How to Calculate the Speed of a Charge Without Knowing Its Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KingJaymz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electricity
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving the calculation of the speed of a negative charge influenced by a positive charge, without the mass of the charges being provided. The subject area includes concepts of electric potential energy and kinetic energy.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of not having the mass of the charges and discuss the relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy. Questions arise about the assumptions regarding mass and the approach to calculating energy changes.

Discussion Status

Participants acknowledge the challenge of solving the problem without the mass. Some suggest methods to express the problem in terms of an unknown mass, while others provide insights on the nature of potential energy changes as the charges move closer together. There is an ongoing exploration of how to handle the missing information.

Contextual Notes

The problem is noted to be created by the original poster's professor, which raises questions about the completeness of the problem setup. Participants discuss the need for consistency in sign conventions when calculating potential energies.

KingJaymz
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Ok, so I have this problem and I can't figure out where to go because I'm missing the mass. This is the problem:

There is a test charge of +1.0 C. 10 meters away, a negative charge of -0.2 is released. Find the speed of the negative charge when it is 2 meters away from the positive charge.

Is there a way I can get the mass of these charges if I wasn't given them in the first place? Sorry, I'm really rusty with Physics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct. There is no way to solve the problem without knowing the mass of the moving object.

- Warren
 
Hrm. Nice avatar by the way. Venom's awesome. Are you sure there's no way to solve the problem without the mass? I was never given a mass...
 
I am sure.

The easiest way to solve the problem would be the calculate the change in potential energy in moving from 10 meters to 2 meters, and equate that with the change in kinetic energy of the moving charge. That much is easy to find.

Finding the velocity of a particle with a given kinetic energy, however, requires the mass to be given.

- Warren
 
Nuts. That's what I thought. And, in fact, that was the way I was going to tackle the problem. Oh well. I can at least say "Let mass of point charge be x" and such. Thank you so much for your help. Hopefully I'll be able to start helping others with physics soon.

Edit: One last question about this problem. Does anyone know of masses that might be believable for the charges in the problem?
 
The mass could literally be anything at all.

Did someone give this problem to you and expect an answer?

- Warren
 
Yes, but my professor made the problem up himself, so I guess he might have left out the mass by accident.

When I'm finding the difference between the values for the two Electric Potential Energies, am I right in assuming I need to take the absolute value? Or at least stay consistent with whether I take the absolute value with the kinetic energies as well?
 
The potential energy with opposite charges, large r, is small and negative.

The potential energy with opposite charges, small r, is large and negative.

In other words, as the charges come closer, the potential energy is becoming more negative.

Just use a consistent sign convention.

- Warren
 
Thank you for the information. That's sort of what I was figuring. As long as my professor accepts my fabricated mass, I should be fine. Thank you again.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K