What is the radius of the equipotential surfaces for a charged cylinder?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a long charged cylinder with a uniform charge density, where the original poster seeks to determine the radius of equipotential surfaces at specified potentials. The context is electrostatics, specifically focusing on electric potential and field calculations using Gauss' Law.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to calculate the radius of equipotential surfaces using integration of the electric field derived from Gauss' Law. They express confusion over a potential discrepancy in their calculations, particularly regarding the sign of the potential.
  • Some participants question the assumptions made about the potential being greater than that at the surface of the cylinder, suggesting a review of the problem statement.
  • Others discuss the implications of using a negative reference potential and how it relates to the potential at various distances from the cylinder.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's calculations and assumptions. Some guidance has been offered regarding the potential sign and reference levels, with a few participants suggesting that the original poster reconsider their approach to the problem. Multiple interpretations of the potential's behavior are being explored, particularly concerning the reference point chosen for zero potential.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted ambiguity regarding the reference potential, as well as the implications of using negative values for potential in the context of a positively charged cylinder. The discussion reflects a need for clarity on these assumptions and their impact on the calculations.

carnot cycle
Messages
23
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A very long cylinder of radius 2.00 cm has a uniform charge density of 1.50 nC/m. Taking the reference level for the zero of potential to be the surface of the cylinder, find the radius of equipotential surfaces having potentials of 10.0 V, 20.0 V, and 30.0 V.

Homework Equations


Va - vb = ∫E * dr
Lower limit: a
Upper limit: b
λ = 1.50 nC/m

The Attempt at a Solution


I have solved, using Gauss' Law, the electric field of this cylinder.

E = λ/(2\piε0)(r)

Now to integrate, I removed the λ/(2\piε0) factor out of the integrand and did this:

Vr - V.02 cm = λ/(2\piε0) * ∫(1/r)dr

Lower limit for this integral: r (the distance from the axis of the cylinder)
Upper limit for this integral: 2.00 cm (the radius of the cylinder)

So Vr - V.02 cm = Vr =(λ/(2\piε0) * ln(.02/r)

Since the first part of the problem states that the potential difference is 10 V, I plugged 10 V in for Vr and just solved for r, since that should be the equipotential surface radius. I retrieved an answer of 1.38 cm, but this is incorrect. I can't seem to find my error. Thanks in advance.

The correct answer is 2.90 cm.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You missed a negative sign somewhere!
 
Where am I missing a negative sign?
 
The charge is positive, and you're looking for a location where the potential is higher than at the surface of the cylinder? Doesn't sound right to me. Check the question.
 
V= -∫E.dr. I thought you have missed the negative sign in this. But you have interchanged the integration limits so it is the same thing.

Didn't notice the question carefully, i totally agree with harupex, there is no r where potential would be greater than that of cyllinder. As the potential keeps on deceasing with r. Maybe the negative sign is missed in the question itself. Check it for -10, -20.
 
Yeah when I plug in -10V for Vr I do get the correct answer, 2.90 cm. However, how can there be a negative potential from a positively charged cylinder? Or does the -10V just mean that the potential at 2.90 cm is 10 volts lower than at the surface of the cylinder?

Thanks for the help :)
 
carnot cycle said:
does the -10V just mean that the potential at 2.90 cm is 10 volts lower than at the surface of the cylinder?
Yes.
 
carnot cycle said:
Yeah when I plug in -10V for Vr I do get the correct answer, 2.90 cm. However, how can there be a negative potential from a positively charged cylinder?

Finding potential is all about reference. If you take potential at infinity as the reference potential(zero potential) than the potential due to positive charged cyllinder would be positive at for every r as it keeps on on increasing as we r decreases(or as we move towards cyllinder). In the question reference potential is the potential of the cyllinder so the potential around it would be negative.

carnot cycle said:
Or does the -10V just mean that the potential at 2.90 cm is 10 volts lower than at the surface of the cylinder?

You have calculated for the expression V(r) - V(0.02), which is self explaining!
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K