uniformly distributed charge on a rod

logistic_guy

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2024
Messages
197
here is the question

this is elelctric field. if the horizontal rod of length L is placed completely in the negative x-axis, one end touching the origin. the point to calculate the electric field at is on positive x-axis a distance x from the origin. if i take differential element dx on the rod, how to calculate the distance from dx to the point on the positive x-axis

if i do this i get zero

-x + x = 0 :(
 
Electric Fields and Magnetic Fields were my favorite topics in Physics. 😍

I think that you are trying to calculate [imath]\displaystyle E = \int k\frac{dq}{r^2}[/imath].

Call the distance from the origin to the point on the positive [imath]\text{x-axis} \ P[/imath], then [imath]r[/imath] is the distance from [imath]dx[/imath] to [imath]P[/imath]. Therefore, your integral will be:

[imath]\displaystyle E = \int k\frac{dq}{(P - x)^2}[/imath]

This visualization could be wrong without the figure of the problem. Can you please write the exact wording of the problem along with its diagram?
 
thank


same this question but the rod on the negative x-axis. also wanna know the difference between non-uniformly and uniform charge disturbtion. same question but non-uniform, how to do?
 
thank


same this question but the rod on the negative x-axis. also wanna know the difference between non-uniformly and uniform charge disturbtion. same question but non-uniform, how to do?
Have you followed the suggestion (integration) provided in response #2?

Please show us what you have tried and exactly where you are stuck.

Please follow the rules of posting in this forum, as enunciated at:

READ BEFORE POSTING

Please share your work/thoughts about this problem
 
Have you followed the suggestion (integration) provided in response #2?

Please show us what you have tried and exactly where you are stuck.

Please follow the rules of posting in this forum, as enunciated at:

READ BEFORE POSTING

Please share your work/thoughts about this problem
thank

if his integration correct, i calculate like this

\(\displaystyle \int k\frac{dq}{(P - x)^2} = \int k\frac{\lambda dx}{(P - x)^2}\)

the problem he's not sure it's correct and i don't know how to check
 
thank

if his integration correct, i calculate like this

\(\displaystyle \int k\frac{dq}{(P - x)^2} = \int k\frac{\lambda dx}{(P - x)^2}\)

the problem he's not sure it's correct and i don't know how to check
What are the limits of the integration?

You should also "understand" the derivation of those integrals. Then you will be able to "derive" the situation where the distribution is non-uniform.
 
What are the limits of the integration?

You should also "understand" the derivation of those integrals. Then you will be able to "derive" the situation where the distribution is non-uniform.
before asking me further question, i need to know if this is correct integration

\(\displaystyle \int k\frac{\lambda dx}{(P - x)^2}\)

if this correct, i don't understand it

this part i need to understand \(\displaystyle (P - x)\) because i see the distance from \(\displaystyle dx\) to \(\displaystyle P\) is \(\displaystyle (x + P)\)

if this wrong, show the correct one and explain it step by step
 
this part i need to understand \(\displaystyle (P - x)\) because i see the distance from \(\displaystyle dx\) to \(\displaystyle P\) is \(\displaystyle (x + P)\)
Both are correct. It depends on how you will integrate.

If you will integrate normally, you do this:

[imath]\displaystyle \int_{0}^{-L}k\frac{\lambda}{(P - x)^2} \ dx[/imath]

If you will play fancy, taking the left side positive, you do this:

[imath]\displaystyle \int_{0}^{L}k\frac{\lambda}{(P + x)^2} \ dx[/imath]

Solve them, they should give you the same result. Also solve the one in the website that you have given, you should get the same result as well. Why? Because the coordinate system is just a reference system. It will not affect on the result as long as the point [imath]P[/imath] is in front of the rod. If the rod is positively charged, the electric field at [imath]P[/imath] due to the rod will point to the right (east). If the rod is negatively charged, the electric field at [imath]P[/imath] due to the rod will point to the left (west).

How will you solve the problem if the charge is non-uniformly distributed?

Well they will tell you how the charge [imath]Q[/imath] is distributed by giving you more information about the charge density [imath]\lambda[/imath].

Scenarios:

1. The charge density is directly proportional to [imath]x[/imath]. In other words, [imath]\lambda = ax[/imath].

2. The charge density is inversely proportional to [imath]x[/imath]. In other words, [imath]\displaystyle \lambda = \frac{a}{x}[/imath].

3. [imath]\lambda = ax^2[/imath].

4. [imath]\lambda = a(x - x^2)[/imath].

When the charge density is non-uniform, the difficulty of solving the integral will increase. For example, if we take scenario #1 with our original problem assuming the charge is not uniformly distributed, the integral will be:

[imath]\displaystyle \int_{0}^{-L}k\frac{\lambda}{(P - x)^2} \ dx = \int_{0}^{-L}k\frac{ax}{(P - x)^2} \ dx[/imath]

And you need to do one more step to find the constant [imath]a[/imath].

[imath]\displaystyle Q = \int_{0}^{L} \lambda \ dx = \int_{0}^{L} ax \ dx[/imath]

[imath]\displaystyle a = \frac{Q}{\int_{0}^{L} x \ dx}[/imath]


Note: If we have a thin rod of length [imath]L[/imath], the relation between the charge [imath]Q[/imath] and the charge density [imath]\displaystyle \lambda[/imath] is: [imath]\lambda = \frac{Q}{L}[/imath].
 
thank for long explanation

i'm still confused about \(\displaystyle (P - x)\) :(
Let us assume that we don't have a coordinate system. Look at the diagram below.

