Work Done line Integral question - Electrostatics - help please

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a misunderstanding of the work done in an electrostatics problem, specifically regarding the line integral of the electric field. The correct expression for work done is identified as WD = q(3x1^2y1 - y1^3), with a noted omission of a square in the initial calculation. Verification of the potential function V indicates that the derived work done aligns with the corrected formula. An alternative path for calculation confirms the same result, reinforcing the accuracy of the corrected expression. The conversation emphasizes the importance of confidence in problem-solving and the value of peer support in academic discussions.
smileandbehappy
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
16751527103_7b9f233588_b.jpg


17345858046_fe1f8aaecc_b.jpg


Can anyone please tell me where I am going wrong? I am getting the incorrect answer for the Word Done should be: WD = q(3x^2-6y) ...

Apologies for not changing it into the format on here - but for my revision I have pretty much done that myself.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You showed that ##\vec E## as given is curl free. Well done.
Then you worked out that ##\displaystyle q\int_{(0,0,0)}^{(x_1, y_1,0)} \vec E\cdot \vec{dl} = q\left(3x_1^2y_1 - y_1^3\right )## (small omission of the ##^2## ).

To check it, you could verify that ##V = -\nabla\cdot E## is satisfied if ##-V(x,y,z) = 3x^2y - y^3## and then you can immediately see that W.D. is what you found (when you fix the missing square) and not q(3x2-6y).

You could double check with another path: from (0,0,0) to (0, y1, 0) and then to ( x1, 0, 0) which givves the very same result.

Have some faith and if we're both wrong don't hesitate to inform me with another post ! I love (:wink:) to be corrected when I'm wrong.

(happens all the time :cry: )
-
 
Thanks - I guess I was just doubting myself! Really appreciate you helping me out like that. Sam.
 
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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
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