1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Voltage of cylinder of radius R

  1. Mar 5, 2014 #1
    ε1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    A very long solid cylinder of radius R = 6 cm has:
    -uniform volume charge density ρ = +7 µC/m3.
    -linear charge density λ = 7.9168E-8 C/m

    Outside: What is the electric field at a radial distance of 7 cm from the axis of the cylinder?
    Inside: What is the electric field at a radial distance of 5 cm from the axis of the cylinder?

    Voltage: Setting V=0 at r=3R, find the voltage at the following locations:
    V (r = 0)
    V (r = R/2)
    V (r = R)
    V (r = 2R)
    V (r = 4R)




    2. Relevant equations

    using gauss law to find the electric field inside and outside the cylinder

    inside the cylinder E = ( ρ*r )/(2*εo)

    outside the cylinder E = ( λ )/(2*∏*r*εo)

    Voltage is just integration of E, so V=-∫Edr

    3. The attempt at a solution

    I find the electric field from the axis 0m to 0.07m using E = ( λ )/(2*∏*r*εo), i got 20338.948 N/C

    I find the electric field from the axis 0m to 0.05m using E = ( ρ*r )/(2*εo), i got 19773.9484 N/C

    The problem i have is to find the voltage from the asked distance to distance r=3R
    we set V at 3R = 0.

    i do the integration on E = ( ρ*r )/(2*εo) from r=0 to r=R to find the Voltage inside the cylinder

    then do integration on E = ( λ )/(2*∏*r*εo) from r=R to r=3R to find the voltage outside the cylinder.

    when it ask find the voltage at r=0, it means that i have to find the ΔV, which is from
    V(r=0) to v(r=3R), then i do separate integral on that two different E equation, then add them up. Since V at r=3R is 0, then i pretty much ignored it during the integration. but i got it wrong. how am i supposed to do this. i have try many method and i think this is the correctway to do it. can someone help me out or explaining it to me? Thank you for your time and reply
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Mar 5, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 5, 2014 #2
    For finding the potential at r = 0, you're right in having to add up the two integrals, one from r = 3R to r = R, then another from r = R to r = 0, but in your work there's only one. What happened to the other?
     
  4. Mar 5, 2014 #3
    yeah, thats what i thought but the webassign said my answer is wrong, so i wonder what is the way to do it then?

    so you say the method im doing it is correct isnt it?

    Or is be because the equation that i use is wrong?
    when r=R, do i use equation of r gauss < R cylinder or r gauss > R cylinder?

    if that is the way to do it, then might be the way i setting up the equation for the integral is wrong.

    what do you thnk?
     
  5. Mar 5, 2014 #4
    Yes, that method should be correct. Think about it like this:
    $$\Delta V = V(r) - V(3R)$$
    So this means that
    $$V(r) = V(3R) + \Delta V$$
    You know that V(3R) = 0, and also that you start integrating from 3R. So say to find the potential at r = 0:
    $$V(r = 0) = 0 - \int^{R}_{3R}E_{outside}dr - \int^{0}_{R}E_{inside}dr$$
    I think that's what you were doing -- you may have been a little off in the bounds or what field to use perhaps. And when r = R, you don't really pick between the fields -- R is when the field changes, so it's more that you switch the fields between the two integrals.
     
  6. Mar 5, 2014 #5
    i dont know what to do.
    I just do the easiest thing first, which is find the voltage V at r=R
    based on the integration, i have 2 answers.
    either 711.864 (integrated from r=0 to r=R) or 4005.527 (integrated from r=3R to r=R)
    i put down either answer, and its wrong....

    i find out that its weird, based on the graph of the voltage over radius,
    the voltage from r=0 to r=R should be greater than from r=R to r=3R.
    but based on the integral value, its the opposite.
     

    Attached Files:

  7. Mar 5, 2014 #6
    Okay, so you evaluated both integrals, correct? But the answer isn't either of those -- look at the expression I posted. Those integrals are added together, right? Also, talking about the voltage at R is misleading -- what that means is the potential with respect to zero (V(3R)), so only the value of V(R) - V(3R) is meaningful. V(0) - V(R) means the potential difference between 0 and R, but says nothing about the potential at R.
     
  8. Mar 5, 2014 #7
    I finally got it right. Apparently i was stupid to cross out the value during the integration just because they set the V=0 at r=3R. so i ended up get everything wrong.
    thank you for your help :D
    i appreaciate it
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted