Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Equipotential lines



I should correct two things:

1) Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

Is not true that ALL the equipotential lines (for a single segment
strip) should should be concave when one looks along the
direction of E inside the wire (in the direction of conventional
current)?

That was pure nonsense; please ignore the message I posted at about
11 p.m. last night).

2) In part 2 (of the first message under this thread) I wrote that
"the equipotential lines [for a single segment strip] turned out to be
more or less as in part 1." Please be aware that "more or less" was
just hand-waving. What I was saying was that the entire equipotential
line bisecting the center was perpendicular to the strip. Other lines
were perpendicular to the strip only at intersections; they were bending
to the left and to the right in the same directions as for a dipole. The
detailed comparison of lines due to the single strip and lines due to the
dipole was not made. I will do this after collecting more accurate data.

ARE THE LINE PATTERNS FOR THE SINGLE STRIP
CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPECTED DISTRIBUTION
OF SURFACE CHARGES ALONG THE STRIP? TO ANSWER
THIS QUESTION I MUST KNOW WHAT THE EXPECTED
DISTRIBUTION OF SURFACE CHARGES ALONG THE
STRIP IS. PICTURES IN C&S SHOW ZERO DENSITY NEAR
THE CENTER, NEGATIVE DENSITY TOWARD THE
NEGATIVE TERMINAL AND POSITIVE DENSITY TOWARD
THE POSITIVE TERMINAL. THAT QUALITATIVE
INFORMATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT.

I HOPE JOHNM, OR SOMEBODY ELSE, WILL BE ABLE TO
CALCULATE THE DENSITY DISTRIBUTION FOR THE 18 CM
STRIP. KNOWING THAT DISTRIBUTION I CAN CALCULATE
THE EQUIPOTENTIAL LINES. (IT IS ONLY A MATER OF
NUMBER CRUNCHING) THESE LINES WOULD THEN HAVE
TO BE COMPARED WITH THE EXPERIMENTALLY OBSERVED
PATTERN. IS THAT PATTERN THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE
WITHOUT SURFACE CHARGES, OR IS IT THE SAME AS IT
WOULD BE WITH SURFACE CHARGES? THAT IS THE
QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED.
LUDWIK KOWALSKI.