Original question:
The figure shows a plastic rod of length L and total charge Q having a uniformly distributed charge. The charge per unit length of the rod is $\lambda$. Find the electric field at a point P at a distance of r from the rod.
And this is my attempt at a solution:
Let dL be a infinitesimally small element of the rod making an angle $\theta$ with the vertical connecting point P and the rod, and subtending an angle d$\theta$ at P. The electric field due to dl at P is dE.
I've resolved dE into two components :
dE$_(parallel)$=dEsin$\theta$
dE$_(perpendicular)$=dEcos$\theta$
And dE therefore would be :
dE=$\frac{kdq}{r_{eff}}$
where $r_{eff}$=$\frac{r}{cos{\theta}}$
dE=$\frac{kdqcos\theta}{r}$
dE$_(parallel)$=$\frac{kdqcos\theta sin\theta}{r}$
dE$_(perpendicular)$=$\frac{kdqcos\theta cos\theta}{r}$
now to integrate dE$_(parallel)$ within limits -$\alpha$ and $\beta$,I substitute dq as follows
since $\lambda$=$\frac{dq}{dl}$
dq=$\lambda$dl
and then use the formula dl=$r_{eff}$d$\theta$,
and finally obtain the expression:
dE$_(parallel)$=$k\lambda d\theta sin\theta$
and finally get the answer E$_(parallel)$=k$\lambda (cos\alpha - cos\beta)$
However the answer is actually
E$_(parallel)$=k$\frac{\lambda (cos\alpha - cos\beta)}{r}$
According to me, the answer should have been the same,but I think that my substitution of dl=$r_{eff}$d$\theta$ is wrong, as it seems that all other steps are correct(including the integration). My assumption was that the relation dl=$r_{eff}$d$\theta$ should hold since a infintesimally small part a circle would appear as a line, but this does not seem to be the case. If this is true, does the relation never hold, apart from when it concerns larger(not infinitesimal) parts of circles?
Thank you for taking the time to read this, any help is appreciated