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.
 
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