Gauss' Law - difficulty understanding this example

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding Gauss' Law in relation to a long straight wire and a surrounding cylindrical shell. It clarifies that the electric field is zero inside the metal cylinder due to the absence of enclosed charge for certain radii. The charge per unit length on the inner surface of the cylinder is -λ, which neutralizes the electric field from the inner wire's positive charge. This negative charge on the cylinder's inner surface is necessary to prevent the electric field from penetrating the metal. The explanation highlights the importance of charge distribution in maintaining electric field behavior in conductive materials.
NewtonianAlch
Messages
453
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



[PLAIN]http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/5741/86853377.jpg


The Attempt at a Solution



For the long straight wire, the charge per unit length λ is already given, this is distributed on the surface of the wire. The electric field is zero for anything less than r1, because there is no enclosed charge inside the metal.

In the solutions booklet it says that the charge per unit length for the inner surface of the cylinder is -λ so that the internal charge adds to zero for r2 < r < r3.

What do they mean by that, and how did they get -λ ?

I understand that for r greater than r2, but less than r3, the same principle applies as it did earlier, the charge is on the surface, and no enclosed charge inside the metal, so therefore the electric field is zero inside. But why is -λ the charge per unit length for the inner surface of the cylinder?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The charge on the inner wire attracts an opposite charge to the inner surface of the cylinder. This charge is what neutralizes the electric field over the transition into the metal cylinder. Otherwise the electric field due to the charge on the inner wire would extend through the metal cylinder, and we know that this doesn't happen!
 
Ah yes, that makes sense now that you put it that way! Of course...
 
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...
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 .

Similar threads

Back
Top