rabia 2012-10-11 01:04:05 |  I have to solve a problem by using Coulumn' law given rho=rho not (1-r/R) and find Q from given expression.  |   | 
physicsphysics 2011-10-11 07:22:32 | Does anybody have a problem by using Coulumn' law? 
I used  . The answer is  . Can anybody explain what I am wrong?
											
											
											3Danyon 2011-10-13 08:44:10 | 
										     I made the same mistake initially. The thing is, one has to calculate the charge first and then divide by the  . Otherwise you change the integrand and get the wrong numerical factor. To spell it out, the field is given by: 
 
^2} = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0 (R/2)^2} \cdot \int (A r^2) \cdot r^2 \sin{\theta} dr d\theta d\phi ) 
  |  
											 
										  |   | 
phoxdie 2010-11-10 15:20:06 | Sorry to get hung up on this, but it was very confusing the first time I looked at this solution.  There is a small "typo" in the solution.  A factor of epsilon is dropped for no reason. |   | 
Kabuto Yakushi 2010-09-19 10:28:26 | Another method for solving this problem would be to take the volume integral of   to solve for Q. Then to plug Q into Gauss' law. 
 
  
 
where    
 
plug Q into Gauss' law: 
 
   
 
solving one gets choice B).  
 
Yosun's solution is faster, but if using the shell method for integration doesn't come to mind, one must resort to the long method. |   | 
tsharky87 2009-11-06 08:46:03 | I was confused about the fact that I seemed to be getting a  , so here's an explanation for those of you who were as confused as azot and I: 
 
I was getting my r's confused in Yosun's solution, I just took   and canceled away. The reason this is wrong is that the radius that you are taking the area with when multiplying by   is actually  . So if you set   you should arrive at the solution. |   | 
jw111 2008-11-05 15:43:14 | in addition,  if you set A=1, R=1, epsilon=1 
 
it will be easier 
 
  
 
then 
  
 
E= 1/40
											
											
											pam d 2011-09-17 16:24:27 | 
										     nice
  |  
											 
										  |   | 
gliese876d 2008-10-11 20:56:52 | hmm.  I'm just wondering...  I had the following formula memorized for similar situations:  
 
E=  
 
Where little r is the radius of the point from the center and R is the total radius of the sphere 
Now using this formula I figured Q would equal   
 
so I used this in the numerator for Q and also plugged in r= R/2  and you get 
 
  
 
which is *close* to the right answer, but not quite... where does this standard formula fall apart in reasoning for this particular situation?
											
											
											flyboy621 2010-11-02 21:12:58 | 
										     I think you are assuming constant charge density, which is not the case here.
  |  
											 
										  |   | 
hisperati 2007-10-31 20:29:18 | To find the charge we need to integrate a charge density, that is per unit volume.   The answers correspond to multipliying by a surface area ( I am not talking about the left side of Guass's Law, where it is obvious surface area is correctly used).  Why isn't the charge density multiplied by    ?
											
											
											blah22 2008-03-14 18:01:46 | 
										     Yea I'm confused too
  |  
											 
										 
											
											
											blah22 2008-03-14 18:27:59 | 
										     Ah I see, for anyone else confused by this in the future, it's just a method of getting the volume of a sphere through integration.  Divide the sphere into lots of shells of thickness dr, each with surface area  . 
 
Thanks so much Yosun! 
 
  |  
											 
										 
											
											
											flyboy621 2010-11-02 21:14:34 | 
										     You can't just multiply the charge density by the enclosed volume because the density is not constant.  You have to integrate.
  |  
											 
										  |   | 
azot 2007-10-23 06:04:01 | the answer to this problem is wrong .  
E shoud be equal to A*R^3/32*5
											
											
											azot 2007-10-23 06:05:00 | 
										     sorry I was wrong :) Everything is ok 
  |  
											 
										 
											
											
											kevinjay15 2007-10-23 18:24:01 | 
										     ETS is never wrong.
  |  
											 
										  |   |