How Does the Electric Field Approximation Change When x is Much Smaller Than a?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the electric field approximation for two positive charges positioned along the y-axis, specifically when x is much smaller than a. The derived equation for the electric field is (2kqx)/(x^2+a^2)^(1.5), and the challenge is to understand why this does not approach zero as x approaches zero. Participants clarify that while x is small, it is not zero, allowing the numerator to retain x, which contributes to the overall approximation. The discussion emphasizes the importance of considering relative errors when simplifying expressions, particularly in the context of small values. Ultimately, the approximation holds true despite the smallness of x, as it remains a significant factor in the numerator.
charlies1902
Messages
162
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


2 positive charges are placed on the why axis. one is at y=+a the other at y=-a. show that the e field where x is much smaller than a is approximately equal to (2kqx)/a^3. The 1st part of the question was to show that the e field = (2kqx/(x^2+a^2)^1.5) I did that part already so we can just use that equation.



The Attempt at a Solution


okay so, using the equation (2kqx/(x^2+a^2)^1.5) to do this part where x is much smaller than a means that x is approaching 0. so shouldn't the whole e field be approx = to 0 instead of like the equation they gave (2kqx)/a^3. where they only got rid of the x at the bottom and not the one at the top?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Write the expression x2+a2 in the form a2[1+(x/a)2] If x is much smaller than a its square is even much smaller. For example, x/a = 0.01, then (x/a)2=0.0001. Ignoring it causes 0.01% error only. What you can call "small" depends on the accuracy of a. If it is given with 3 digits, the error of a is greater than the error the approximation brought in.

ehild
 
Last edited:
i don't understand how you got a[1+(x/a)^2] out of the denominator.
 
charlies1902 said:
i don't understand how you got a[1+(x/a)^2] out of the denominator.

My bad... I did not take the power 1.5 into account, and forgot a square. Now I edited my original post. The denominator becomes

[a2(1+(x/a)2]1.5=a3(1+(x/a)2)1.5,
and the relative error when ignoring x/a is 1.5 (x/a)2.

ehild
 
Last edited:
sorry but I'm still confused why that gives the answer. when you're doing the denominator, you're assuming x approaches 0 right? which gives you the denominator with only a in it. But the answer STILL has x in the numerator. shouldn't what was done in the denominator be also applied to the numerator which gives an answer of 0?
 
Yes there is x in the numerator. As it stands alone (nothing added) you can not compare it to anything and ignoring with respect to. x approaches zero, but is not zero, only very small with respect to a. Assume a=1 and evaluate x/[1+x2]1.5 for x=0.1, 0.01, 0.001. You will get what the approximation means.


ehild
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top