Potential of a Linear Quadrupole

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lomion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Linear Potential
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the potential equation for a linear quadrupole, with participants analyzing their calculations and comparing them to a textbook answer. The user initially derived a potential equation but found discrepancies with the textbook's result, particularly regarding a factor of 8π instead of 4π in the denominator. Clarifications were made regarding the configuration of charges, confirming that the setup includes a -2q charge at the origin and two +q charges at distances ±d. The conversation also touched on the potential errors in the textbook and the need for accurate charge values, as well as the challenge of finding reliable resources for the quadrupole potential equation. Overall, the thread highlights the complexities of deriving the potential for a linear quadrupole and the importance of precise calculations.
Lomion
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Can anyone tell me how to derive the equation for potential of an electric linear quadrupole?

http://img142.exs.cx/img142/8715/quadrupole3tj.jpg

My attempts yielded:

V = \frac{q}{4\pi\epsilon_0} [\frac{1}{R_1} - \frac{2}{R} + \frac{1}{R_2}]

V = \frac{q}{4\pi\epsilon_0} [\frac{RR_2 - 2R_1R_2 + RR_1}{RR_1R_2}]

Approximating with R >> d, I set RR_1R_2 = R^3
And I set R_1 = R-d\cos\theta and R_2 = R+d\cos\theta

Substituting in the equation, I get:

V = \frac{qd^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0R^3} [1+\cos{2\theta}]

However, the book's answer states that the potential

V = \frac{qd^2}{8\pi\epsilon_0R^3} [1+3\cos{2\theta}]

And I don't see how they got that. Was my approximation too inaccurate? Is there a geometric way to approximate this without going into taylor/maclaurin series expansion?

Thanks for any help offered!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
your reasoning seems fine and your algebra is correct..( except you have a typo, it should be 8pi in the denomenator instead of 4 pi)
is that the exact problem? do you draw your graph or is it provided in the problem? I want to make it clear before I get my hand wet...

EDIT
you said you have a linear quadrupole but I see 3 charge only... that is not a quadrupole, that's why I asked this question...
 
Hi!

Perhaps I should have made it clearer. It's a linear quadrupole because the charge in the middle (at the origin is -2q) while the charges on the top and the bottom are +q. The diagram itself was taken directly from the textbook, so it should be correct.

Since it was badly drawn, though, I'll try to explain it a bit better. At the origin, there is a -2q charge. At distance +/-d from the origin, on either side of the -2q charge on the same axis, are two +q charges.

As for the 8\pi, can you tell me how you got that?

In the second-to-last step in my algebra, I have:

V = \frac{qd^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0R^3} [2\cos^2\theta]

Which then converted to [1+\cos{2\theta}].

Thanks a lot!
 
In my mind,everything you did is perfect...Are u sure with the values of the charges.You know,when added,they give 0...

Daniel.
 
Last edited:
Are they not supposed to add up to 0? For example, in a dipole, you have +q and then -q, which adds up to zero.

The textbook has been known to have errors, but I'm not sure my answer should be that far off from the given one. Does anyone have any links to a site that could give the equation for the potential of a linear quadrupole? I googled for it and only got an http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/teaching/phy205/L4_questions.htm that was sort of close to mine which calculated for any point along the axis (instead of any point that could also be away from the axis).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've spend some time on this problem but can't find any error...

ps
the 4 pie things, I thought it was a typo becasue i saw the answer is 8pie but indeed it is not...
 
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