Is the Setup for the Electric Scaler Potential Integral Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kosmocomet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electric Potential
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the setup for calculating the electric potential using an integral involving surface charge density. The user initially defines the distance R' in cylindrical coordinates but faces confusion regarding its correctness and dimensional consistency. A participant points out that the user's definition is incorrect due to dimensional inconsistencies and suggests reevaluating the integral setup. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly defining the differential area in polar coordinates for the surface integral. Ultimately, the focus is on ensuring accurate mathematical representation in the context of electrostatics.
kosmocomet
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


66e3b29a-566a-4e53-b5cb-82d593a806dd
upload_2018-4-1_10-10-18.png


Homework Equations


  • V=¼*(1/(π∈) * ∫(ρs/(R')*ds' where R' is distance from point to surface
  • R'=|R-Ri| distance from observation point to location of surface charge density.

The Attempt at a Solution


So my attempt was to define R' as R'=√((-r)2+(-Φ)2+(z)2). Then I said that ds' is = rdrdΦ. I put this into the integral. I am confused since the integral looks very involved ad wanted to know if my set up was correct.

Any help is much appreciated.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-4-1_10-10-12.png
    upload_2018-4-1_10-10-12.png
    16.8 KB · Views: 501
  • upload_2018-4-1_10-10-18.png
    upload_2018-4-1_10-10-18.png
    16.8 KB · Views: 737
Physics news on Phys.org
kosmocomet said:

Homework Statement


66e3b29a-566a-4e53-b5cb-82d593a806dd
View attachment 223189

Homework Equations


  • V=¼*(1/(π∈) * ∫(ρs/(R')*ds' where R' is distance from point to surface
  • R'=|R-Ri| distance from observation point to location of surface charge density.

The Attempt at a Solution


So my attempt was to define R' as R'=√((-r)2+(-Φ)2+(z)2). Then I said that ds' is = rdrdΦ. I put this into the integral. I am confused since the integral looks very involved ad wanted to know if my set up was correct.

Any help is much appreciated.
Why do you define R' that way?
 
tnich said:
Why do you define R' that way?
Thanks for the response. I am using cylindrical coordinates and since the point P is (0,0,z) and the disk is(r,Φ,0) doing the substraction is -r,-Φ,z whcih is the vector R'. The magnitude is then R'=√((-r)2+(-Φ)2+(z)2).
 
kosmocomet said:
Thanks for the response. I am using cylindrical coordinates and since the point P is (0,0,z) and the disk is(r,Φ,0) doing the substraction is -r,-Φ,z whcih is the vector R'. The magnitude is then R'=√((-r)2+(-Φ)2+(z)2).
OK. I see how you did it, but it is not correct. For one thing it is dimensionally inconsistent. It does not make sense to add ##rad^2## to ##m^2##. Let's approach it another way. Let r and z be constant and consider two angles, ##Φ_1 = 0## and ##Φ_2 = π/2##. Is the distance R' different for the different values of ##Φ##?
 
Well...I guess not mow that I think about it. Since, the distance would be based on r and z, correct?
 
If this is true, would the surface integral be drdΦ or dΦdz? I think it would be drdΦ since it is defined in radial and angular direction. The surface, I mean.
 
kosmocomet said:
Well...I guess not mow that I think about it. Since, the distance would be based on r and z, correct?
Yes.
 
kosmocomet said:
If this is true, would the surface integral be drdΦ or dΦdz? I think it would be drdΦ since it is defined in radial and angular direction. The surface, I mean.
That's close, but what is the differential area in polar coordinates?
 
Back
Top