Distance between two charges where field strength = 0

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the point along the line connecting two charges where the total electric field is zero. The charges are specified as q1 = 0.500 nC and q2 = 9.00 nC, separated by a distance of 2.00 m.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss setting up the equation for electric field strength and explore the relationship between the distances from the charges to the point where the field is zero. There are attempts to rearrange and simplify the equations, with some participants questioning the steps taken and the correctness of their algebra.

Discussion Status

The discussion includes various approaches to solving the problem, with participants providing feedback on each other's reasoning. Some guidance is offered regarding the use of the quadratic formula, and multiple interpretations of the equations are explored without reaching a consensus on the final solution.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working within the constraints of homework rules, and there is an emphasis on ensuring the algebraic manipulations are correct. The discussion reflects uncertainty regarding the application of the quadratic formula and the implications of the results obtained.

TFM
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Distance between two charges where field strength = 0

Homework Statement



Two particles having charges q1 = 0.500 nC and q2 = 9.00 nC are separated by a distance of 2.00 m.

At what point along the line connecting the two charges is the total electric field due to the two charges equal to zero?

Homework Equations



[tex]E = \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon _0}\frac{q}{r^2}[/tex]

I have reduced this two:

[tex]\frac{q_1}{r_1^2} = \frac{q_2}{r_2^2}[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



putting in the variables:

[tex]\frac{0.5*10^{-9}}{r_1^2} = \frac{9.0*10^{-9}}{r_2^2}[/tex]

I can rearrang to get:

[tex]\frac{r_2^2}{r_1_2} = \frac{9.0*10^{-9}}{0.5*10^{-9}}[/tex],

and:

[tex]\frac{r_2^2}{r_1_2} = 18[/tex]

But I am not sure how to get the right distance to the actual point?

TFM
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From this point,
TFM said:
[tex]\frac{q_1}{r_1^2} = \frac{q_2}{r_2^2}[/tex]
let x be the distance from the first charge to the point where E=0 such that,

[tex]\frac{q_1}{x^2} = \frac{q_2}{(2-x)^2}[/tex]

Do you follow?
 
That makes sense, so now:

[tex]\frac{q_1}{x^2} = \frac{q_2}{4-4x+x^2}[/tex]

Rearranging:

[tex]\frac{q_1}{q_2} = \frac{x^2}{4-4x+x^2}[/tex]

And, inserting q1 and q2:

[tex]0.0556 = \frac{x^2}{4-4x+x^2}[/tex]

How does this look?

TFM
 
TFM said:
That makes sense, so now:

[tex]\frac{q_1}{x^2} = \frac{q_2}{4-4x+x^2}[/tex]

Rearranging:

[tex]\frac{q_1}{q_2} = \frac{x^2}{4-4x+x^2}[/tex]

And, inserting q1 and q2:

[tex]0.0556 = \frac{x^2}{4-4x+x^2}[/tex]

How does this look?

TFM
Looks good to me, although I would be tempted to leave the ratio of the charges as a fraction.
 
So:

[tex]\frac{0.5*10^{-9}}{9*10^{-9}} = \frac{x^2}{4 - 4x + x^2}[/tex]

Okay, so where should I go from here?

TFM
 
TFM said:
So:

[tex]\frac{0.5*10^{-9}}{9*10^{-9}} = \frac{x^2}{4 - 4x + x^2}[/tex]

Okay, so where should I go from here?

TFM
How about multiplying through by the denominator of the RHS, then solving for x?
 
So:

[tex](0.5*10^{-9})(4 - 4x + x^2) = 9 x 10^{-9}x^2[/tex]

[tex](2*10^{-9} - (2*10^{-9})x + (0.5*10^{-9})x^2 = 9*10^{-9}x^2[/tex]

Doubling everything:

[tex](4*10^{-9} - (4*10^{-9})x + (1*10^{-9})x^2 = 18*10^{-9}x^2[/tex]

[tex](4*10^{-9} - (4*10^{-9})x + (1*10^{-9})x^2 = 18*10^{-9}x^2[/tex]

Taking everything over to the LHS:

[tex](4*10^{-9} - (4*10^{-9})x + ((1-18)*10^{-9})x^2 = 0[/tex]

[tex](4*10^{-9} - (4*10^{-9})x + (-17*10^{-9})x^2 = 0[/tex]

Then using the formula:

[tex]x = \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}[/tex]

where:

[tex]a = 4*10^{-9} , b = -4*10^{-9} , c = -17*10^{-9}[/tex]

Giving:

[tex]x = \frac{4*10^{-9} \pm 1.697*10^{-8}}{8*10^{-8}}[/tex]

Which gives x as being either 2.62 (too big) or -1.62?

TFM
 
You're correct except for the bit where you start using the quadratic formula.

The quadratic formula as you have written it corresponds to:
[tex]ax^2 + bx + c = 0[/tex]

However, you're equation is in the form:
[tex]c + bx + ax^2 = 0[/tex]

(Which is obviously the same, but you are switching a and c!)
 
TFM said:
Giving:

[tex]x = \frac{4*10^{-9} \pm 1.697*10^{-8}}{8*10^{-8}}[/tex]

Which gives x as being either 2.62 (too big) or -1.62?

TFM

Thanks, Nick89, This should be:

[tex]x = \frac{4*10^{-9} \pm 1.697*10^{-8}}{2*-17*10^{-8}}[/tex]

This gives -0.61 and 0.38, which look better

TFM
 
  • #10
I just tried putting in 0.38, an it is the correct answer :smile:

Thanks everybody,

TFM
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K