Potential at a Distance away from a FINITE continuously charged plane

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the electric potential at a distance from the center of a square plane with a continuous charge distribution. The user is attempting to implement this calculation in Python and plans to use a two integral method, starting with the potential from a finite line charge. They express the need to transition from a line charge density (lambda) to a surface charge density (sigma) for the square plane. The user seeks advice on the integration setup and methodology, aiming to simplify the process while maintaining accuracy. The goal is to derive the potential in a general form for programming purposes.
BeRiemann
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


This is primarily a question that I'm trying to program into python. I want to know the potential at some distance (x,y) from the center of a square plane.


Homework Equations


V = integral (k/r) dq


The Attempt at a Solution


The way I see this mathematically is a two integral method. First I figure out the potential from a finite line with a continuous charge. This can be seen as dx or dy, such as the next step integrates this over either the width or length of the plane. If the point had no shift in x, it could be imagined as a pyramid.
I have the line charge done, though it is in terms of lambda = Q/L, when I actually have a sigma = Q/A. With an even charge distribution, I should be able to substitute (Q/(Length*width)) for lambda as long as I use it in both integrals.

Again, just looking for some advice into the method or the setup of the integration. I can take it from there in terms of the programming or simplifying.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As a reference I'm trying to do this
http://www.physics.upenn.edu/courses/gladney/phys151/lectures/lecture_jan_17_2003.shtml#tth_sEc1.3.3
but with electric potential in a general form.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top