What Is the Correct Induced Charge on an Uncharged Conductor?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the induced charge on an uncharged conductor, where one participant argues that the charge density on the bottom should be -η and on the top should be η, based on the induced charge rule. However, a classmate and tutor reference Gauss's law, concluding that the bottom charge density is actually -η/2. The tutor clarifies that the professor's answer aligns with this Gauss's law interpretation. The original poster realizes that the induced charge rule applies to grounded conductors, not isolated ones, leading to confusion in their initial reasoning. Ultimately, the understanding of the situation is clarified, emphasizing the distinction between grounded and uncharged conductors.
athrun200
Messages
275
Reaction score
0
attachment.php?attachmentid=44393&stc=1&d=1330230514.jpg

The question itself is easy. E field at 2 is zero. E field at other points are of magnitude \frac{\eta}{2\epsilon}

But I am arguing with my classmate and tutor that what is the charge induced on the uncharged conductor.

For me, I simply use the rule induced charge (charge of same magnitude but different sign will be induced) to conclude that the charge density on the bottom of the conductor must be -\eta.
Since it is uncharged, the charge density on the top must be \eta.

But my classmate use Gauss law and obtain that the charge density on the bottom of the conductor is \frac{-\eta}{2}.

My tutor also said that the answer provided by professor is \frac{-\eta}{2}.

So why I can't apply the rule of induced cahrge here?
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    27.7 KB · Views: 895
Physics news on Phys.org
If the charge density on the top of the uncharged conductor was η, the field in region 1 would be η/ε which is not correct.
The rule of induced charge is applicable to grounded conductors. Here the uncharged conductor is isolated.
 
Last edited:
But it seems my question is a plane.
 
athrun200 said:
But it seems my question is a plane.

Sorry, my mistake. I edited the previous reply.
 
Thx a lot
I understand now
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top