Uniform charge across a rod, Professor couldn't answer

AI Thread Summary
A professor assigned a problem involving the electric potential of a uniformly charged rod but encountered difficulties during class, leading to the problem being dismissed. The discussion focuses on calculating the electric potential along the x-axis for positions greater than L/2 and simplifying the resulting equations. Participants suggest methods for handling logarithmic expressions and integrating to derive a solution that resembles that of a point charge. The conversation emphasizes the importance of careful substitution and expansion techniques to arrive at the correct final expression. Overall, the thread provides insights into solving complex electrostatics problems despite initial confusion.
Hydroshock
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Alright, well I wanted to see what help I could get here, my professor had assigned this problem and when someone in class asked a question, he started doing it on the board and after using ~15min of class time decided there was an issue with the problem. The problem got progressively harder (which leads me to believe he must have made a mistake) and he ended up deciding we don't have to do it, but I'm interested in getting it done anyway.

Homework Statement


"A rod of length L has a total charge Q uniformly distributed alone its length. The rod lies along the x-axis with its center at the origin. (a) What is the electric potential as a function of position along the x-axis for x > L/2? (b) Show that for x >> L/2, your result reduces to that due to a point charge Q.

Homework Equations



V = int|kdq/r
dq = λdx
λ = Q/L
r = x0 - x

The Attempt at a Solution



Well what the problem was when we got to (b). Which after setting up the equation we ended up with

k\lambda\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac {dx} {x_0-x})

where after substitution we get

k\lambda\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}ln(x_0-x)

but since there's units (meters) for x, it can't be run through a transcendental function, then I got lost here, but with more substitution we ended up with

V = k\lambdaln\frac {x_0-1/2} {x_0+1/2}

then when the problem got going, it expanded and expanded and didn't get any simplification going, which is odd for a textbook question. I guess it's more of needing a check with the math work done in the problem?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi!

What you've done looks pretty good, but after subbing in the limits from the integral on this line:

\frac { \lambda } { 4 \pi \epsilon_o} ( ln (x_o + L/2) - ln (x_o - L/2) )

instead of combining the logs (using ln(A) - ln (B) = ln (A/B)) like you've done on the next line, why not factorise out an x_o in each log? Then you can pull the x_o out of the log by using the log rule ln (AB) = ln A + ln B. Something like this:

\frac { \lambda } { 4 \pi \epsilon_o} ( ln (x_o) - ln (1 + \frac{L}{2x_o}) - ln(x_o) - ln (x_o - \frac{L}{2x_o}) )

Notice how the ln(x_o) cancels.

Here's the trick now though. Try expanding each of the logs to O^2 in terms of a taylor series. If you've done it right, you'll hopefully get some canceling and be left with a an equation which you can replace the charge density and length by the total charge. You're final equation should look like this:

\frac { Q } { 4 \pi \epsilon_o x_o}

Hope this helps :-)
 
For starters I'd use x' to represent the position of the source charge, and x to represent the field point along the x-axis. Then Coulomb's Law giives:

V(x)=k \lambda \int_{-L/2}^{L/2} \frac{dx'}{|x-x'|} = -k \lambda ln \left( |x-x'| \right) |_{-L/2}^{L/2} = -k \lambda ln \left( \frac{|x-L/2|}{|x+L/2|} \right) = k \lambda ln \left( \frac{|x+L/2|}{|x-L/2|} \right)

For x> L/2, \quad |x-L/2|=x-L/2, \quad |x+L/2|=x+L/2

So, your solution for (a) is:

V(x)=k \lambda ln \left( \frac{x+L/2}{x-L/2} \right)

Now for (b), expand the log in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_series" :

V(x)=k \lambda ln \left( \frac{x+L/2}{x-L/2} \right) =k \lambda ln \left( \frac{1+\frac{L}{2x}}{1-\frac{L}{2x}} \right) = k \lambda ln \left( 1+\frac{L}{2x} \right) - k \lambda ln \left( 1-\frac{L}{2x} \right) \approx k \lambda \left( \frac{L}{2x} - \frac{L^2}{8x^2} \right) - k \lambda \left( - \frac{L}{2x} - \frac{L^2}{8x^2} \right)=k \frac{ \lambda L}{x} = k \frac{Q}{x}
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That works gabbagabbahey :) Thanks for the help to you two.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top