Electric field of a uniformly charged disk

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the electric field of a uniformly charged disk by analyzing the charge distribution through concentric rings. The infinitesimal charge is expressed as dq = σdA = σ(2πr dr), where σ represents surface charge density. A participant clarifies that while the area of a ring can be calculated using the formula ∏(R2^2 - R1^2), the approximation using 2πr dr is valid for small dr, leading to accurate results in the context of continuous charge distributions. This approximation is essential for simplifying the calculations in electrostatics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electrostatics and electric fields
  • Familiarity with calculus, particularly integration techniques
  • Knowledge of surface charge density (σ)
  • Concept of infinitesimal elements in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of electric fields from continuous charge distributions
  • Learn about the application of calculus in electrostatics
  • Explore the concept of surface charge density in greater detail
  • Investigate the implications of approximations in physics calculations
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, electrical engineers, and anyone studying electrostatics or working with charge distributions in theoretical or applied contexts.

member 392791
Hello,

I am looking at an example of finding the charge of a uniform disk with a continuous charge on the surface.

They go about the problem by finding the infinitesimal charge of concentric rings

dq = σdA = σ(2πr dr)

The part I don't understand is that they use the area as 2πr dr? The area of a ring would be ∏(R2^2 - R1^2), right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Woopydalan said:
The area of a ring would be ∏(R2^2 - R1^2), right?

Correct, that's the exact area of the ring. However, if dr = R2 - R1 is small, the other formula is a very good approximation, which gets better and better as dr becomes smaller and smaller. To see this, let R2 = R1 + dr in the equation above, cancel out whatever you can, and then drop any terms with (dr)^2. Those terms become negligible compared to terms with just dr, when dr is very small.
 
Ok I just calculated it and now I see. The book didn't even bother to explain that approximation, which left me confused. Thank you for clearing that up so quickly =)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
580
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
510
Replies
92
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K