Calculation of the net force on a test charge

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the net force on a test charge in a system with multiple charges arranged in a polygonal formation, specifically a 13-sided polygon. Participants explore the implications of symmetry in the arrangement of charges and how it affects the net force experienced by the test charge.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss graphical vector addition of forces and the symmetry of the charge arrangement. Questions arise about the implications of removing a charge and how that affects the net force on the test charge. Some suggest considering the situation from the perspective of different charge placements.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various interpretations being explored regarding the net force on the test charge. Some participants suggest that the net force will be zero due to symmetry, while others are investigating the effects of removing a charge and the resultant imbalance. Guidance has been offered regarding the nature of forces and the concept of adding an opposite charge to maintain balance.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating through assumptions about charge placement and the resulting forces, with some expressing a desire to understand the reasoning behind the forces without relying solely on geometric properties.

Quanta

Homework Statement



13charges.jpg


Homework Equations



\overrightarrow{F} = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{qQ}{r^2}\hat{r}

The Attempt at a Solution


I found to hard summarizing all forces directly adding each to other.

The solution of this problem is only matter of drawing the 13-sided polygon and forces acting on a test charge and summarizing them or there is something else ?

I think there is a trick to solve this...
 

Attachments

  • 13charges.jpg
    13charges.jpg
    9.3 KB · Views: 1,103
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Quanta said:
think there is a trick to solve this...
Quite so. Unfortunately it is hard to give a hint that does not equate to being the solution.
Maybe think of it from the perspective of different q charges. Why would Q move towards one rather than towards another?
 
Suppose you were to add the 13 vectors graphically by putting them tail to tip as you would with any graphical vector addition ...
 
haruspex said:
Maybe think of it from the perspective of different q charges. Why would Q move towards one rather than towards another?

It seems, I have come to the right answer. If I take one particular q charge, all other charges are placed in the same way as if another q charge was chosen, because the 13-sided polygon has a symmetry. So net force on a test Q charge will be zero. am I right ?
 
Quanta said:
It seems, I have come to the right answer. If I take one particular q charge, all other charges are placed in the same way as if another q charge was chosen, because the 13-sided polygon has a symmetry. So net force on a test Q charge will be zero. am I right ?
Right. kuruman's approach is good too.
 
But there is another problem that relates to this. Here is :

13charges_cont.jpg

In this case charges are not symmetrically placed as in previous example. But we have one symmetry if we draw a line from the Q charge to the missing q charge.

I have an answer :

13charges_cont_answ.jpg


Why towards the missing q ? Why exactly \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{qQ}{r^2} ?
 

Attachments

  • 13charges_cont.jpg
    13charges_cont.jpg
    4.6 KB · Views: 974
  • 13charges_cont_answ.jpg
    13charges_cont_answ.jpg
    4.2 KB · Views: 918
Last edited by a moderator:
Quanta said:
But there is another problem that relates to this. Here is :

View attachment 213485
In this case charges are not symmetrically placed as in previous example. But we have one symmetry if we draw a line from the Q charge to the missing q charge.

I have an answer :

View attachment 213486

Why towards the missing q not opposite to it ? Why exactly \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{qQ}{r^2} ?
Can you think of some other simple change that would have been equivalent to removing one charge q?
 
haruspex said:
Can you think of some other simple change that would have been equivalent to removing one charge q?

I tried with 5 sided regular polygon, removing one charge in the corner and adding graphically all force vectors I got net force vector directed toward missing charge. The same must be applied with 13 sided regular polygon without adding all vectors, from the figure we see that there is a symmetry represented by blue axis, forces from left and right sides cancel each other, so Q should move toward the missing charge, because of gap between charges (and because of the more dense placement on the south side ?). The magnitude of force on Q is \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{qQ}{r^2} where r = r_1 + r_2 + ... + r_{12}. Is everything ok ? Any corrections ?

13charges_drawing.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 13charges_drawing.jpg
    13charges_drawing.jpg
    11.6 KB · Views: 552
Last edited by a moderator:
I already know answer from the solution manual :

13charges_cont_answ.jpg


I want to get this answer with the help of logical reasoning without using any geometric properties of adding all vectors.
 

Attachments

  • 13charges_cont_answ.jpg
    13charges_cont_answ.jpg
    4.2 KB · Views: 468
  • #10
Quanta said:
I tried with 5 sided regular polygon, removing one charge
Ok, but I said instead of removing a charge. What, equivalently, could you add?
 
  • #11
I have an explanation. When 13 charges were present the system was balanced, the applied force on Q from any charge is \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{qQ}{r^2} this is a force to maintain equilibrium, after removing charge system becomes unbalanced, so the net force points toward the missing charge and is \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{qQ}{r^2}.

haruspex said:
What, equivalently, could you add?
add charge(s)... but where ? I'm interesting where you're pointing me.
 
  • #12
Quanta said:
add charge(s)... but where ?
If you have a charge q at point P, what charge could you add which is electrically equivalent to removing the charge q?
 
  • #13
haruspex said:
If you have a charge q at point P, what charge could you add which is electrically equivalent to removing the charge q?
Opposite to it.
 
  • #14
Quanta said:
Opposite to it.
Yes, add a charge of -q at P. We know that the q charges balance each other at the centre, so what is the effect there of adding the -q charge?
 
  • #15
haruspex said:
We know that the q charges balance each other at the centre, so what is the effect there of adding the -q charge?

System will become unbalanced and ##Q## will move toward the ##-q##.
 
  • #16
Quanta said:
System will become unbalanced and ##Q## will move toward the ##-q##.
Assuming Q and q have the same sign, yes. But what is the magnitude of the force?
 
  • #17
haruspex said:
But what is the magnitude of the force?

##Q ## and ##-q## have different signs, there will be attraction force between them with magnitude of ##\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{qQ}{r^2}##.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Quanta said:
##Q ## and ##-q## have different signs, there will be attraction force between them with magnitude of ##\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{qQ}{r^2}##.
Yes, except that you cannot say what the signs of Q and -q are. It could be that Q is positive and q is negative. Then Q and -q will have the same sign. However, you can write that there will be a force of attraction of ##\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{qQ}{r^2}##. If Q and q have the same sign then Q and -q will have opposite sign, so it is indeed attraction; if Q and q have opposite sign then the force will be a repulsion, but that's ok because now ##\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{qQ}{r^2}## will be negative, and saying an attraction of ##\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{qQ}{r^2}## is the same as saying a repulsion of |##\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{qQ}{r^2}##|.
 
  • #19
haruspex said:
Yes, except that you cannot say what the signs of Q and -q are...

I have no problems with signs, but thank you anyway. I appreciate your help.
 
  • #20
Quanta said:
I have no problems with signs, but thank you anyway. I appreciate your help.
Well, you wrote
Quanta said:
Q and −q have different signs
which suggests to me you do have a misunderstanding. If Q is +e and q is -e then Q and -q have the same sign: they are both +e.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
880
Replies
1
Views
2K