No Limits of Integration for Electric Field Integral?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the integration limits for calculating the electric field due to a uniformly charged thin ring with linear charge density defined as ##\lambda=\dfrac{Q}{2\pi a}##. The integration of charge elements ##dq## around the ring is performed from 0 to 2π, confirming that the total charge Q is obtained. The participants clarify that the assumption of a "thin" ring implies negligible width, allowing the use of linear charge density without additional complexity. If the ring had width, a different approach involving integration over the radius would be necessary.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric fields and charge distributions
  • Familiarity with calculus, specifically integration techniques
  • Knowledge of linear charge density concepts
  • Basic principles of electrostatics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of electric fields from continuous charge distributions
  • Learn about the implications of charge density variations in electrostatics
  • Explore integration techniques for calculating fields from non-uniform charge distributions
  • Investigate the effects of ring width on electric field calculations
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, electrical engineering, and anyone studying electrostatics, particularly those interested in charge distribution and electric field calculations.

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 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 cwill53 and member 731016
  • Like
Likes cwill53 and kuruman
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

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
1K