Calculating Electrostatic Force with Coulomb's Law

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the net electrostatic force acting on a 100 microC charge located at one corner of a rectangle with four fixed point charges. The participants emphasize the importance of correctly determining the angle when applying Coulomb's Law, particularly noting that the angle is not 45 degrees due to the rectangle's dimensions. A participant initially miscalculates the angle but later revises it to 53.13 degrees, which is still incorrect due to a misunderstanding of the triangle formed by the charges. The correct approach involves using the original triangle dimensions to find the angle accurately. Proper application of trigonometric functions is crucial for accurate force calculations in this scenario.
antiderivativ
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Four point-charges are fixed at the corners of a 3.0m X 4.0m rectangle. The coordinates of the corners and the values of the charges are listed below.
q1 = 100 microC (0, 4m), q2 = 36 microC (4m, 3m), q3 = 125 microC (0, 3m) and q4 = 32 microC (0,0). Compute the net electrostatic force acting on the 100 microC charge.
ke = 8.99 x 109

I'm using Coulomb's Law.
F = \frac{ke*q1*q2}{r^2}

Here is my attempt at a solution. Is it correct?

6-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


Hi antiderivativ,

antiderivativ said:
Four point-charges are fixed at the corners of a 3.0m X 4.0m rectangle. The coordinates of the corners and the values of the charges are listed below.
q1 = 100 microC (0, 4m), q2 = 36 microC (4m, 3m), q3 = 125 microC (0, 3m) and q4 = 32 microC (0,0). Compute the net electrostatic force acting on the 100 microC charge.
ke = 8.99 x 109

I'm using Coulomb's Law.
F = \frac{ke*q1*q2}{r^2}

Here is my attempt at a solution. Is it correct?

6-1.jpg

No, I don't believe that is correct. When you find the components of F13, you are using an angle of 45 degrees. It would have been a 45 degree angle if the charges were at the corners of a square, but since this is a rectangle it will be different.

You can use your 3-4-5 triangle you have on the page to find the correct angle. What do you get?
 


Thanks for the reply! My new angle is 53.13. Is this better? :)
6-2.jpg
 


antiderivativ said:
Thanks for the reply! My new angle is 53.13. Is this better? :)
6-2.jpg

Really close! But you changed your triangle when you calculated the angle, and that gave you the wrong angle.

If you look at the 3-4-5 triangle about halfway down the page on the left side, the 3 side is vertical and the 4-side is horizontal, and that matches your problem and calculation.

At the bottom of the page, you switched the 3 and 4 sides. You did the correct procedure; it's just that if you use your original triangle, you'll do:

<br /> \tan^{-1}\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)<br />

instead of the arctangent of 4/3.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top