Electric potential at the center of a cylinder enclosed in a cylindrical shell

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a solid metal cylinder with a charge, surrounded by a coaxial metal shell that carries no net charge. The task is to find the electric potential at the center of the cylinder, using a specific reference point for the potential.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss using Gauss's law to find the electric field and integrating to determine the potential. There are questions about the electric field at the boundaries and the implications of discontinuities in the electric field.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered guidance regarding the integration process and the handling of the electric field's discontinuities. There is ongoing clarification about the limits of integration and the relationship between the potential at different points.

Contextual Notes

Participants express confusion regarding the integration limits and the behavior of the electric field in different regions, particularly within the conductor and at the boundaries. There is also mention of the reference point for potential and its implications for the calculations.

aftershock
Messages
106
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A solid metal cylinder of radius R and length L, carrying a charge Q, is surrounded by a thick coaxial metal shell of inner radius a and outer radius b. The shell carries no net charge. Find the potential at the center, using r=b as the reference point.

Homework Equations



V= (1/4πεo)q/r

V = -∫E dot dl

The Attempt at a Solution



The cylinder is not infinite but I assume I'd have to ignore end effects.

I want to approach this problem using gauss's law to find the field and then integrating. I don't even think I can use the first equation since my reference point is not at infinity.

This is easy enough but I'm having problems because I don't know the electric field at the boundaries. I can find the field easily when r<R when R < a < b and when a < r < b

I don't know what the field is exactly at the surfaces?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello, aftershock.

The fact that E is discontinuous at the surfaces will not cause any problem. You do not need to worry about the value of E at a surface. E will be a piecewise continuous function. When you integrate a piecewise continuous function, you do not need to know the value of the function at the discontinuities.
 
TSny said:
Hello, aftershock.

The fact that E is discontinuous at the surfaces will not cause any problem. You do not need to worry about the value of E at a surface. E will be a piecewise continuous function. When you integrate a piecewise continuous function, you do not need to know the value of the function at the discontinuities.

Thank you, but I'm still confused. I actually have the solution but I can't make sense of it.

the solution tells me V(b)-V(a) = ∫Q/(2πoLr) integrated from a to b

Why am I integrating the electric field in the region R < r < a from a to b. Isn't the electric field zero from a to b since it's inside a conductor?

Then it goes on to claim V(0) = V(a)

How does that happen?
 
You're right, the integration should be from R to a. The integration form a to b would be zero since E is zero in that region.
 
TSny said:
You're right, the integration should be from R to a. The integration form a to b would be zero since E is zero in that region.

So the answer is the integral of the field from R to a?

And b does not appear in the solution even though it's the reference point?
 
Yes. Technically you should be integrating from R to b, but the part of the integral form a to b is zero. So, you just need to integrate from R to a. :smile:

[Edit: Actually, technically, you should be integrating from r = 0 to r = b. But the integral from 0 to R is also zero.]
 
Last edited:
TSny said:
Yes. Technically you should be integrating from R to b, but the part of the integral form a to b is zero. So, you just need to integrate from R to a. :smile:

Thank you!

It's actually integrating from a to R though, right? Or are you reversing the order and throwing away the negative sign?
 
Yes, that's right. I was reversing the limits to get rid of the negative sign. Good.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
5K