Finding Coulomb's Force: Solved Problem w/ Explanation

  • Thread starter Thread starter hastings
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the electrostatic force between a long straight wire with a uniform linear charge density (λ) and a rectangular layer with a uniform superficial charge density (σ). The correct approach involves using the electric field generated by the wire, expressed as E = λ / (2πε₀D), and integrating this field over the area of the rectangular layer to find the force. The final formula for the force is F = (λσab) / (2πε₀D), where a and b are the dimensions of the rectangle. Participants emphasized the importance of using distinct variable names to avoid confusion in calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Coulomb's Law and electrostatics
  • Familiarity with electric fields and charge distributions
  • Knowledge of integration techniques in calculus
  • Ability to differentiate between linear and superficial charge densities
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of electric fields from charge distributions using Gauss's Law
  • Learn about integrating functions involving multiple variables in calculus
  • Explore applications of electrostatics in real-world scenarios, such as capacitors
  • Review common mistakes in variable naming and integration in physics problems
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, electrical engineering, and anyone involved in electrostatics calculations or theoretical physics problem-solving.

hastings
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] finding coulmb's force

Problem:
A very long straight wire has a uniform linear density charge, λ (every dx, linear unit, has a λ charge). At a distance D, from the wire, there's a rectangular layer with length=a and height=b and a uniform superficial density charge, σ (every dS, superficial unit, has a σ charge). Find the electrostatic force between the 2 objects.

What I did:
(1)F=\int dF
(2)dF=\frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon_0} \frac{dq_1 \cdot dq_2}{x^2}

(3)dq_1=\lambda dx

(4)dq_2=\sigma dS \text{ (* When integrating dS becomes S=a $\cdot$ b)}

(5)F=\int dF=\int_D^{D+a} \frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon_0} \frac{(\lambda dx) \cdot \sigma dS }{x^2} = \frac{\lambda \sigma (a \cdot b)}{4\pi \varepsilon_0} \int_D^{D+a} \frac{1}{x^2}dx

(6)=\frac{\lambda \sigma (a \cdot b)}{4\pi \varepsilon_0}(-\frac{1}{x})_D^{D+a}= \frac{\lambda \sigma (a \cdot b)}{4\pi \varepsilon_0} (\frac{1}{D}-\frac{1}{D+a}) =\frac{\lambda \sigma (a \cdot b)}{4\pi \varepsilon_0}\frac{a}{D(D+a)}

(7)=\frac{\lambda \sigma (a^2 b)}{4\pi \varepsilon_0 \ D(D+a)}


Is my reasoning right? Or, where did I mistake? Please check out the little drawing in the attachment.
Thank you.
 

Attachments

  • prob1.jpg
    prob1.jpg
    4.9 KB · Views: 423
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
can anyone help. tell me if it's right or wrong.
 
No, it's not right.

Don't try to integrate Coulomb's law directly--that's the hard way. (If you do choose that route, you must do it correctly. For one, you must integrate along the full length of the wire and the full area of the rectangle: every element of charge in the wire exerts a force on every element of charge in the rectangle.)

Instead, find the field from the charged wire and figure out the force that that field exerts on an element of charge in your rectangular layer. Then integrate that.
 
if I'm not mistaken, the Electrical field at a distance D from the long straight wire should be this,

(2.1) E=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi\varepsilon_0D}

(2.2) Since dF=E\cdot dq_2 \text{ and } dq_2=\sigma,

(2.3) F=\int dF=\int E dq_2=\int \frac{\lambda}{2\pi\varepsilon_0D}\sigma

ok? but when I integrate, I should have something like "dx". Also (a*b) should pop up somewhere. Can't figure out these last two things.
 
hastings said:
(2.2) Since dF=E\cdot dq_2 \text{ and } dq_2=\sigma,

(2.3) F=\int dF=\int E dq_2=\int \frac{\lambda}{2\pi\varepsilon_0D}\sigma

ok? but when I integrate, I should have something like "dx". Also (a*b) should pop up somewhere. Can't figure out these last two things.

Could it instead be this?
(3.1) F=\int dF=\int E dq_2=\int \frac{\lambda}{2\pi\varepsilon_0D}dq_2=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi\varepsilon_0D}q_2=

q_2=\sigma(a\cdot b) \longrightarrow \ F=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi\varepsilon_0D} \sigma(a\cdot b)
 
hastings said:
if I'm not mistaken, the Electrical field at a distance D from the long straight wire should be this,

(2.1) E=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi\varepsilon_0D}
Right. But since D is already used to represent a fixed distance in your problem, better use a variable name such as x. Using x to represent distance from the wire, the field is:

E=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi\epsilon_0 x}

(2.2) Since dF=E\cdot dq_2 \text{ and } dq_2=\sigma,

(2.3) F=\int dF=\int E dq_2=\int \frac{\lambda}{2\pi\varepsilon_0D}\sigma
dq = \sigma dA = \sigma b dx

ok? but when I integrate, I should have something like "dx". Also (a*b) should pop up somewhere.
The "dx" comes from expressing the charge element in terms of area. The "b" factor comes in when describing the area in terms of length and width. (See what I did directly above.) The "a" factor will come in after you do your integration.
 
F=\int dF=\int E dq_2=\int_D^{D+a} \frac{\lambda}{2\pi\varepsilon_0x}\sigma b dx

is it like this?

When you say dq = \sigma dA = \sigma b dx

is it like you're dividing the layer into thin vertical, rectangular-shaped strips with height=b, and length=dx?
 
hastings said:
F=\int dF=\int E dq_2=\int_D^{D+a} \frac{\lambda}{2\pi\varepsilon_0x}\sigma b dx

is it like this?
Yes.

When you say dq = \sigma dA = \sigma b dx

is it like you're dividing the layer into thin vertical, rectangular-shaped strips with height=b, and length=dx?
Yes. It makes sense to do it that way, since the field is the same everywhere within such a thin strip.

You could say:
dq = \sigma dA = \sigma dy dx
But then you'd just have to integrate with respect to y as well. (You'll get the same answer, of course, since the integral of dy will equal b.)

Also, regarding your diagram: Once source of confusion is that you chose the same name (x) for two unrelated things. On the left, you use x to represent position along the line of charge. But you also use x to represent distance from the line charge. Use different variable names!
 
Doc Al said:
Also, regarding your diagram: Once source of confusion is that you chose the same name (x) for two unrelated things. On the left, you use x to represent position along the line of charge. But you also use x to represent distance from the line charge. Use different variable names!

Got it. Thank you for all your help.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
666
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
778
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K