Can like charges accumulate in tight spaces despite repulsion?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the behavior of electric charges in irregularly shaped conductors and the relationship between charge density and curvature. It is established that charges tend to accumulate at points with the smallest radius of curvature, leading to higher local surface charge density. However, a debate arises regarding whether like charges would prefer to spread out rather than crowd in tighter spaces due to repulsion. The confusion stems from differing interpretations of electric field values and their corresponding charge densities at points of varying curvature. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of charge distribution in conductive materials under the influence of electric fields.
mborn
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
At two different points of an irregularly shaped conductor, the field had the following two values
5.6*10^4 and 2.8*10^4 respectively. Find the local surface charge density at;
1- the point with the greatest radius of curvature,
2- the point with the smallest raduis of curvature.

I know that at the point with the smallest radius of curvature, charges tend to accumulate, meaning that the first field corresponds to the point of the smallest radius of curvatire and I used E = sigma/epsilon_naught to find the two local charge densities. The answers I have is the reverse of what I got, He gave he one I had for the smallest r as the one of the greatest r! Is there anything wrong here, me or him?


M B
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure charge will accumulate where the radius of curvature is smallest? :-)
 
that is what is said on my book?

Charges tend to accumulate at the points at which radius of curvature is the smallest, that is at sharp points.

M B
 
Last edited:
If like charges repel why would they want to crowd together in tight places when they can spread out over regions of lower curvature?
 
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