Potential difference on a conical surface

issacnewton
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
37
hi

i am posting a problem 2.26 from griffiths EM book third edition.i am also attaching the solution from the book's solution manual. in the solution, griffiths has taken the ring as the differential element. but i want to know if we can take the small rectangular patch on the conical surface as the differential area element so that we can do double integration for calculating the potential at two points.

Issac n
 

Attachments

  • solution.JPG
    solution.JPG
    31.4 KB · Views: 561
  • problem 2.26.jpg
    problem 2.26.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 536
Physics news on Phys.org
hi IssacNewton! :smile:
IssacNewton said:
… griffiths has taken the ring as the differential element. but i want to know if we can take the small rectangular patch on the conical surface as the differential area element so that we can do double integration for calculating the potential at two points.

yes, you certainly can do it that way, but griffiths' way is easier and quicker.

(your way gives you extra work, and one integral ends up being 2πr anyway, which you can work out just by looking at the diagram)

as a general rule, every method works, but you get more marks in the exam (and you save time) if you use the simplest or quickest method. :biggrin:
 
thanks tiint tim...
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top