Potential of the rod on its axis.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the electric potential at a point on the axis of a uniformly charged rod. The potential is derived by integrating the contributions from each infinitesimal segment of the rod. The formula provided is φ(r) = (1/4πε₀ε)(q/l)ln((r+l)/r), where r is the distance from the rod to the point of interest. This approach emphasizes the importance of integrating to account for the continuous charge distribution along the rod. The integration method is crucial for accurately determining the potential in such scenarios.
Sumedh
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
If a rod of length l is uniformly charged with charge q what will be the potential at point p?
The point is on the axis of the rod.Distance between the rod and point is r.
Also tell the concept behind this. Any help will be highly appreciated.
 

Attachments

  • potential.png
    potential.png
    590 bytes · Views: 545
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Easy, just sum (integrate) potential coming from every point of your rod:
\varphi(r) = \int_r^{r+l}\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0\varepsilon}\frac{q}{l}\frac{1}{\varrho}d\varrho=<br /> \frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0\varepsilon}\frac{q}{l}\ln {\frac{r+l}{r}}
 
thank you very much
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

Tension of a rod rotating on a horizontal table about a vertical axis
Replies
12
Views
2K
I Angular velocity of a rod and what formula to use while solving.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Moment of inertia of a thin uniform rod
Replies
5
Views
3K
I Kleppner Classical mechanics: Question about stability (p.217)
Replies
2
Views
1K
Why Is the Potential Infinite at the End of a Charged Rod?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Rigid rod moving in potential field
Replies
5
Views
2K
Pulling/pushing an elastic rod at high speeds
Replies
5
Views
2K
Correct Use of the Parallel Axis Theorem for Moment of Inertia
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Change of coordinates in a potential energy field
Replies
2
Views
1K
Problem - Different weights on a swinging rod
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top