Electric Field of a Uniformly Charged Rod

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the electric field along the axis of a uniformly charged rod, specifically a rod that is 16.0 cm long with a total charge of -21.0 µC, at a point 42.0 cm from its center. Participants are exploring the relevant equations and concepts related to electric fields generated by charge distributions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the formula for the electric field and its derivation, questioning the components of the equation, particularly the numerator and denominator. There is an exploration of the need for calculus to integrate contributions from small segments of the rod and how this relates to the electric field.

Discussion Status

There is an active exchange of ideas regarding the validity of the formula provided by the original poster, with some participants affirming its correctness while others challenge it. The discussion includes attempts to clarify the integration limits and the physical interpretation of the variables involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating through potential misunderstandings of the electric field equations, particularly in the context of finite versus infinite charge distributions. There are indications of confusion regarding the setup of the problem and the definitions of the variables used in the equations.

Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


A rod 16.0 cm long is uniformly charged and has a total charge of -21.0 µC. Determine the magnitude and direction of the electric field along the axis of the rod at a point 42.0 cm from its center.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



The equation I am advised to use is, \vec{E}=k_e\frac{\lambda l}{d(l+d)}, which becomes \vec{E}=k_e\frac{q}{d(l+d)}. I understand how the numerator is formed, but how the author comes up with the numerator is something I am a little confused about. Could some possible explain how this formula is developed and what precisely it means?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The numerator in this equation is simply the charge related to the charge density.

where λ = delta Q / delta L -> delta Q = λ*delta L

The equation as a whole of course is simply the definition of the electric field from Coulomb's law.
 
Okay, I understand that. But what about the denominator, shouldn't it somehow resemble r^2?
 
Bashyboy said:
Okay, I understand that. But what about the denominator, shouldn't it somehow resemble r^2?

It is r^2 if it is a point charge but you have a rod here! You need to select a small part of the rod, find the electric field due to that small part and integrate. You would require a bit of calculus here.
 
Oh, I see. I thought that that was the general pattern for all electric field equations. But as you have mentioned, that is not the case though.
 
The formula you mentioned doesn't seem right to me. Are you sure you wrote down the correct formula?
 
Pranav-Arora said:
The formula you mentioned doesn't seem right to me. Are you sure you wrote down the correct formula?

It's correct

λ = Q/L

dE = k λ(delta x)/(x^2)

Integrate from d to d+l (with an added bit of algebra) to obtain the expression given.

The continuous charge distribution for a uniformly charged rod is usually given as follows, and is maybe the more familiar one, but used in a different physical situation:

http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/cymbalyuk/Lecture13.pdf

EDIT: pdf equation not relevant
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Epistimi said:
It's correct

λ = Q/L

dE = k λ(delta x)/(x^2)

Integrate from d to d+l (with an added bit of algebra) to obtain the expression given.

The continuous charge distribution for a uniformly charged rod is usually given as follows, and is maybe more useful and familiar:

http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/cymbalyuk/Lecture13.pdf

Nope, it isn't correct.
The pdf you linked shows the correct formula and its derivation.

You can verify the formula mentioned by the OP by simply considering the length of the rod to be much larger than d. If l>>>d then expression becomes kλ/d. This is wrong because electric field due to an infinitely large thin wire is 2kλ/d at a distance d from it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pranav-Arora said:
Nope, it isn't correct.
The pdf you linked shows the correct formula and its derivation.

You can verify the formula mentioned by the OP by simply considering the length of the rod to be much larger than d. If l>>>d then expression becomes kλ/d. This is wrong because electric field due to an infinitely large thin wire is 2kλ/d at a distance d from it.

The equation given by the OP is relevant when the point charge is along the axis of the rod, and the rod is finite. The equation given in the pdf, the more familiar form, is for a different physical situation as shown in the diagrams for the pdf.

To understand the validity of the OP's equation, consider the point charge to be along the axis of the rod. Define l as being the length of the rod, and d to be the minimum x position of the rod where the point charge is at the origin. Integrate dE from d to d+l, take out the constants from the integrand, then find a common denominator to derive the OP's expression. It is valid. Furthermore, it contains the necessary information for a numerical solution to the OP's original question.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Epistimi said:
The equation given by the OP is relevant when the point charge is along the axis of the rod, and the rod is finite. The equation given in the pdf, the more familiar form, is for a different physical situation as shown in the diagrams for the pdf.

To understand the validity of the OP's equation, consider the point charge to be along the axis of the rod. Define l as being the length of the rod, and d to be the minimum x position of the rod where the point charge is at the origin. Integrate dE from d to d+l, take out the constants from the integrand, then find a common denominator to derive the OP's expression. It is valid. Furthermore, it contains the necessary information for a numerical solution to the OP's original question.

Explain me why you integrate from d to d+l. Your limits are completely wrong. Show me the equation you set up for dE.
 
  • #11
Bashyboy said:

The Attempt at a Solution



The equation I am advised to use is, \vec{E}=k_e\frac{\lambda l}{d(l+d)}, which becomes \vec{E}=k_e\frac{q}{d(l+d)}. I understand how the numerator is formed, but how the author comes up with the numerator is something I am a little confused about. Could some possible explain how this formula is developed and what precisely it means?

Before using the formula you need to know the meaning of the notations. What are d and l?

The picture explains it. Integrate the contribution of the little element dq=λdl from x=d to x=d+l.

ehild
 

Attachments

  • linecharge.JPG
    linecharge.JPG
    7.7 KB · Views: 937
  • #12
Woops, I read the question wrong. Sorry for the trouble.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K