- #26

- 34,851

- 6,120

It is an infinite plate. Why would the repulsion be down (in terms of your diagram) rather than up?

- Thread starter jisbon
- Start date

- #26

- 34,851

- 6,120

It is an infinite plate. Why would the repulsion be down (in terms of your diagram) rather than up?

- #27

- 464

- 30

Pardon for messy drawing, but if I'm correct, the charge particle simply repels to the right right? Since the vertical components are pretty much cancelled out

- #28

- 464

- 30

force from plate (only affects x axis) + force from particle (only affects y axis)?

- #29

- 34,851

- 6,120

Yes, but in post #14 you had the plate generating a field in the z axis also.

force from plate (only affects x axis) + force from particle (only affects y axis)?

- #30

- 464

- 30

Oh.. my bad. So its:Yes, but in post #14 you had the plate generating a field in the z axis also.

##E_{(4,4,0)}=E_{plate} + E_{particle} = (4519.77\widetilde{x})N/C +(-1125\widetilde{y})N/C##?

- #31

- 34,851

- 6,120

Yes.Oh.. my bad. So its:

##E_{(4,4,0)}=E_{plate} + E_{particle} = (4519.77\widetilde{x})N/C +(-1125\widetilde{y})N/C##?

- #32

- 464

- 30

I've calculated the magnitude and it appears to be 4657, which is different from the given answer, which is 9109 :/Yes.

- #33

TSny

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 12,852

- 3,203

I think your answer is correct if the infinite plate has only one face with charge density ##\sigma##. However, if they meant the plate has two faces, each face having charge density 8 x 10^{-8} C/m^{2}, then you would get their answer. If this latter interpretation is what they meant, then I misled you with the diagram in post #2. Sorry about that.

Last edited:

- #34

- 464

- 30

Hmm okay. So if it has two faces, is there now supposed to be a negative x direction now? Not sure how to proceedI think your answer is correct if the infinite plate has only one face with charge density ##\sigma##. However, if they meant the plate has two faces, each face having charge density 8 x 10^{-8}C/m^{2}, then you would get their answer. If this latter interpretation is what they meant, then I misled you with the diagram in post #2. Sorry about that.

- #35

- 34,851

- 6,120

If there is a given charge density on an infinite plate then the flux lines go equally from both sides. So the field strength is half what it would be if all the flux lines emerged from the same side. This leads to the factor ##\frac 12## in the formula.Hmm okay. So if it has two faces, is there now supposed to be a negative x direction now? Not sure how to proceed

But in this problem there is an ambiguity. It gives the "

- #36

- 464

- 30

So if I'm following what you are saying, won't dividing the field strength by plate by 2 make the magnitude even smaller?If there is a given charge density on an infinite plate then the flux lines go equally from both sides. So the field strength is half what it would be if all the flux lines emerged from the same side. This leads to the factor ##\frac 12## in the formula.

But in this problem there is an ambiguity. It gives the "surface"charge density. Since a plate has two surfaces, they might mean that each surface has that density.

In which: ##E_{(4,4,0)}=E_{plate} + E_{particle} = (4519.77/2 \widetilde{x})N/C +(-1125\widetilde{y})N/C##

Even if it's the other scenario (whereby I multiply by 2), the magnitude of the Efield is still 9107.7N/C , which is due to some form of rounding up/down I presume?

- #37

- 34,851

- 6,120

No, you already did that divide by 2 in your post #3 to arrive at 4519... Look at the equation you used there.won't dividing the field strength by plate by 2 make the magnitude even smaller?

I am saying that if the question means the given charge density exists on both sides of the plate then there is in effect twice the charge density, so the 1/2 should not be in the.formula.

- #38

- 464

- 30

Oh ok.No, you already did that divide by 2 in your post #3 to arrive at 4519... Look at the equation you used there.

I am saying that if the question means the given charge density exists on both sides of the plate then there is in effect twice the charge density, so the 1/2 should not be in the.formula.

But even if I don't divide it by 2,

Maybe an rounding off error or?Even if it's the other scenario (whereby I multiply by 2), the magnitude of the Efield is still 9107.7N/C , which is due to some form of rounding up/down I presume?

- #39

- 34,851

- 6,120

Using your numbers for the two components I get 9209.Oh ok.

But even if I don't divide it by 2,

Maybe an rounding off error or?

What is the supposed answer?

- #40

- 464

- 30

9109Using your numbers for the two components I get 9209.

What is the supposed answer?

- #41

- 34,851

- 6,120

Possibly a typo.9109

- #42

TSny

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 12,852

- 3,203

- #43

- 464

- 30

Ah alright. Guess it's probably an accuracy error then.Possibly a typo.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 10K

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 240

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 11K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 34K