[Electromagnetics] E-Fields & Equipotential Surfaces

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the electric field (E) using potential differences from equipotential surfaces in electromagnetics. The initial calculation yielded E = -1000 V/m, which was noted to be incorrect due to overlooking the proximity of the 102 V equipotential surface to the 104 V surface. Participants suggest that a more accurate E value can be obtained by considering all relevant equipotential surfaces, including the 102 V surface. There is also a recommendation to create a V(y) graph to clarify the relationships between the potentials and improve understanding. Overall, the importance of accurately accounting for all equipotential surfaces in calculations is emphasized.
lonelypancreas
Messages
12
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


This is from the book Engineering Electromagnetics by Hayt & Buck.[/B]
phphGHczj.png


Homework Equations


E = - (ΔV/ΔL)[/B]

The Attempt at a Solution


At part (a), I took the potential difference between point A and the point directly above at the higher surface (106 V) and plugged in the needed values:
E = - (106-104 V)/(2-Ay mm) = - 1000 V/m which is ≠ -1075-Ay V/m.[/B]

Were there things that I have overlooked?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lonelypancreas said:
Were there things that I have overlooked?
You overlooked that the 102 V equipotential is closer than 2 mm to the 104 V equipotential. You will get a higher magnitude for E if you take that into account.
 
kuruman said:
You overlooked that the 102 V equipotential is closer than 2 mm to the 104 V equipotential.
I think I'm kinda lost.
So do I have to include the potentials from point A with respect to ALL equipotential surfaces? (i.e. 106-104 V, 108-104 V, etc.)? And with respect to the 102-V surface, is the coordinate of the point below point A relevant? If so, how do I get its coordinate?
 
Your calculation give an average value somewhere between the two ep lines considered.
Maybe drawing an V(y) graph will make it clearer?
 
Last edited:
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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
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