Can E=V/d be used to calculate the electric field of a dipole?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion addresses the calculation of the electric field of a dipole using the formula E=V/d. It highlights that this formula is applicable only for uniform electric fields, which is not the case for dipoles. To accurately determine the electric field, one should measure the potential difference (ΔV) over a small distance (Δx) perpendicular to the equipotential lines. The accuracy of the electric field measurement improves as Δx decreases. Overall, while E=V/d can provide a rough estimate, it may not yield precise results for dipole fields.
LostThoughts
This is from a lab where my team found the equipotential lines from the electric field of a dipole. The information I was given to calculate the magnitude of the electric field seems too simple, and for some reason I'm expecting this to be more complex. So, this is my attempt at double checking. Can E=V/d be used for all of this?

1. Homework Statement

Determine the magnitude of the average electric field between two sets equipotential lines.
0.5v to 1v d=0.022m
5v to 5.5v d=0.022m

Determine the magnitude of the average electric field between the two pins.
pinnegative=0v pinpositive=6v d=0.087m

Determine the magnitude of the average electric field between one pin and each equipotential line.
V=2v d=0.035m
V=3v d=0.042m
V=4v d=0.057m
V=5v d=0.069m

Homework Equations


E=F/q V=W/q W=Fd E=V/d
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LostThoughts said:
Can E=V/d be used for all of this?
This is correct only if the field is uniform. The electric field generated by a dipole is not uniform. If you measure the potential difference ΔV in a direction perpendicular to a given equipotential, the electric field at that general point is approximately given by E = ΔV/Δx, where Δx is the distance over which you measured the potential difference. The smaller you make Δx, the more accurate your value for E. In your case you probably used a two-prong connector with about 1 cm separation between prongs, so you have no control over that.
 
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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
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