Gauss's Law problem involving a Cylinder

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on solving a Gauss's Law problem involving a charged solid cylinder and a coaxial charged cylindrical shell. The electric field equations derived include ##E = \frac{\lambda}{2\pi r \varepsilon_0}##, where ##\lambda## represents the linear charge density. The user calculated the linear charge density of the larger shell, arriving at ##\lambda_2 = 5.83 \times 10^{-9} C/m##, while the textbook solution indicates ##\lambda_2 = -5.83 \times 10^{-9} C/m##. The discrepancy arose from a mix-up in the values of ##E_T## and ##E_1## during calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gauss's Law and its mathematical formulation.
  • Familiarity with electric fields and charge density concepts.
  • Knowledge of the relationship between electric field and charge density in cylindrical coordinates.
  • Basic algebra for manipulating equations and solving for unknowns.
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of electric fields using Gauss's Law in cylindrical symmetry.
  • Study the implications of negative charge densities in electrostatics.
  • Practice solving similar problems involving coaxial charged cylinders.
  • Learn about the physical significance of electric field lines in relation to charge distributions.
USEFUL FOR

Students studying electromagnetism, physics educators, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of electric fields and charge distributions in cylindrical geometries.

Potatochip911
Messages
317
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


The figure a shows a narrow charged solid cylinder that is coaxial with a larger charged cylindrical shell. Both are non-conducting and thin and have uniform surface charge densities on their outer surfaces. Figure b gives the radial component ##E## of the electric field versus radial distance ##r## from the common axis, and ##E_{s}=3.0\times 10^{3}N/C##. What is the shell's linear charge density?

image.png


Homework Equations


##\oint \vec{E}\cdot\vec{dA}=\frac{q_{encl}}{\varepsilon_0}##

The Attempt at a Solution


First I derived the relationship between ##E## and ##\lambda##(linear charge density), i.e.
$$
\oint \vec{E}\cdot\vec{dA}=\frac{q_{encl}}{\varepsilon_0}\Longrightarrow E(2\pi rL)=\frac{\lambda L}{\varepsilon_0}\Longrightarrow E=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi r \varepsilon_0}
$$
Note:Using r=3.5cm to solve everything
From the left of r=3.5cm only the field from the first cylinder will be involved so we have $$E_1=\frac{\lambda_1}{2\pi r\varepsilon_0}=1000N/C$$
Now from the right of r=3.5 using the relation ##E_T=E_1+E_2##, ##E_2=E_T-E_1=-2000-1000=-3000N/C##, then going back to the first relation,
$$
E_T=\frac{\lambda_T}{2\pi r\varepsilon_0}=E_1+E_2\Longrightarrow \lambda_T=2\pi r\varepsilon_0(E_1+E_2)
$$
EDIT: Okay so I was trying to calculate the wrong thing, I should be trying to find the linear charge density of the larger shell, therefore I have ##E=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi r\varepsilon_0}##, first shell: ##E_1=\frac{\lambda_1}{2\pi r\varepsilon_0}##, both shells: ##E_T=\frac{\lambda_1}{2\pi r\varepsilon_0}+\frac{\lambda_2}{2\pi r \varepsilon_0}##, ##E_T-E_c=\frac{\lambda_2}{2\pi r\varepsilon_0}##, then I have $$(E_T-E_c)2\pi r\varepsilon_0=\lambda_2$$ which gives the negative of the answer so I'm not entirely sure what went wrong.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Potatochip911 said:

Homework Statement


The figure a shows a narrow charged solid cylinder that is coaxial with a larger charged cylindrical shell. Both are non-conducting and thin and have uniform surface charge densities on their outer surfaces. Figure b gives the radial component ##E## of the electric field versus radial distance ##r## from the common axis, and ##E_{s}=3.0\times 10^{3}N/C##. What is the shell's linear charge density?

image.png


Homework Equations


##\oint \vec{E}\cdot\vec{dA}=\frac{q_{encl}}{\varepsilon_0}##

The Attempt at a Solution


First I derived the relationship between ##E## and ##\lambda##(linear charge density), i.e.
$$
\oint \vec{E}\cdot\vec{dA}=\frac{q_{encl}}{\varepsilon_0}\Longrightarrow E(2\pi rL)=\frac{\lambda L}{\varepsilon_0}\Longrightarrow E=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi r \varepsilon_0}
$$
Note:Using r=3.5cm to solve everything
From the left of r=3.5cm only the field from the first cylinder will be involved so we have $$E_1=\frac{\lambda_1}{2\pi r\varepsilon_0}=1000N/C$$
Now from the right of r=3.5 using the relation ##E_T=E_1+E_2##, ##E_2=E_T-E_1=-2000-1000=-3000N/C##, then going back to the first relation,
$$
E_T=\frac{\lambda_T}{2\pi r\varepsilon_0}=E_1+E_2\Longrightarrow \lambda_T=2\pi r\varepsilon_0(E_1+E_2)
$$
EDIT: Okay so I was trying to calculate the wrong thing, I should be trying to find the linear charge density of the larger shell, therefore I have ##E=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi r\varepsilon_0}##, first shell: ##E_1=\frac{\lambda_1}{2\pi r\varepsilon_0}##, both shells: ##E_T=\frac{\lambda_1}{2\pi r\varepsilon_0}+\frac{\lambda_2}{2\pi r \varepsilon_0}##, ##E_T-E_c=\frac{\lambda_2}{2\pi r\varepsilon_0}##, then I have $$(E_T-E_c)2\pi r\varepsilon_0=\lambda_2$$ which gives the negative of the answer so I'm not entirely sure what went wrong.
Your derivation is correct, if Ec means E1. What result have you got?
 
ehild said:
Your derivation is correct, if Ec means E1. What result have you got?
When I plug in numbers I obtain ##\lambda_2=5.83\times10^{-9}##, the solution in the book is given as ##\lambda_2=-5.83\times10^{-9}##, another odd thing is if I solve for the values of ##\lambda## then use ##\lambda_1+\lambda_2=\lambda_t## I get the correct answer but I would think that both methods should work.
 
Potatochip911 said:
When I plug in numbers I obtain ##\lambda_2=5.83\times10^{-9}##, the solution in the book is given as ##\lambda_2=-5.83\times10^{-9}##, another odd thing is if I solve for the values of ##\lambda## then use ##\lambda_1+\lambda_2=\lambda_t## I get the correct answer but I would think that both methods should work.
What is ET? Is not it negative?:smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Potatochip911
ehild said:
What is ET? Is not it negative?:smile:
haha yea it appears as though I accidentally swapped the values for ##E_T## and ##E_1## when performing the calculation.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K