Finding Constants: Potential and Field Analysis

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding constants related to electric fields and potentials in a specified range. The user seeks clarification on whether the potential at x=a is V(a) or V(0), emphasizing that potentials are relative and can be defined as zero at different points. There is confusion regarding the application of Gauss's law, as the user finds two different electric fields at x=a, leading to the assumption of a surface charge. Other participants suggest that the user may have misapplied Gauss's law and request a clearer presentation of their calculations for further assistance. The conversation highlights the importance of correctly integrating fields and understanding charge contributions in the analysis.
ermia
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Two infinite conducting plane are a distance 2a away and parrarel. We have constant potentials on the planes. In ##0<x<a## we have charge with density ##\rho## and in ##a<x<2a## with density ##2\rho##. We want to findelectric feild and potential everywhere. And to find the charge density in boundaries.
Relevant Equations
$$\nabla .E=\frac{ \rho}{\epsilon }$$
$$ E=- \nabla V$$
$$Eup -Edown = \sigma / \epsilon$$
I have wrote all feilds and potentials and I want to find the constants.
My first question is " when we say in the a<x<2a the potential is V(x)" then the potential in the a is V(a) or V(0) ( cause it is 0 in our new area) ?
Second one is " when I want to write the gausses law for the point x=a I find two feilds. Does that mean I have another surface charge in x=a?"
 

Attachments

  • Osos.jpg
    Osos.jpg
    26.7 KB · Views: 118
  • Lplk Notes.jpg
    Lplk Notes.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 128
Physics news on Phys.org
Potentials are relative to some arbitrary zero. A common convention is to take it as zero at infinity, but that doesn’t work when you an infinite sheet of charge that isn't tending to zero at infinity. Take the potential as zero at x=0.
The potential at any other point can then be found by integrating the field from x=0 to the point. Note that it is necessarily continuous.

There is no surface charge at x=a in the problem.
 
Once I wrote gausses law for the left and write part seperately. I found two different feilds in x=a.
One is ##\frac{ \rho a} {\epsilon }## the other is ## \frac{2 \rho a}{ \epsilon }## thus we can conclude that we have a surface charge in x=a. Where am I wrong?
 
ermia said:
Once I wrote gausses law for the left and write part seperately. I found two different feilds in x=a.
One is ##\frac{ \rho a} {\epsilon }## the other is ## \frac{2 \rho a}{ \epsilon }## thus we can conclude that we have a surface charge in x=a. Where am I wrong?
You can be wrong in many places. Most likely, you applied Gauss's law incorrectly. Please post your solution showing a clear picture (a) of the Gaussian surfaces that you used and (b) the equations that you wrote based on Gauss's law. Then we can perhaps figure out where you went wrong. We cannot reverse engineer your mistake from your answers.
 
ermia said:
Once I wrote gausses law for the left and write part seperately. I found two different feilds in x=a.
Your attachment is illegible. If you want anyone to check your actual working you will need to type it in, per forum rules. Preferably in LaTeX.
The field at any point is due to all the charges present. Find the field due to the charges in (0,a), the field due to the charges in (a,2a), and add them together.
 
haruspex said:
Your attachment is illegible. If you want anyone to check your actual working you will need to type it in, per forum rules. Preferably in LaTeX.
The field at any point is due to all the charges present. Find the field due to the charges in (0,a), the field due to the charges in (a,2a), and add them together.
Thanks. Is my answer right?
$$ \sigma_{left }= 5 \rho a $$
$$ \sigma_{right} = 6 \rho a $$
 
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