Gauss's Law problem involving a Cylinder

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a narrow charged solid cylinder coaxial with a larger charged cylindrical shell, both of which are non-conducting and have uniform surface charge densities. The discussion centers around determining the linear charge density of the shell based on the electric field measurements provided.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss deriving the relationship between the electric field and linear charge density using Gauss's Law. There are attempts to calculate the electric field contributions from both the inner cylinder and the outer shell, with some confusion regarding the signs and values of the electric fields involved.

Discussion Status

Some participants have confirmed the correctness of the derivations, while others express uncertainty about the signs of the results obtained. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of the calculations and whether different methods yield consistent results.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential discrepancies between their calculations and the book's solutions, particularly regarding the signs of the linear charge density. There is also mention of a possible mix-up in the values used for the electric fields during calculations.

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