Electric Field & Potential of infinite concentric cylinders

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the electric field and potential of an infinite solid cylinder with a uniform linear charge density inside a hollow cylindrical pipe. Using Gauss's Law, the electric field for different regions was initially calculated, but there were concerns about accurately accounting for the charge densities and the geometry of the hollow cylinder. The user realized they had misapplied the charge densities, leading to incorrect electric field equations. They are seeking clarification on whether to include the thickness of the outer shell in their calculations. The potential calculation is pending until the electric field is correctly determined.
Zanker
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Consider an infinitely long solid cylinder of uniform linear charge density λ1 and radius a inside a hollow cylindrical pipe of inner radius b and outer radius c and uniform linear charge density λ2. A cross-sectional view of the system is shown below(linked and attached). Find the electric field everywhere and determine the electric potential everywhere, taking the outer surface of the pipe as the zero for the potential.

Homework Equations

/The attempt at a solution[/B]
I easily enough determined through Gauss's Law the Electric field from r=0 to r=a, using E*A = Q/ε0 to find E = (λ1*r)/(2ε0) and from r=a to r=b as E = (λ1*r)(a2)/(2*ε0*r). My question lies within the dealing of a non-shell hollow cylinder, and how I find the field produced within and outside of the area from r=b to r=c. My initial thought was that within the outer thick shell would be E = (λ2*r)/(2ε0) + (λ1*r)(a2)/(2*ε0*r), and outside the shell (r>c) would be E = (λ1*r)(a2)/(2*ε0*r) + (λ2*r)(c2)/(2*ε0*r). However, I feel like this doesn't necessarily cover all of my bases, since I feel like I am neglecting the b term. Should the E from the outer thick shell use (c-b)2 rather than just the c term? I think that would make more sense. I haven't tackled the potential portion yet, I feel that would be easier after I determine the field everywhere. Thanks for the help, this is my first time on the site.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    2.7 KB · Views: 646
Physics news on Phys.org
Whelp, I also realized I calculated the E fields incorrectly, using λ1 and λ2 as charge densities rather than the linear charge densities they are. This means that my E from r=0 to r=a is (λ1*r)/(2πε0*a2), from r=a to r=b as E = (λ1)/(2*π*ε0*r) with the other equations following in suit.
 
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