Gauss' Law - find magnitude of the electric field

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around applying Gauss's Law to determine the electric field produced by a uniformly charged insulating slab. The slab has a specified thickness and charge density, and participants are tasked with finding the electric field in different regions relative to the slab.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the choice of Gaussian surfaces, considering both cylindrical and rectangular shapes. There are questions about the assumptions regarding the charge and area, as well as the implications of the Gaussian surface's position relative to the slab.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on how to approach the problem using Gauss's Law, including considerations of symmetry and the nature of the electric field in different regions. Multiple interpretations of the Gaussian surface are being explored, but there is no explicit consensus on a single method.

Contextual Notes

There are constraints regarding the information provided, such as the lack of specific charge values and the need to assume arbitrary dimensions for the Gaussian surface. Additionally, there are suggestions to start new threads for unrelated questions, indicating a focus on maintaining topic relevance.

NickPA
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
A slab of insulating material has thickness 2d and is oriented so that its faces are parallel to the yz-plane and given by the planes x=d and x=−d. The y- and z-dimensions of the slab are very large compared to d and may be treated as essentially infinite. The slab has a uniform positive charge density ρ.

find magnitude of the electric field due to the slab at the points 0≤x ≤d.

and magnitude of the electric field due to the slab at the points x≥d


Equations: Gauss's Law (too hard to type)



So i was working through this and am stuck about the area and charge. I doesn't give charge and am i just to assume that the height of the cylinder i choose is just arbitrary z?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
NickPA said:
A slab of insulating material has thickness 2d and is oriented so that its faces are parallel to the yz-plane and given by the planes x=d and x=−d. The y- and z-dimensions of the slab are very large compared to d and may be treated as essentially infinite. The slab has a uniform positive charge density ρ.

find magnitude of the electric field due to the slab at the points 0≤x ≤d.

and magnitude of the electric field due to the slab at the points x≥dEquations: Gauss's Law (too hard to type)

For clarity, Gauss' Law is

\oint \vec E \cdot \vec{dA} = \frac{Q_{enc}}{\varepsilon_0}

So i was working through this and am stuck about the area and charge. I doesn't give charge

The charge enclosed within the Gaussian surface is the volume of the Gaussian surface times the charge density, ρ, for the situation where the Gaussian surface is completely within the material. For the situation where one end of the Gaussian surface sticks out of the material, the volume in question is intersection of the Gaussian surface and the material (the charge is the volume of material that happens to be within the Gaussian surface, multiplied by ρ).

By the way, you could use a cylinder for your Gaussian surface. But you could also use a "box" for your Gaussian surface if you would rather stick with Cartesian coordinates. It's totally up to you. (Either way is fine. It won't affect the final answer).

Keep in mind the vector dot product in the left hand side of the equation. Only certain sides of the cylinder or box will have a non-zero \vec E \cdot \vec{dA} product. Those sides of the cylinder/box that have \vec E perpendicular to \vec{dA} do not contribute, and you can ignore them. [Edit: you may also ignore any sides of the cylinder/box that have zero \vec E at those particular sides.]

and am i just to assume that the height of the cylinder i choose is just arbitrary z?

I think you mean, 'x'. (At least for the first part of the problem, where 0≤x ≤d.)
 
Put a rectangular gaussian box with the left side at x < -d and the right at 0 < x < d. You know the E field at x < -d and you know the contained charge. Only E flux is out of the side at 0 < x < d. That gives you E(0<x<d).

Part b is obvious if you figured out the E field at x < -d.
 
rude man said:
Put a rectangular gaussian box with the left side at x < -d and the right at 0 < x < d. You know the E field at x < -d and you know the contained charge. Only E flux is out of the side at 0 < x < d. That gives you E(0<x<d).
It's even easier if you put one side of the Gaussian box at x = 0, invoking symmetry to determine the E at x = 0, then let the other side vary between 0 and an arbitrary x. But that way still works too. Either way. :smile:
 
collinsmark said:
It's even easier if you put one side of the Gaussian box at x = 0, invoking symmetry to determine the E at x = 0, then let the other side vary between 0 and an arbitrary x. But that way still works too. Either way. :smile:

Quite so, cm. Quite so! :thumbs:
 
Can someone help me to solve this question:
.Three concentric hollow metallic spherical shells of radii r1,r2 and
r3, where r1 < r2 < r3, carry charges +2Q,−3Q and +Q, respectively.
Determine the charge on the inner and the outer surface of each sphere
 
sarah2201 said:
Can someone help me to solve this question:
.Three concentric hollow metallic spherical shells of radii r1,r2 and
r3, where r1 < r2 < r3, carry charges +2Q,−3Q and +Q, respectively.
Determine the charge on the inner and the outer surface of each sphere
It's best to start a new thread to post your question.

When doing that, you should use the template that will be provided for you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
14K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K