Field Due to Continuous Distribution of Charge

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the Coulomb force between two line charges positioned on the x-axis, with specified charge densities and lengths. The user attempts to derive the electric field at a point a distance D from the end of the first line charge, using integration to express the electric field in terms of the charge density and distance. There is some confusion regarding the limits of integration and the definition of variables, particularly concerning the distance from the first line charge to the point of interest. The user seeks clarification on the correct setup for the integration to accurately find the electric field and subsequently the force between the charges. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly defining distances and limits in the integration process for accurate calculations.
discordplus
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Coulomb force between line charges: a rod of length l1 with line charge density λ1 and a rod of length l2 with line charge density λ2 lie on the x axis. Their ends are separated by a distance D as shown in the figure.

(a) What is the force F between these charges?

diagram: http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Physics/8-022Fall-2004/3A772032-6B74-4D2D-A550-8F0ECFECEDBC/0/pset1.pdf

#7


Homework Equations



E = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon}\int\frac{dq}{r^2}
F = \int E dq



The Attempt at a Solution


So, first I decided to find the field at a point a distance D from the end of line 1. Using the standard x coordinate system, I placed line 1 such that its endpoints are 0, l_{1}.

E = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon}\int\frac{dq}{r^2}

Limits of integration being (0,

Using this and dq = dl_{1}\lambda_{1}, all I need to do is find a function for r in terms of l, which is the distance from 0. Which would be (l_{1} + D) - l.

I renamed (l_{1} + D) as the variable a to make the integration simpler. So now I have:

E = \frac{\lambda_{1}}{4\pi\epsilon}\int \frac{dl}{(a - l)^2}

which is just \frac{\lambda_{1}}{4\pi\epsilon} *\frac{1}{a-l_{1}}

and because a = d + l_{1}

I get the E Field being E = \frac{\lambda_{1}}{4d\pi\epsilon}

Is this correct so far? Clearly my success on the second part depends on that because all I have to do is just integrate the field over the infinitesimal segments of charge over the second line's length yes? And to find that distance d as a function of l it's just ( l - length 1), where l is the distance from the 0 point. I'm just kind of shaky on the first part, finding the field, that's all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
In the expression of E at the starting point of l2, the distance l1 must appear which is missing in your expression.
Try this one.
dE = k*lambda1*dx/(D+x)^2.
Integrate it from x = 0 to x = l1 and find E.
 
Wait, is x the distance from l1? Because then D + x is the distance from some point on the line to P2 which is what i want. Because my expression actually has d in it? It's just "a" is in terms of D, and i defined my distance variable as from x = 0. I'm not sure, it looks like x+d only works if x is the distance from l1. Or am I misunderstanding something here?
 
You want to find the field due to rod1 at the starting point of rod 2.
So E = k*lambda1*[-(1/(x+D)]. Find the value of E taking the limits from x = D to x= (l1 +D)
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top