Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
184_notes:examples:week5_flux_two_radii [2017/09/18 12:35] – [Solution] tallpaul | 184_notes:examples:week5_flux_two_radii [2017/09/18 13:28] – [Solution] tallpaul | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
* There are no other charges that contribute appreciably to the flux calculation. | * There are no other charges that contribute appreciably to the flux calculation. | ||
* There is no background electric field. | * There is no background electric field. | ||
- | * The electric | + | * The electric |
===Representations=== | ===Representations=== | ||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
$$\vec{E}=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{q}{r^2}\hat{r}$$ | $$\vec{E}=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{q}{r^2}\hat{r}$$ | ||
* We represent the situation with the following diagram. Note that the circles are indeed spherical shells, not rings as they appear. | * We represent the situation with the following diagram. Note that the circles are indeed spherical shells, not rings as they appear. | ||
- | {{ 184_notes: | + | {{ 184_notes: |
====Solution==== | ====Solution==== | ||
- | Before we dive into calculations, | + | Before we dive into calculations, |
Since $\vec{E}$ is constant with respect to $\text{d}\vec{A}$ (in this case, it is sufficient that $\vec{E}$ is parallel to $\text{d}\vec{A}$ and has constant magnitude), we can rewrite our flux representation: | Since $\vec{E}$ is constant with respect to $\text{d}\vec{A}$ (in this case, it is sufficient that $\vec{E}$ is parallel to $\text{d}\vec{A}$ and has constant magnitude), we can rewrite our flux representation: | ||
- | $$\Phi_e=\int\vec{E}\bullet \text{d}\vec{A} = \left|\vec{E}\right|\int\text{d}\left|\vec{A}\right|$$ | + | $$\Phi_e=\int\vec{E}\bullet \text{d}\vec{A} = E\int\text{d}A$$ |
- | We can rewrite $\left|\vec{E}\right|$ since it is constant on the surface of a given spherical shell. We use the formula for the electric field from a point charge. | + | We can rewrite $E$ (scalar value representing $\vec{E}$ |
- | $$\left|\vec{E}\right| | + | $$E = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{q}{r^2}\left|\hat{r}\right| = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{q}{r^2}$$ |
- | We can plug in values for $q$ and $r$ for each spherical shell, using what we listed in the facts. For the smaller shell, we have $\left|\vec{E}\right|=1.0\cdot 10^7 \text{N/ | + | We can plug in values for $q$ and $r$ for each spherical shell, using what we listed in the facts. For the smaller shell, we have $E=1.0\cdot 10^7 \text{ N/C}$. For the larger shell, we have $E=2.5\cdot 10^6 \text{ N/C}$. |
+ | To figure out the area integral, notice that the magnitude of the area-vector is just the area. This means that our integrand is the area occupied by $\text{d}A$. Since we are integrating this little piece over the entire shell, we end up with the area of the shell' | ||
+ | $$\int\text{d}A=A=4\pi r^2$$ | ||
+ | The last expression, $4\pi r^2$, is just the surface area of a sphere. We can plug in values for $r$ for each spherical shell, using what we listed in the facts. For the smaller shell, we have $A=1.13\cdot 10^{-2} \text{ m}^2$. For the larger shell, we have $A=4.52\cdot 10^{-2} \text{ m}^2$. | ||
- | + | Now, we bring it together | |
- | In order to find electric flux, we must first find $\vec{A}$. Remember in the [[184_notes: | + | |
- | $$\vec{w}=3\text{ m }\hat{z}$$ | + | |
- | $$\vec{l}=5\text{ m }\cdot\cos 30^\circ (\hat{x})+5\text{ m }\sin 30^\circ\hat{y} = 2.5\sqrt{3}\text{ m } \hat{x} + 2.5\text{ m }\hat{y}$$ | + | |
- | Now, we can find the area vector: | + | |
\begin{align*} | \begin{align*} | ||
- | \vec{A} & | + | \Phi_{\text{small}} & |
- | | + | \Phi_{\text{large}} & |
- | &= 7.5\sqrt{3}\text{ m}^2 (-\hat{y}) + 7.5\text{ m}^2\hat{x} \\ | + | |
- | &= 7.5\text{ m}^2\hat{x} - 7.5\sqrt{3}\text{ | + | |
- | \end{align*} | + | |
- | Again, since the rectangle is not a closed surface, the choice for direction of $\vec{A}$ was arbitrary, and it would have been just fine to define it oppositely. Anyways, we can proceed to determine the electric flux: | + | |
- | \begin{align*} | + | |
- | \Phi_e &= \vec{E}\bullet\vec{A} \\ | + | |
- | | + | |
- | &= 60\text{ | + | |
\end{align*} | \end{align*} | ||
+ | |||
+ | We get the same answer for both shells! It turns out that the radius of the shell does not affect the electric flux for this example. You'll see later that electric flux through a closed surface depends //only// on the charge enclosed. The surface can be weirdly shaped, and we can always figure out the flux as long as we know the charge enclosed. |