Question regarding potential formulas

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating electric potential for continuous charge distributions in two dimensions, contrasting it with the three-dimensional case. The original poster seeks a formula involving the natural logarithm, recalling that it relates to the gradient of the logarithm of the distance between points. A respondent clarifies that the correct approach for two dimensions involves integrating the surface charge density over the area, leading to a potential expression that does not explicitly include logarithmic terms. The potential in two dimensions can be derived similarly to three dimensions, but the logarithmic aspect may arise from specific integration scenarios. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the dimensional differences in electric potential calculations.
Carl140
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
I know that the electric potential for a continuous distributions of charge can be calculated
using the following formula:

Integral [ p(y) grad( 1/(|x-y)) d A_y ]

Where grad represents the gradient of the vector function |x-y| and A_y is a area length element and p(y) represents the charge density.
I know this result is valid for 3 dimensions.

I need the result for 2 dimensions, I remember the answer involves an expression like
grad( log(|x-y|)) where log represents the natural logarithm but I can't find it anyhwere.

Anyone knows where I can find it or how to derive it? I'm pretty sure it involves a logarithm.
I've searched in Jackson and Griffiths but couldn't find it.

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Carl140 said:
Integral [ p(y) grad( 1/(|x-y)) d A_y ]
Where grad represents the gradient of the vector function |x-y| and A_y is a area length element and p(y) represents the charge density.
I know this result is valid for 3 dimensions.
This can't be right for 3 dimensions as you claim. It looks like the result for 2 dimensions, see how it's put together below.

The derivation for a two-dimensional surface is the same as a three dimensional surface: Consider the charge distribution as consisting of elements of charge ##dq## and use superposition to find the potential at ##\vec r##. Using ##\vec r'## to denote the coordinate of ##dq##, one writes,$$dV=\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0}\frac{dq}{|\vec r-\vec r'|}=\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0}\frac{\sigma(\vec r')dA'}{|\vec r-\vec r'|}$$where ##\sigma(\vec r')## is the surface charge density. The total potential is obtained by integrating primed coordinates over the surface of the two dimensional distribution,$$V(\vec r)=\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0}\int \frac{\sigma(\vec r')dA'}{|\vec r-\vec r'|}.$$I am not sure where the logarithmic expressions would come in. What you remember is probably the result of integration over a specific surface.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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...
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...
Back
Top