Oscillation of a Charged Particle

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
8 replies · 3K views
peroAlex
Messages
35
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


At our university we were given this problem: charged ball with mass of ##m = 0.0001 kg## and charge ##Q = -10^{-5} C## is placed on geometric axis of thin torus with inner radius of ##r_{inner} = 0.05 m##, outer radius of ##r_{outer} = 0.1 m## and surface charge density ##\sigma = 10^{-5} C##. Compute oscillation time for small deviation, this is when we only slightly flick the ball from stable state.

Homework Equations


First, I took a look at this article and a PDF presentation.

The Attempt at a Solution


Using the equation for electric field of a charged ring $$ E_z = \frac{Qz}{4 \pi \varepsilon_0 (r^2 + z^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}} $$ I tried obtaining formula for electric field of torus (wider ring) by integration infinitesimal rings from inner to outer radius. Using Symbolab I managed to obtain following equation $$ E_{torus} = \frac{Qz}{4 \pi \varepsilon_0} (\frac{r}{z^3 \sqrt{\frac{r^2}{z^2}+1}})_{r_{inner}} ^ {r_{outer}} $$.

From here on, I'm lost. Can somebody please help me or at least give me some guidance?
 
on Phys.org
Hi
peroAlex said:
Compute oscillation time for small deviation
means you are looking for something like the ##k## in ##\vec F = -k\vec x##. So if ##|\vec F|## is a more complicated function like what you have found it here, you simply want the linear development around the equilibrium position.
 
On 2nd reading I wonder if you are already aware of what I posted and are stuck in working out the electric field expression ?
peroAlex said:
I tried obtaining formula for electric field of torus (wider ring) by integration infinitesimal rings from inner to outer radius. Using Symbolab I managed to obtain following equation
Not clear what you are doing there. The exercise geves that the charge is at the surface and unfiormly distributed. Looks like the pdf assumes a thin torus (yours is fat).
 
I believe we're on the wrong footing here.

My task considers thin torus. Due to the fact that such configuration is composed of filamentary thin rings, I tried integration individual contributions (rings) from inner to outer radius.
 
Guy here (page 23) calls ##a/\rho = 5## fat. With ##a/\rho = 3##, yours is 67% fatter !
Surface charge on the inside is twice as close to the axis as surface charge on the outside !

Or do I have the wrong idea of inner (## r_{\rm inner} = 0.05## m) and outer (## r_{\rm outer} = 0.10## m) radius ?
 
A washout ?!?

This is a torus
upload_2017-2-9_18-20-28.png


very clear what is meant with a torus in math and physics.

This is a washer (not a very scientific name, but clear enough)
upload_2017-2-9_18-24-3.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-2-9_18-22-21.png
    upload_2017-2-9_18-22-21.png
    71.8 KB · Views: 546
BvU said:
A washout ?!?

This is a torus
View attachment 112812

very clear what is meant with a torus in math and physics.

This is a washer (not a very scientific name, but clear enough)
View attachment 112814
This is the exact shape I was trying to describe. I'm so sorry for ambiguity in definition, English is not m native tongue.
 
Good; makes life easier. Thin disk with a hole in the center it is. I should have been more suspicious when you mentioned a 'wider ring' and called it a torus.
First expression in post #1 (field of charged ring) looks exactly as the one here , but with ##\ Q\ ## instead of ##\ 2\pi\sigma R' dR' , \ \ ## and -- apart from that -- seems OK to me. This you now want to integrate from ##r_{\rm min}## to ##r_{\rm max}## (instead of from ##0## to ##r_{\rm max}## like here) and there you lose me :

peroAlex said:
Using Symbolab I managed to obtain following equation
Using my common sense I got something else. Pretty unpleasant, but the first derivative at ##z=0## is what we are after and that should be fairly decent. (In fact, working out the potential instead of the E-field would have been more economical -- hindsight...)

One reason I don't trust your result is that it diverges for ##z=0## which should not happen. Could you check ?