What Is the Potential at an Infinite Uniformly Charged Line?

AI Thread Summary
The potential at an infinite uniformly charged line is defined as ln|s|, where s is the perpendicular distance, leading to an infinite potential. While the electric field on the line itself may be zero due to charge cancellation, this does not resolve the issue of infinite potential when approaching the line. It is concluded that the potential cannot be defined directly on the line charge. For capacitance calculations between a line charge and a cylindrical shell, it is suggested to assume a small radius for the line charge to avoid infinite values. Ultimately, the capacitance approaches zero when considering an ideal line charge at the center of a hollow conductor.
ExtravagantDreams
Messages
82
Reaction score
5
I know it seems a bit trivial, but what is the potential right at an infinite uniformly charged line?

Irregardless of reference point, the Potential will have a ln|s|, where s is the perpendicular distance to the line. Obviously this would result in infinity.

At the same time when I visualize a test charge on the line charge, the charge on either side of the test charge cancels and the result might be zero electric field on the line. This would result in a potential with respect to a reference point. But I suppose even this gives a potential of infinity, since there is the infinite potential difference between the reference point and essentially to the line.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
ExtravagantDreams said:
I know it seems a bit trivial, but what is the potential right at an infinite uniformly charged line?

Irregardless of reference point, the Potential will have a ln|s|, where s is the perpendicular distance to the line. Obviously this would result in infinity.

At the same time when I visualize a test charge on the line charge, the charge on either side of the test charge cancels and the result might be zero electric field on the line. This would result in a potential with respect to a reference point. But I suppose even this gives a potential of infinity, since there is the infinite potential difference between the reference point and essentially to the line.

The electric field ON a line charge will be zero, since a charge placed there will not move. You could say that the potential is zero there for that reason. However, we can't take a derivative of E there since the potential, as you say, blows up as it approaches that point from the exterior. So my conclusion would be that the potential is cannot be defined on the line charge.

-Dan
 
Ok, so then if I wanted to find the capacitance between a line charge and a cylindrical conducting shell around it, since I would have to define a potential difference, could I simply say the potential on the line is zero and the potential at the shell is the negative integral of the electric field due to the line charge at the shell, using a reference point where the potential is zero. And then use that for the capacitance. Or would the potential difference be infinite, and then the capacitance zero?
 
Last edited:
ExtravagantDreams said:
Ok, so then if I wanted to find the capacitance between a line charge and a cylindrical conducting shell around it, since I would have to define a potential difference, could I simply say the potential on the line is zero and the potential at the shell is the negative integral of the electric field due to the line charge at the shell, using a reference point where the potential is zero. And then use that for the capacitance. Or would the potential difference be infinite, and then the capacitance zero?

Is this a homework problem? The capacitance does go to zero in the limit of a line charge at the center of a hollow cylindrical conductor, but normally we do this problem for a cylindrical charge with a nonzero radius at the center. Physically that's what we would have in that situation anyway. I would recommend assuming a small radius r for the line charge and do the problem that way. (And if your professor doesn't like it, just take the limit as r goes to zero of your answer!)

-Dan
 
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