Q}{L}\int_0^L \frac{(w-x)}{(R^2+(w-x)^2)^{3/2}}dx##

Giving me: ##E_x=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{Q}{L}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{R^2+(w-L)^2}}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{R^2+w^2}}\right]##

Looks like it makes more sense, but doesn't look pretty. How exactly do I test to see if this makes sense? I can't think of any limit tests that will clarify if the result is valid.
That looks good.

Let ##R \to 0## .
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Zack K

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
880
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K