Gauss's law, determing average volume charge density

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the average volume charge density in the air between two altitudes using Gauss's law. The electric field values at 500 m and 600 m are provided, with the user attempting to derive the charge density by substituting volume charge density for total charge in the equations. They express concern about their approach and seek confirmation on the correctness of their steps. A response suggests that the method seems appropriate and emphasizes the importance of unit consistency for verification. The conversation highlights the application of Gauss's law in determining charge density in a given region.
Breedlove
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


In the air over a particular region at an altitude of 500 m above the ground, the electric field is 120 N/C directed downward. At 600 m above the ground, the electric field is 100 N/C downward. What is the average volume charge density in the layer of air between these two elevations? Is it positive or negative?


Homework Equations


\Phinet=\stackrel{Q}{\epsilon}
\rho=\stackrel{Q}{v}
\Phi=\intE(dot)dA

The Attempt at a Solution


I substituted \rhoV for Q in
\Phinet=\stackrel{Q}{\epsilon}
and then set that equal to EA from \Phi=\intE(dot)dA, and solved for \rho, getting \rho=E/(h\epsilon)
h is coming from A/V

Am I going about this the right way? My next step would be to find \rho at both elevations and average them. Are the steps that I have taken this far correct?

Thanks for whatever help you can offer! :smile:

Oh, and anything that looks like a superscript or subscript is just an error on my part, I didn't mean for the equations to look like they had them. I'm still pretty new with it.
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks like a good way to go about the calculation. As a safety check make sure your units on both sides of your equation are consistent, that way you know when your definitely on the wrong track! (P.S. I think your units are good in this case).
 
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