Gravitational Potential Due to a Thin Rod of Varying Density.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the gravitational potential and gravitational field due to a thin rod of varying density, defined by the equation λ = ky. The user initially struggles with integrating to find the gravitational potential φ(x) at a point (x,0) but eventually arrives at the expression φ(x) = -Gk[√(x^2+L^2) - x]. For part b, the user also finds success using polar coordinates to determine the gravitational field g at the same point. Overall, the thread highlights the challenges and eventual breakthroughs in solving gravitational potential problems involving variable density.
pelmel92
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL AND FIELD DUE TO A “THIN” ROD
A thin rod of length L lies along the +y-axis, with one end at the
origin (see diagram).
Assume:
• The rod has length only- no thickness in other directions.
• The density of the rod increases proportionally to the
y-coordinate: λ = ky, where k is a known constant and λ is in
kg/m
• Gravitational potential is zero at infinity: φ (∞) = 0

a) Find the gravitational potential φ ( x) at a point (x,0) by direct integration.
b) Find the gravitational field g at a point (x,0) by direct integration.

Homework Equations



dφ = -(G dm)/r

The Attempt at a Solution



Still stuck on part a, so that's really the brunt of my question for now (though assistance with part b is more than welcome!).

Using the given density function to solve for dm and substituting √(x^2+y^2) for r, I have an expression for dφ:

dφ = -(Gk y dy)/√(x^2+y^2)

...but I have no idea how to manipulate this to get a soluble integral :( I've been messing around with partial derivatives and polar coordinates for hours, but nothing seems to work.
PLEASE HELP!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ah, I think I may have figured it out... x isn't actually changing here, so my attempts to relate it to y were completely unnecessary? The answer then (I think) would be:
φ(x) = --Gk[√(x^2+L^2) - x] .

Part b has me a bit stumped though... help would be lovely.
 
Alrighty, figured that bit out on my own as well... polar coordinates work out nicely.
 
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