Finding the force due to uniform charged rod

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the force on a charge q due to a uniformly charged rod with charge Q. The charge Q is distributed along a rod of length 2L, and the force is computed using integration techniques. The correct expression for the force F includes a factor of 2L, which arises from substituting the linear charge density λ into the integral. The participants clarify the integration process and the importance of transforming dq into dy to accurately compute the electric field in the x-direction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric fields and forces in electrostatics
  • Familiarity with integration techniques in calculus
  • Knowledge of linear charge density and its calculation
  • Proficiency in applying Coulomb's law and related equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of electric fields from continuous charge distributions
  • Learn about the concept of linear charge density and its applications
  • Explore advanced integration techniques for solving physics problems
  • Investigate the role of symmetry in electric field calculations
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in physics, particularly those focusing on electrostatics and electric field calculations, as well as anyone looking to deepen their understanding of integration in physical contexts.

mattbonner
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A charge Q = 4.35 ×10−4 C is distributed uniformly along a rod of length 2L, extending from y = -21.1 cm to y = +21.1 cm, as shown in the diagram 'on your assignment above. A charge q = 6.05 ×10−6 C, and the same sign as Q, is placed at (D,0), where D = 74.5 cm.

Use integration to compute the total force on q in the x-direction.

Homework Equations


E = k \int \frac{dq}{r^2}
F = qE

The Attempt at a Solution



I've seen the answer, and I think I'm missing a step because when I do it it always turns out different

E = k \int_{-.211}^{.211} \frac{dq}{(\sqrt{D^2 + y^2})^2} * \frac{D}{\sqrt{y^2 + D^2}}


when I simplify this I get,

F = kqQD \int_{-L}^{L}(D^2 + y^2)^{-\frac{3}{2}}dy

however, the correct answer is

F = \frac{kqQD}{2L}\int_{-L}^{L}(D^2 + y^2)^{-\frac{3}{2}}dy

and I'm confused as to where the 2L comes from...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
mattbonner said:
I've seen the answer, and I think I'm missing a step because when I do it it always turns out different

E = k \int_{-.211}^{.211} \frac{dq}{(\sqrt{D^2 + y^2})^2} * \frac{D}{\sqrt{y^2 + D^2}}


when I simplify this I get,

F = kqQD \int_{-L}^{L}(D^2 + y^2)^{-\frac{3}{2}}dy

I don't know why you're multiplying by what you're multiplying in your first step: you haven't clearly shown your approach (and this is why, I presume, you're missing a small factor).

You correctly substituted in at this step:
E = k \int_{-.211}^{.211} \frac{dq}{(\sqrt{D^2 + y^2})^2}
replacing r with the Pythagorean distance, but could you explain why you multiplied by that factor? (this should help you realize your mistake)
 
Last edited:
Due to symmetry, I multiplied by cosine, which I think is D/r
 
Ok, to find the X component of the electric field, if I'm following you correctly.

So you have:
E_{x}=kD\int_{-L}^{L}\frac{dq}{(y^{2}+D^{2})^{\frac{3}{2}}}=kD\int_{-L}^{L}(y^{2}+D^{2})^{-\frac{3}{2}}dq

Which is just simplifying the multiplication.

But you still are integrating with respect to q, without any q's in the equation! So you need to find some way to transform dq into dy (what you want to be integrating with respect to).
 
Nabeshin said:
Ok, to find the X component of the electric field, if I'm following you correctly.

So you have:
E_{x}=kD\int_{-L}^{L}\frac{dq}{(y^{2}+D^{2})^{\frac{3}{2}}}=kD\int_{-L}^{L}(y^{2}+D^{2})^{-\frac{3}{2}}dq

Which is just simplifying the multiplication.

But you still are integrating with respect to q, without any q's in the equation! So you need to find some way to transform dq into dy (what you want to be integrating with respect to).

ooh I think I'm starting to see it:
dq = \lambda dy
and
\lambda = \frac{Q}{2L}

and then \lambda can be brought out of the integral and that's where the 2L comes from!

Thank you so much! This was bugging me for quite a while.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
984
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
866
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
997
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K