How to Find the Electric Field at the Center of a Charged Ring?

AI Thread Summary
To find the electric field at the center of a charged ring, one must calculate the charge using the charge density and set up the potential along the z-axis. The integral for the potential involves the charge distribution and should be expressed in terms of the ring's inner and outer radii. The relationship E = -∇V is crucial, where V is the potential, evaluated at the height h above the center. The discussion emphasizes the importance of correctly integrating over the charge distribution and understanding the cylindrical coordinates involved. This approach clarifies the method for determining the electric field in this scenario.
Tater
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

Homework Statement


Ring.jpg

Let a charge Q be uniformly distributed on a circular ring defined by a < \rho < b. Find D at (0,0,h).


Homework Equations


E = kQ/r2 ar
D = \epsilono E

The Attempt at a Solution



Well I thought I had this figured out, but I was wrong and I still can't figure it out after 2 hours :(

Since I have a range for the radius (a and b), I thought that I could calculate the E-field for both a and b separately then simply apply b-a to the field.

Finding both r1 and r2:
cos ∅1 = h / r1 = h / \sqrt{a^2 + h^2}
cos ∅2 = h / r2 = h / \sqrt{b^2 + h^2}

Then, E = kQh / r^2 [ cos ∅1 - cos ∅2 ]

I just don't know how to tackle this one. I have a large gap that I need to make note of.

The solution in the back of the book is D = \frac{Qh}{2\pi(b^2-a^2)} [\frac{1}{\sqrt{a^2+h^2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{b^2+h^2}} ]

I would greatly appreciate any help! I kind of think I had the right idea, I just don't understand how to fix what I've done wrong.

Any help is greatly appreciated! :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First you need to calculate the charge using the charge density. We know that:
Q = \int_{a}^{b}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\rho_lrd\phi

From there you should find the potential of a disk along the z-axis. The integral should be set up as:
d\phi = \frac{\rho_l*2*\pi*rdr}{4*pi*\epsilon_o\sqrt{z^2+r^2}}.

If you integrate correctly it should come out to be in terms of both b and a. Then using the fact that E =-\nabla\phi in the z-direction should get you to the answer. Let me know if you need more explicit help.
 
runnergirl said:
First you need to calculate the charge using the charge density. We know that:
Q = \int_{a}^{b}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\rho_lrd\phi

From there you should find the potential of a disk along the z-axis. The integral should be set up as:
d\phi = \frac{\rho_l*2*\pi*rdr}{4*pi*\epsilon_o\sqrt{z^2+r^2}}.

If you integrate correctly it should come out to be in terms of both b and a. Then using the fact that E =-\nabla\phi in the z-direction should get you to the answer. Let me know if you need more explicit help.

Thanks for your response :)

A few questions though,

Charge enclosed: Qenc= ρsdS
I don't understand how I can solve for this when I don't know what ρs or Qenc are.

Also I don't understand your last comment: E=−∇ϕ
Did you mean to use E=−∇V (where V is the potential)?

As always, thanks for the help :)
 
That is true you don't know what \rho_s or Q_{enc} is but you do know that there is going to be a charge distribution on the ring. You know that it will have a total charge Q enclosed. If you recall from your solution, it is indeed in terms of Q which is the charge on the ring.

So you want to integrate Q = \int_{a}^{b}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\rho_srd\phi and solve for \rho_s in terms of Q.

And sorry about the notation for E =-\nabla\phi in this case I did mean that \phi was the potential and that's just the notation I'm used to. So yes, \phi is the same as V.

Also, when you do E =-\nabla\phi, you want to solve for when z = h.

If you have any more questions let me know.
 
Qenc= ρsdS
Qencs2∏*\frac{1}{2}(b2-a2)
ρs=Qenc/∏(b2-a2)

So now I'd have to find resultant vector R (I'm bad at this). Here goes though:
If I drew a triangle with a radius of r and a height of h I would get: R=(r2+h2)1/2. But now I'd have to convert this to cylindrical coordinates, so I would replace h with z and r with ? (I don't exactly know how to do this here because I don't have a value for the radius - I have 2 possible values. I'm over-complicating it in my head. I don't really understand what radius I need/want.)

Then after that, I can simply plug it into the formula for potential.

Because it's a point charge, the potential is simply:

V=\frac{Q}{4\piεR}

After I find the potential, I can apply E =-∇V, then apply D =εE

Also, why is it that we sometimes use h (the length) and sometimes we refer to it as z? This really confuses me when I try to write my vectors going from cartesian to cylindrical.

Thank you so much for your help runnergirl :D
 
So you're close. In this case we're integrating over r so instead of R = (r^2+h^2)^{1/2} you'll use R = (r^2+z^2)^{1/2}. This is because you're not solving for z = h yet. So when it's written like this, it is in cylindrical coordinates (a function of r and z). So yes, use a triangle with r being the change in the radial direction, which I'll show in a minute is what you integrate over, and z since that too is a variable in which you will use later.

So now if you plug it all in:
V = \int_{a}^{b}\frac{Q}{2\pi\epsilon_o(b^2-a^2)}\frac{rdr}{\sqrt{z^2+r^2}}

It's a fairly nice integral with a integral table. From there you do indeed apply E = -\nabla V where in this case it will be only in the z-direction and solving for when z = h. So more explicitly:
E = -\frac{\partial V}{\partial z}\mid_{z=h}.

Well typically it is usually z that is used because most of the time in problems like these we're looking for the E-field along the z-axis which z is a variable. In this case, the reason it is h at the end is because you're evaluating the E(0,0,h) on the z-axis, so you're looking for the E-field at a particular point along the z-axis.

Hope that helps.
 
So out of curiosity, since this was a point charge:

V=\frac{Q}{4\piεR}

But is it also fair to say that we could have used V = - ∫E dl ? I'm just curious as to why we're integrating to find potential because technically it is a point charge and we don't have to.

This problem was a disaster and you've cleared it up for me. Thank you so much.
 
Well since this is a charge Q distributed over the entire ring, it cannot be thought of as a point charge, unless you're looking at the far field. If z>>a,b the potential will due to the disk charge Q will behave like a point charge. So in this case, it is easier to find the potential, V (and we have to integrate over the entire ring), and then use E = -\nabla V in the z-direction because the field is expected to be along the z-axis (this is due to the cylindrical symmetry of the problem). Now if we were given the E-field right away and asked to find the potential, then yes applying V = -\int E\cdot dl would be a good method.

Glad it makes more sense to you.
 
Back
Top