Field due to a solid hemisphere with uniform charge density

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the electric field at the center of a solid hemisphere with a uniform charge density. The original poster presents a problem involving the integration of electric fields from differential charge elements within the hemisphere.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the method of slicing the hemisphere into rings to compute the electric field, questioning the interpretation of the volume of these rings and the dimensions involved. There are inquiries about the radius used for calculating the circumference and the nature of the cross-sectional area.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants seeking clarification on the geometric interpretation of the problem. Some guidance has been provided regarding the dimensionality of the rings, but multiple interpretations and confusions remain unaddressed.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the diagram and the definitions of volume and thickness in the context of the rings used for integration. There is also a mention of differing radii in the circles depicted in the diagram, contributing to the confusion.

PhizKid
Messages
477
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Given a solid hemisphere with radius R and uniform charge density ##/rho##, find the electric field at the center.

Homework Equations


##E = \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_{0}} \frac{Q}{r^{2}}##
##E = \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_{0}} \int \frac{\rho (x',y',z') \hat{r} dx' dy' dz'}{r^{2}}##

The Attempt at a Solution



The strategy is to slice the hemisphere into rings around the symmetry axis, then find the electric field due to each ring, and then integrate over the rings to obtain the field due to the entire hemisphere.

I am confused by the diagram, though:

IeP99Jh.png


It says that a rectangle with side lengths dr and r dθ is the cross-sectional area, and that this cross-sectional area multiplied by 2πrsinθ is the volume, since the radius of the ring is rsinθ. However, isn't this just the circumference multiplied by the cross-sectional area? There is no thickness of the ring, so is it a volume? Are there more rings within the ring, towards the axis? (Like smaller rings within larger rings.) How come the thickness isn't mentioned here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
canceled
 
Last edited:
PhizKid said:
It says that a rectangle with side lengths dr and r dθ is the cross-sectional area, and that this cross-sectional area multiplied by 2πrsinθ is the volume, since the radius of the ring is rsinθ. However, isn't this just the circumference multiplied by the cross-sectional area?

It is.

There is no thickness of the ring, so is it a volume? Are there more rings within the ring, towards the axis? (Like smaller rings within larger rings.) How come the thickness isn't mentioned here?

Not sure what you mean here. The rings involved are 3D objects, and they definitely do have "thickness". The cross-section of a ring is a rectangle, as you said.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Actually, I am now confused about the radius used to compute the circumference. In the 2 circles within the hemisphere for the drawing, the 2 circles have different radii. Is it because both are approximately the same radius?
 
Let's assume that the cross-section is trapezoidal. What is its area then?
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K