[symbolic] Linear uniform charge density (E field at a point)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the electric field at point P due to a uniformly charged rod centered at the origin. The user integrates from -L/2 to L/2, using the linear charge density and expressing the differential charge as dQ=lambda*dL. It is noted that the expression for R² should be corrected to R²=x²+y², where x is the horizontal distance along the rod. A suggestion is made to use a trigonometric substitution to simplify the integration process, which involves arctangent functions. Overall, the approach to solving the problem is confirmed to be reasonable with adjustments for clarity.
syntroniks
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Center a rod of length L at (0,0) with the length going horizontally.

Take a point P at (0,y).

Find the electric field at P.

Homework Equations


\lambda=Q/L
E= \int k*dQ/R^{2}

The Attempt at a Solution


I am integrating from -L/2 to L/2
Since Q=lambda*L, I guess differentially dQ=lambda*dL.

Substituting that into the integral, it becomes:
k*\lambda \int dL/R^{2}
from -L/2 to L/2 of course.

R is pretty messy so I'll just write what I came up with for R^{2}:
R^{2}=(L^{2}/4)+y^{2}

So... Doesn't this seem pretty reasonable? I just want to be double sure that this is OK.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There may be a confusion with L, used in two different ways here.
I suggest you change dQ=lambda*dL to dQ=lambda*dx, where x is a distance along the x axis. This x runs from -L/2 to L/2.
I think you'll find that R² = x² + y².
Looks like one of those trig substitution integrals.
 
Thankfully for this particular problem I get to do the integration by software... kinda. Turns out to involve arctangent and a relative mess of symbols.

Thanks for the suggestion about variables, it is definitely more clear that way.
 
Looks like the substitution x = y*tan A really simplifies it!
And the A is a real angle in the problem.
 
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