Surface density of the charges induced on the bases of the cylinder

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the surface density of charges induced on the bases of a cylinder, focusing on the electric fields involved and their relationships. Participants are exploring concepts related to electromagnetism, specifically Gauss' law and electric fields in dielectric materials.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various expressions for electric fields, particularly questioning the correctness of the relationship between the internal and external electric fields. There are attempts to clarify the use of relative permittivity and its implications on dimensional analysis.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided insights and corrections regarding the expressions used for electric fields. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of these corrections on the overall solution, with some participants expressing confidence in the revised approaches while others continue to seek validation of their reasoning.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of training material that provides specific relationships for electric fields, which some participants are relying on. The discussion also highlights the importance of understanding the definitions and roles of relative permittivity in the context of the problem.

rokiboxofficial Ref
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
The dielectric cylinder is in an external uniform electric field E, which is parallel to the axis of the cylinder. Find the surface density of the charges induced on the bases of the cylinder. Dielectric constant of the cylinder material is equal to ε. The height of a cylinder is much less than the radius of its bases.
Relevant Equations
##E_{in} = E_{out} - E_{ind}##
##E_{in} = \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon}##
The correct answer to this problem is: ##\sigma = \varepsilon_0E\frac{\varepsilon-1}{\varepsilon}##
Here is my attempt to solve it, please tell me what is my mistake?
##E_{in} = E_{out} - E_{ind}##
##E_{ind} = E_{out} - E_{in}##
##E_{in} = \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon}##
##E_{ind} = E_{out} - \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon}##
##E = \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0\varepsilon}##
##E_{ind} = E_{ind+} + E_{ind-}##
##E_{ind} = \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0\varepsilon} + \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0\varepsilon} = \frac{\sigma}{\varepsilon_0\varepsilon}##
##\sigma = E_{ind}\varepsilon_0\varepsilon##
##\sigma = \left( E_{out} - \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon} \right)\varepsilon_0\varepsilon##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\varepsilon- \frac{E_{out}\varepsilon_0\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\varepsilon- E_{out}\varepsilon_0##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\left( \varepsilon- 1 \right)##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think ##~E_{in} = \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon}~## should be ##~E_{in} = \frac{\varepsilon_0 E_{out}}{\varepsilon}~## otherwise the dimensions are incorrect. See if that fixes the problem.
 
kuruman said:
I think ##~E_{in} = \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon}~## should be ##~E_{in} = \frac{\varepsilon_0 E_{out}}{\varepsilon}~## otherwise the dimensions are incorrect. See if that fixes the problem.
No, it doesn't fix it:

##E_{in} = \frac{\varepsilon_0E_{out}}{\varepsilon}##
##E_{ind} = E_{out} - E_{in}##
##E_{ind} = E_{out} - \frac{\varepsilon_0E_{out}}{\varepsilon}##
##\sigma = \left( E_{out} - \frac{\varepsilon_0E_{out}}{\varepsilon} \right)\varepsilon_0\varepsilon##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\varepsilon- \frac{\varepsilon_0E_{out}\varepsilon_0\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\varepsilon- E_{out}{\varepsilon_0}^2##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\left( \varepsilon- \varepsilon_0 \right)##

And the formula ##E_{in} = \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon}## was given to me in the training material for the task, I think that it is most likely correct.
 
rokiboxofficial Ref said:
The correct answer to this problem is: ##\sigma = \varepsilon_0E\frac{\varepsilon-1}{\varepsilon}##
Here is my attempt to solve it, please tell me what is my mistake?
##E_{in} = E_{out} - E_{ind}##
##E_{ind} = E_{out} - E_{in}##
##E_{in} = \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon}##
##E_{ind} = E_{out} - \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon}##
##E = \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0\varepsilon}##
##E_{ind} = E_{ind+} + E_{ind-}##
##E_{ind} = \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0\varepsilon} + \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0\varepsilon} = \frac{\sigma}{\varepsilon_0\varepsilon}##
##\sigma = E_{ind}\varepsilon_0\varepsilon##
##\sigma = \left( E_{out} - \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon} \right)\varepsilon_0\varepsilon##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\varepsilon- \frac{E_{out}\varepsilon_0\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\varepsilon- E_{out}\varepsilon_0##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\left( \varepsilon- 1 \right)##
I believe the mistake occurs where you wrote $$E = \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0\varepsilon}$$ for the electric field produced by ##\sigma## on one of the surfaces. You can treat the surface as an infinite plane. The electric field produced by an infinite plane of surface charge ##\sigma## can be found using Gauss' law.
 
kuruman said:
I think ##~E_{in} = \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon}~## should be ##~E_{in} = \frac{\varepsilon_0 E_{out}}{\varepsilon}~## otherwise the dimensions are incorrect. See if that fixes the problem.
Looks like ##\varepsilon## is being used for the relative permittivity, so is dimensionless.
 
TSny said:
I believe the mistake occurs where you wrote $$E = \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0\varepsilon}$$ for the electric field produced by ##\sigma## on one of the surfaces. You can treat the surface as an infinite plane. The electric field produced by an infinite plane of surface charge ##\sigma## can be found using Gauss' law.
Yes, you are right! Thank you a lot!
Is this solution a correct?
By Gauss' law:
##\frac{q}{\varepsilon_0} = ES_{full}##
##\frac{q}{\varepsilon_0} = 2ES##
##E = \frac{q}{2\varepsilon_0S}##
##E = \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0}##
##E_{ind} = E_{ind+} + E_{ind-}##
##E_{ind} = \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0} + \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0} = \frac{\sigma}
{\varepsilon_0}##
##\sigma = E_{ind}\varepsilon_0##
##E_{ind} = E_{out} - \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon}##
##\sigma = \left( E_{out} - \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon} \right)\varepsilon_0##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0- \frac{E_{out}\varepsilon_0}{\varepsilon}##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\left( 1 - \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\right)##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\left( \frac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon} - \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\right)##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\left(\frac{\varepsilon - 1}{\varepsilon}\right)##
 
rokiboxofficial Ref said:
Yes, you are right! Thank you a lot!
Is this solution a correct?
By Gauss' law:
##\frac{q}{\varepsilon_0} = ES_{full}##
##\frac{q}{\varepsilon_0} = 2ES##
##E = \frac{q}{2\varepsilon_0S}##
##E = \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0}##
##E_{ind} = E_{ind+} + E_{ind-}##
##E_{ind} = \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0} + \frac{\sigma}{2\varepsilon_0} = \frac{\sigma}
{\varepsilon_0}##
##\sigma = E_{ind}\varepsilon_0##
##E_{ind} = E_{out} - \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon}##
##\sigma = \left( E_{out} - \frac{E_{out}}{\varepsilon} \right)\varepsilon_0##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0- \frac{E_{out}\varepsilon_0}{\varepsilon}##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\left( 1 - \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\right)##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\left( \frac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon} - \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\right)##
##\sigma = E_{out}\varepsilon_0\left(\frac{\varepsilon - 1}{\varepsilon}\right)##
Looks good.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: rokiboxofficial Ref
haruspex said:
Looks like ##\varepsilon## is being used for the relative permittivity, so is dimensionless.
Yes. ##\varepsilon## is given to be the "dielectric constant", which is the same as the relative permittivity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
811
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
967
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K