2
$\begingroup$

This might be a really silly question, but I don't understand it.

In finding the electric field due to a thin disk of charge, we use the known result of the field due to a ring of charge and then integrate the relation over the complete radius. But I had a problem in the derivation, as follows:

We assume a ring at a distance $r$ , and of an infinitesimal thickness $dr$ from the center of the disk. Then the very next step in every book I've referred is $dA = 2 \pi rdr$. This is what I don't understand. Shouldn't the area be $$dA = \pi [ (r+dr)^2 - r^2] ~ ?$$ Please help me out here.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

$$A=\pi r^2$$ $$\frac{dA}{dr}=\pi\cdot2r$$ $$dA=2\pi rdr$$

Alternatively, you can write : $\lim_{\Delta r\to 0}\frac{\Delta A}{\Delta r}=\lim_{\Delta r\to 0}\frac{\pi\{(r+\Delta r)^2-r^2\}}{\Delta r}=\lim_{\Delta r\to 0}\frac{2\pi r\Delta r+\Delta r^2}{\Delta r}=2\pi r+0$

You have to ignore $(dr)^2$ as it is very small. Why? Because you took the limit while taking infinitesimal rings.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

You're exactly right. Try expanding your expression out.

$$\pi [(r + dr)^2-r^2] = \pi [r^2 + 2 r dr + dr^2] = \pi [2rdr + dr^2]$$

Since it is an infinitesimal, $dr^2 = 0$. Indeed it is defined this way. When we do integration problems like the one you describe, we always consider a small element (like a ring of width $dr$) but then eventually take the limit as $dr \to 0$. In such situations $dr^2$ will always be negligible compared to $dr$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Imagine that you take the thin strip of width $dr$ , cut it (say at $\theta=0$) and stretch it into a straight line. You would then have a rectangle (almost) of width $dr$ and length $2\pi r$, with approximate area $2\pi r^2$. As $dr$ tends to zero you can drop the "approximately" - this is a basic trick in calculus.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

dA=π[(r+dr)2−r2]
=π[ r2 + 2 r dr + dr2 − r2 ]
=π[ 2 r dr + dr2 ]

We drop the dr2 term and are left with dA=2πrdr

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ But why would we drop the $dr^2$ term? In doing so we would be approximating our answer, right? $\endgroup$ – alphabetagamma May 12 '14 at 5:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.