B Confused about this force calulation in Resnick Halliday Krane Electrostatics

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter KnightTheConqueror
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation Charge
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a confusion regarding the calculation of electrostatic force when the distance is halved and the charge changes by a factor of 1/8. Participants agree that the book's calculation is incorrect, as it fails to account for the impact of the reduced distance on the force. The correct approach should consider both the charge ratio and the distance ratio to accurately determine the resulting force. The conversation reflects a common struggle among students new to electromagnetism, emphasizing the importance of understanding these fundamental concepts. Overall, the consensus is that the book's explanation is flawed, leading to confusion in grasping the material.
KnightTheConqueror
Messages
16
Reaction score
8
TL;DR Summary
Resnick Halliday Krane Electrostatics Sample Problem 25-7 doubt
I'm confused in the calculation for R/2. The author took in account that the charge will change by a factor 1/8. But how does it show that the coloumbic force will become 1/8th. The distance will also reduce by half shouldn't that also be taken into account? Or am I missing something here?
Screenshot_20231205_232558_Moon+ Reader Pro.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
KnightTheConqueror said:
TL;DR Summary: Resnick Halliday Krane Electrostatics Sample Problem 25-7 doubt

I'm confused in the calculation for R/2. The author took in account that the charge will change by a factor 1/8. But how does it show that the coloumbic force will become 1/8th. The distance will also reduce by half shouldn't that also be taken into account? Or am I missing something here?View attachment 336703
Been there, done that. You are correct and the book is wrong. See discussion here.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...rted-on-an-electron-inside-a-nucleus.1052346/
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes KnightTheConqueror and berkeman
I agree with you - they've correctly calculated the charge ratio and forgotten the distance ratio.

Edit: beaten to it, I see.
 
  • Like
Likes KnightTheConqueror
:welcome:
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix, berkeman and kuruman
KnightTheConqueror said:
Thank you, i just started electromagnetism and i got disappointed that perhaps I'm not getting proper grasp of the concepts. Thanks for clarifying the book is wrong
I wish you success with your studies. If you need more help, you know where to find it.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top