How Is Electric Flux Calculated Through a Nonuniform Field in a Box?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating electric flux through the top face of a cubic box placed in a nonuniform electric field described by the equation E(x,y,z) = Kz j + Ky k, where K is a constant. The box has no net charge inside it, and participants are exploring how to approach the problem of flux calculation given the field's nonuniformity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the need to integrate over an area due to the nonconstant electric field and question which area to consider. Some suggest using Gauss's law while others express uncertainty about its applicability. There are discussions about the dot product of the electric field and area vector, and whether components of the electric field contribute to the flux through different faces of the cube.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing with various interpretations being explored. Some participants are attempting calculations and sharing their results, while others are questioning the correctness of their approaches. There is no explicit consensus on the correct method or answer yet, but guidance is being offered regarding the integration process and the components of the electric field.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the electric field has no component in the x direction and that the flux through the entire cube is not zero, which raises questions about the assumptions made in applying Gauss's law. There is also mention of specific values and limits of integration that are being debated.

  • #31
Anyway what i did after taking the elements is pretty simple...

i have dA and i have E...So now i just got an expression for E.dA integrated it taking limits of y from 0 to a...And doing that i get (ka^3)/2 and i have no clue why its wrong...See if you get anything different...I am dying to know how i am wrong...this seems sooo correct...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I got to go now...think on this and post your replies... I will get back to you tomorrow...
 
  • #33
asz304 said:
This is what I did but I still get the wrong answers...


b)\int EA = \int(ka)(a^2) = k*a^3/2 = 1.83*10^-1 Nm^2/C

@ Abhishekdas

Abhishekdas said:
hey asz304 ...
i checked out right now that ka^3/2 = .1831456 i forgot to divide it by 2 earlier so maybe its worth a try in your comp right now...but its up to you...

waiting for your reply...

Wow..both of our answers were right. The computer is the only thing that's not doing its job :wink:. For the answer, instead of 1.83*10^-1 Nm^2/C or 1.831*10^-1 Nm^2/C, I used 0.183 Nm^2/C and the computer accepted it.

Thanks guys


EDIT: Just to make sure I understand the concept of the gauss' law, is the flux at the bottom of the surface equal to the flux at the top? and if I wanted to find the flux in the front part of the cube, is it just 0? since E(x,y,z) = Kz j + Ky k.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
asz304 said:
EDIT: Just to make sure I understand the concept of the gauss' law, is the flux at the bottom of the surface equal to the flux at the top? and if I wanted to find the flux in the front part of the cube, is it just 0? since E(x,y,z) = Kz j + Ky k.

Yes, except for the sign. Since the z-component of E does not depend on z, in this case, the flux at the bottom is the negative of the flux at the top, because dA is in the ‒z direction, ( the ‒k direction).
 
  • #35
asz304 said:
@ Abhishekdas


EDIT: Just to make sure I understand the concept of the gauss' law, is the flux at the bottom of the surface equal to the flux at the top? and if I wanted to find the flux in the front part of the cube, is it just 0? since E(x,y,z) = Kz j + Ky k.

Hi asz304...

Yes the flux in the bottom of the surface is equal in magnitude to the flux at the top but diff in magnitude...And you in the front part the flux is zero because the area vector(along -i) and field vecor are perpendicular...So dot product is zero...

And about our answers matching i really didnt know how i could be wrong...Anyway good that we got it and hope you understood the solution...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K