1849.png

[imath]\displaystyle R = X + P[/imath] is the distance between the points [imath]\displaystyle A[/imath] and [imath]\displaystyle B[/imath].

Give me a numerical value for [imath]\displaystyle R[/imath]. Choose any value for [imath]\displaystyle X[/imath] and any value for [imath]\displaystyle P[/imath].

[imath]\displaystyle R = \ ?[/imath]
 
thank for long explanation

i'm still confused about \(\displaystyle (P - x)\) :(
Do you have a college (intermediate or introductory) level Physics book - like Physics for Students of Science and Engineering by Halliday and Resnick? This problem is discussed in detail in most of those books.
 
For university Physics book,

The Feynman lectures on Physics

will be a super-excellent book.He has been called - a Nobel laureate who has sometimes been called "The Great Explainer" . This set may be available in your local college/university library.
 
Let us assume that we don't have a coordinate system. Look at the diagram below.

View attachment 38379

[imath]\displaystyle R = X + P[/imath] is the distance between the points [imath]\displaystyle A[/imath] and [imath]\displaystyle B[/imath].

Give me a numerical value for [imath]\displaystyle R[/imath]. Choose any value for [imath]\displaystyle X[/imath] and any value for [imath]\displaystyle P[/imath].

[imath]\displaystyle R = \ ?[/imath]
\(\displaystyle X = 2\)
\(\displaystyle P = 4\)
\(\displaystyle R = X + P = 2 + 4 = 6\)

Do you have a college (intermediate or introductory) level Physics book - like Physics for Students of Science and Engineering by Halliday and Resnick? This problem is discussed in detail in most of those books.
i've three. non of them explainig this. internet have more 100 examples of rod. i'm shocked they never solve this one

For university Physics book,

The Feynman lectures on Physics

will be a super-excellent book.He has been called - a Nobel laureate who has sometimes been called "The Great Explainer" . This set may be available in your local college/university library.
i don't think he's better than my teacher. i got stuck in this question just because i don't never use the negative x-axis in integration
 
\(\displaystyle X = 2\)
\(\displaystyle P = 4\)
\(\displaystyle R = X + P = 2 + 4 = 6\)
Very good. Now you have to understand that this distance of [imath]6[/imath] must not change even if we moved the diagram to a coordinate system. Let us move it to the cartesian coordinate system.

1851.png
Now we are forced to take negative values on the rod because we are on a coordinate system. If we move from the origin to the point [imath]A[/imath], [imath]x = -2[/imath]. Now we will calculate the distance between the points [imath]A[/imath] and [imath]B[/imath], we must get [imath]6[/imath]:

[imath]\displaystyle P + X = 4 + (-2) = 4 - 2 = 2 \neq 6 \ ✘[/imath]

Then, we have to use

[imath]P - X = 4 - (-2) = 4 + 2 = 6 \ \bold{\checkmark}[/imath]

This is why we should use [imath](P - x)[/imath] instead of [imath](P + x)[/imath] when [imath]x[/imath] will take negative values on the rod.
 
Last edited:
Very good. Now you have to understand that this distance of [imath]6[/imath] must not change even if we moved the diagram to a coordinate system. Let us move it to the cartesian coordinate system.

View attachment 38403
Now we are forced to take negative values on the rod because we are on a coordinate system. If we move from the origin to the point [imath]A[/imath], [imath]x = -2[/imath]. Now we will calculate the distance between the points [imath]A[/imath] and [imath]B[/imath], we must get [imath]6[/imath]:

[imath]\displaystyle P + X = 4 + (-2) = 4 - 2 = 2 \neq 6 \ ✘[/imath]

Then, we have to use

[imath]P - X = 4 - (-2) = 4 + 2 = 6 \ \bold{\checkmark}[/imath]

This is why we should use [imath](P - x)[/imath] instead of [imath](P + x)[/imath] when [imath]x[/imath] will take negative values on the rod.
thank

so it's like using the distance formula for two point \(\displaystyle (-2,0)\) and \(\displaystyle (4,0)\)

\(\displaystyle d = \sqrt{(-2 - 4)^2 + (0 - 0)^2} = \sqrt{(-6)^2 + (0)^2} = \sqrt{36 + 0} = \sqrt{36} = 6\)

i think i'm understanding this but the non uniform charge is difficult for me
 
but the non uniform charge is difficult for me

I am assuming that by non-uniform charge you mean the charge is non-constant across the length of the length. If that assumption is correct, then go back to response #8 by @mario99
Scenarios:

1. The charge density is directly proportional to xxx. In other words, λ=ax\lambda = axλ=ax.

2. The charge density is inversely proportional to xxx. In other words, λ=ax\displaystyle \lambda = \frac{a}{x}λ=xa.

3. λ=ax2\lambda = ax^2λ=ax2.

4. λ=a(x−x2)\lambda = a(x - x^2)λ=a(x−x2).

and carefully look through the two cases of none uniform distribution that has been discussed. Exactly where are you getting lost? Please show your work up to the point of confusion.
 
I am assuming that by non-uniform charge you mean the charge is non-constant across the length of the length. If that assumption is correct, then go back to response #8 by @mario99


and carefully look through the two cases of none uniform distribution that has been discussed. Exactly where are you getting lost? Please show your work up to the point of confusion.
thank khansaheb
thank mario99

i think i'll be enough with my original problem
 
Top