No Limits of Integration for Electric Field Integral?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the electric field due to a charged ring, specifically addressing the absence of limits of integration in the integral formulation. Participants explore the implications of charge density and the geometry of the ring in the context of electrostatics.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the integration of charge elements around the ring and question the necessity of limits of integration. Some suggest that the uniform linear charge density allows for simplifications in the calculation.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the assumptions regarding the ring's geometry, particularly the treatment of its width. Some participants have provided clarifications regarding the use of linear charge density and the implications of assuming a "thin" ring.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that if the ring were to have a width, the problem would require a different approach, potentially involving integration over a range of radii.

member 731016
Homework Statement
This is a more concise version of my 'Electric Field of a Uniform Ring of Charge' thread that I posted yesterday and made a typo.
Relevant Equations
Continuous charge distribution formula
For this problem,

s7y2w.png
uCKQS.png


The solution is,

ok160.png


However, why have they not included limits of integration? I think this is because all the small charge elements dq across the ring add up to Q.

However, how would you solve this problem with limits of integration?

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can assume a uniform linear charge density on the ring, ##\lambda=\dfrac{Q}{2\pi a}.## Then an arc element ##ds## at polar angle ##\phi## in the plane of the ring subtends angle ##d\phi## so that ##ds=a d\phi##. The charge on that element is ##dq=\lambda ds=\lambda a d\phi## so that when you integrate going around the ring once, you have $$\int dq=\int_0^{2\pi}\lambda a d\phi=2\pi a\lambda=2\pi a\frac{Q}{2\pi a}=Q$$Does this answer your question?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
kuruman said:
You can assume a uniform linear charge density on the ring, ##\lambda=\dfrac{Q}{2\pi a}.## Then an arc element ##ds## at polar angle ##\phi## in the plane of the ring subtends angle ##d\phi## so that ##ds=a d\phi##. The charge on that element is ##dq=\lambda ds=\lambda a d\phi## so that when you integrate going around the ring once, you have $$\int dq=\int_0^{2\pi}\lambda a d\phi=2\pi a\lambda=2\pi a\frac{Q}{2\pi a}=Q$$Does this answer your question?
Thanks for your answer @kuruman, I think that answers my question for now!
 
kuruman said:
You can assume a uniform linear charge density on the ring, ##\lambda=\dfrac{Q}{2\pi a}.## Then an arc element ##ds## at polar angle ##\phi## in the plane of the ring subtends angle ##d\phi## so that ##ds=a d\phi##. The charge on that element is ##dq=\lambda ds=\lambda a d\phi## so that when you integrate going around the ring once, you have $$\int dq=\int_0^{2\pi}\lambda a d\phi=2\pi a\lambda=2\pi a\frac{Q}{2\pi a}=Q$$Does this answer your question?
Sorry @kuruman, why are you allowed to use the linear charge density, because doesn't the ring have a width too?

Are you assuming that x >> width, so the width is negligible?

Many thanks!
 
Callumnc1 said:
Sorry @kuruman, why are you allowed to use the linear charge density, because doesn't the ring have a width too?
No, it does not have a width because the calculation assumes that it is a "thin" ring which means zero width. If it has a width, say it is a washer of inner radius ##a## and outer radius ##b##, then you have to do a different calculation and also integrate over ##r## from ##a## to ##b##. That's a different homework problem.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cwill53 and member 731016
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cwill53 and kuruman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K