Calculating electric field at a certain point in space

AI Thread Summary
Two charges, +6.0 x 10^-5 C and -2.0 x 10^-5 C, are positioned 36 cm apart, and the electric field is calculated at a point 18 cm above their midpoint. Using the formula E = kq / r², the electric fields from each charge are computed to be approximately 8.33 x 10^6 N/C and 2.78 x 10^6 N/C, respectively. The net electric field is found to be about 8.8 x 10^6 N/C at an angle of 27 degrees above the horizontal. However, this result contradicts the textbook's answer of 6.6 x 10^6 N/C, leading to a consensus among participants that the textbook may be incorrect. The discussion highlights the importance of verifying calculations in physics problems.
tobywashere
Messages
27
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Two small charges, +6.0 x 10-5C and -2.0x10-5C, are placed 36 cm apart. Calculate the magnitude of the electric field at a point 18 cm above the midpoint of the line joining the two charges, on the perpendicular to that line (and thus equidistant from the charges).

Homework Equations



E = kq / r2


The Attempt at a Solution


The three charges form a triangle with length 36 cm as the base and height 18 cm. The distance between the two charges is 36 cm. The distance from any of the charges to the point in space is approximately 18*sqrt[2], or 25.5 cm (using pythagorean theorem).
Therefore, the electric field exerted by the first charge is
k(6.0x10-5)/(0.255)2
= 8333333 N/C [45 degrees above the horizontal]
The electric field exerted by the second charge is
k(2.0x10-5)/(0.255)2
= 2777777 N/C [45 degrees below the horizontal]
The net electric field is the sum of these two fields. Since they form right angles to each other, we can use pythagorean theorem
E2 = 83333332 + 27777772
E = 8.8x106
Using tan inverse, the angle of the resultant electric field is 27 degrees above the horizontal.
However, the textbook says that the answer should be 6.6x106N/C
The textbook isn't always right, so am I right or is the textbook right this time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi tobywashere...i do get the same thing as you got...and i did not even look at your solution... i tried it myself...got the same answer as you got and i saw that you have done the same thing...Sure looks like the book is wrong... I would like to see what answer some other PF members get ...
 
Yeah I'm pretty sure the textbook is wrong. Thanks!
 
Welcome...
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top