High School Confused about this force calulation in Resnick Halliday Krane Electrostatics

  • Thread starter Thread starter KnightTheConqueror
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation Charge
Click For 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
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.
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
676
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K