How Is the Electric Field Distributed Around Concentric Cylindrical Conductors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bodensee9
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cylinders Field
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the electric field around two concentric cylindrical conductors, where the inner conductor has a linear charge density of 6 nC/m and the outer conductor is uncharged. The electric field inside the inner conductor is zero, while between the inner conductor and the outer conductor, it is calculated as E = 108/ε. There is confusion regarding the electric field outside the outer conductor, with the book providing an answer of 158 N/m², which does not align with the expected calculations. The participants debate the interpretation of linear versus surface charge density and the implications for the electric field distribution. Clarification on these points is sought to resolve the discrepancies in the expected results.
bodensee9
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Hello:

Can someone help?

I have 2 concentric cylinders which are both conductors. The inner conductor has linear charge density of 6 n C/m. The outer conductor has no net charge. The inner conductor has R of 0.015m, the distance between the inner conductor and the inner wall of the outer conductor is 0.03m, and the outer conductor has a radius of 0.065 m. I am to find the E field at all Rs.

So within the inner conductor, the R = 0.
outside the inner conductor but before you reach the inner wall of the outer conductor, the R is E*2*pi*R*L = 6e-9 * L/epsilon. So you simply that and you get 108/epsilon.
IN between the inner and outer wall of the outer conductor the E field is again 0.

But what about the E field outside the outer conductor? I know that it has to do with the ratio of the density, but I am not sure what I am doing wrong but I get the wrong answer when I say that the outer density is proportional to the radius ( = 6 * 0.065/0.015)? Any help would be great. THank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your question does not appear to be properly stated. The inner cylindrical conductor has a non-zero radius, so one would expect a surface charge density, but instead you gave a linear charge density with units C/m. Is this problem part of a larger question or is it standalone?
 
Hi,

This is the question as is given in the book. But couldn't I derive the surface density from the linear density by the following: sigma*2*pi*R = linear charge density? Where sigma is surface charge density and R is the radius of the cylinder. This is the problem. My problem is I don't see why the outside cynlinder should have an E field that is 1.46 times that of the inner E field?
 
The problem with this is that it is stated at the outset that the inner cylinder is a conductor, which means we would expect the charge to be uniformly distributed over the cylindrical surface. Hence I expected a surface charge density. But instead the linear charge density is given. I don't know how to interpret this.

Secondly, assuming your interpretation of this is correct, I don't see what you mean. What does "1.46 times of the inner E-field" mean? It's clear, since the outer cylinder is uncharged and hence does not affect the E-field of the configuration that the E field outside is 6n/(2pi*epsilon*r). It's the same in the empty space between the two conductors, only that the r value is different. So what does "1.46 times" refer to?
 
That is what I would expect too. But the answer in the book is that the E field between the inner cynlinder and the inner wall of the outer cynlinder is exactly as you provided, which is 108 N/m^2. But then the answer they give for the E field outside the outer cylinder is for some strange reason 158 N/m^2?

Thanks.
 
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