Uniformly charged rod in an arc

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the electric field at the center of a uniformly charged rod bent into a 3/4 circle. Participants note that neither the x nor y components of the electric field can cancel out due to the geometry of the arc. It is suggested that if the arc is oriented correctly, the x components can be made to cancel by redefining the axes. Different integration limits are mentioned for calculating the electric field components, leading to varying results. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of orientation and component analysis in determining the electric field.
StephenDoty
Messages
261
Reaction score
0
If a rod with charge density lambda is bent into a 3/4 circle what is the E field at the center?


Well if the rod is 3/4 of a circle then neither the x or y components can cancel out, thus

E= k*lambda/ R (i) + k*lambda/R (j)

right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to tell us how the circular arc is oriented. And I don't see how you got that. I got a different answer for magnitude.
 
from pi/2 to 2pi

meaning the test particle would go up and to the right.

as I drew the lines of E I couldn't tell how any component could cancel, and if you spit it up neither the x or y component cancel out as the r's are different. If the rod was a half circle the y's would cancel out but if it is just a 1/4 circle there is an x- and y-components, thus for a 3/4 circle there would be x- y- components.

and if you add another 1/4 of a circle you would get a ring at which there is no E field at the center. and if you draw two dq lines from opposite sides of the 3/4 circle arc the resultant would be going up and to the right.

After that I just integrated x and y components from pi/2 to 2pi as my instructor indicated.
 
Last edited:
StephenDoty said:
from pi/2 to 2pi

meaning the test particle would go up and to the right.

as I drew the lines of E I couldn't tell how any component could cancel, and if you spit it up neither the x or y component cancel out as the r's are different. If the rod was a half circle the y's would cancel out but if it is just a 1/4 circle there is an x- and y-components, thus for a 3/4 circle there would be x- y- components.

You can redefine your axes so that one set of components will cancel. For example, if you define the resultant field to be along the y-axis, so that the arc is from (3/4)pi to (1/4)pi, all of the x components will cancel.
 
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