Baffled by Electric Field of a Plate

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the electric field equations for a large conducting plate in an external electric field. It highlights that for a conductor, the electric field inside is zero, and the correct approach involves applying Gauss' law to determine charge density. The participants clarify that the external electric field can be considered when calculating the charge density using the formula E = sigma/2(epsilon_naught). The conversation emphasizes the importance of superposition in understanding how the fields from both surfaces of the conductor interact with the external field. Ultimately, the resolution involves recognizing that the charge densities must be calculated to ensure the internal field remains zero in the presence of the external electric field.
mborn
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I have this question:
I am a little confused about the electric field of a very large sheet of something (insulator or conductor)
for a very large sheet, E = sigma_inclosed/2(epsilon_naught), but for a conductor, it is E = sigma_inclosed/epsilon_naught, that is, twice the first case. But I have a question here in my book that says:

A thin conducting plate 50 cm on a length lies in the x-y plane. If it is placed in an external electric field of 8*10^4C directed perpendicular to the plate, find;
1- The charge density of each face of the plate,
2- The total charge on each face.

The answers uses, E = sigma / 2(epsilon_naught) to find sigma,

Shouldn't he used the formula E = sigma_inclosed/epsilon_naught since it is a conducting plate?


M B
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, you're right. It depends on whether they are using Eext, or a different E. Eext=sigma/epsilon_naught.

You can also solve the problem by thinking of superposition (which is where I'm guessing they used sigma/2epsilon_naught). The field produced by the top positive sheet alone is sigma/2epsilon_naught. The field produced by the bottom sheet alone is -sigma/2epsilon_naught. They add together in the center (between the two sheets), and need to cancel the external field. So sigma/2epsilon_naught+sigma/2epsilon_naught=Eext. Then we get the initial result: sigma/epsilon_naught=Eext.

What is the value of sigma they get?
 
mborn said:
The answers uses, E = sigma / 2(epsilon_naught) to find sigma,

Shouldn't he used the formula E = sigma_inclosed/epsilon_naught since it is a conducting plate?
This is a little tricky. One has to apply Gauss' law to each surface of the conductor sheet. For a conductor, all charge resides on the top and bottom surfaces with 0 field inside.

Using Gauss' law, the flux per unit area through the top surface is: \phi = \sigma_{top} \delta A/\epsilon_0. Since the flux goes in both directions, above the surface and into the interior, the flux from the top surface charge above + the flux from the top surface below (ie toward the inside of the conductor) is the total flux. So
E\delta a_{up} + E\delta a_{interior} = \sigma_{top} \delta a/\epsilon_0
Since the surface charge produces equal flux in the up and down directions:
E\delta a_{up} = E\delta a_{interior}
then:
2E = \sigma_{top}/\epsilon_0

The same applies to the bottom surface of the conductor. You have to work out the charge densities on the top and bottom surfaces such that the field inside the conductor is 0 in the presence of the external field.

AM
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K