Electric field of infinite plate

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the electric field generated by two infinite plates arranged in a V formation with an angle β between them, each having different charge densities (σ1 and σ2). Participants are exploring the mathematical representation of the electric field in this configuration and the implications of the angle on the resulting equations.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to derive the magnitude of the electric field between the plates using equations that involve trigonometric functions of the angle β. There is a focus on understanding the conditions under which different signs appear in the equations for the electric field magnitude.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants questioning the derivation of two possible equations for the electric field magnitude based on the angle β. Some participants suggest that the sign of cosβ may change depending on the angle, leading to different interpretations of the electric field's behavior in various configurations. There is no explicit consensus on the correct interpretation yet, but several productive lines of reasoning are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note a potential discrepancy in the configuration of the plates, with one describing them as forming a V shape while another refers to an X shape. This difference may influence the interpretation of the equations and the resulting electric field calculations.

Dell
Messages
555
Reaction score
0
2 infinite plates are placed one next to another in a V formation with an angle β between them, they have charge densities of σ1 and σ2. what is the magitude of the field betweein them.

ϕ=\ointEdA=EA
ϕ=\frac{q}{ϵ}=\frac{σA}{ϵ}

E1=\frac{σ1}{ϵ}
E2=\frac{σ2}{ϵ}

E=E1+E2

lets make our x-axis parallel to plate 1 giving E1 a 0 value on x axis
Ex= 0 + \frac{σ2}{ϵ}*sinβ
Ey= \frac{σ1}{ϵ} + \frac{σ2}{ϵ}*cosβ

|E|2=|Ex|2 + |Ey|2
=(\frac{σ2}{ϵ}*sinβ)2 +(\frac{σ1}{ϵ} + \frac{σ2}{ϵ}*cosβ)2
=\frac{1}{ϵ}*(σ22sin2β + σ12 + σ22cos2β + 2(σ1)(σ2)cosβ )
=\frac{1}{ϵ}*(σ22(sin2β + cos2β ) + σ12 + 2(σ1)(σ2)cosβ)

|E|2=\frac{1}{ϵ}*(σ12 + σ22 + 2(σ1)(σ2)cosβ)

which is almost right except that in my answers there is a second possible solution that

|E|2=\frac{1}{ϵ}*(σ12 + σ22 - 2(σ1)(σ2)cosβ)

where does this minus come from? originally i thought it might be because of a possible negative charge density but surely if that was so the sign would be part of σ and come automatically when i plug in values
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i see the latex codes came all messed up, meant to read:

Ex= 0 + (σ2/ɛ)*sinβ
Ey=(σ1/ɛ) + (σ2/ɛ)*cosβ

|E|^2=|Ex|^2 + |Ey|^2

and at the end after calculations come to

|E|^2=(1/ɛ)*(σ1^2 + σ2^2 + 2(σ1)(σ2)cosβ)

where there is meant to be a second option of

|E|^2=(1/ɛ)*(σ1^2 + σ2^2 + 2(σ1)(σ2)cosβ)

and i can't see where from. originally i thought it might be because of a possible negative charge density but surely if that was so the sign would be part of σ and come automatically when i plug in values
 
Depending on the angle cosβ has a range of +1 to -1 doesn't it?
 
correct, so does that mean that if 90<β<270 then i will use the minus option? could i then also say |E|^2=(1/ɛ)*(σ1^2 + σ2^2 + 2(σ1)(σ2)|cosβ|)
 
Dell said:
correct, so does that mean that if 90<β<270 then i will use the minus option? could i then also say |E|^2=(1/ɛ)*(σ1^2 + σ2^2 + 2(σ1)(σ2)|cosβ|)

I think all it means is that there are 2 solutions depending on the angle of β.

Your representation above ignores the second solution where cosβ is (-).
 
what are the 2 options? is it

|E|^2=(1/ɛ)*(σ1^2 + σ2^2 + 2(σ1)(σ2)cosβ) when (cosβ>1)

and

|E|^2=(1/ɛ)*(σ1^2 + σ2^2 - 2(σ1)(σ2)cosβ) when (cosβ<1)

?

if so than can i not just say that it is
|E|^2=(1/ɛ)*(σ1^2 + σ2^2 + 2(σ1)(σ2)|cosβ|)

and then cos will always be positive, in effect that is what i am doing anyway, taking minus the value of the negative cos
 
looking back at the original question and the one i posted, i see that in the original the 2 plates formed an X like shape whereas i wrote in my post a V shape, originally i never thought anything of it but now looking back i think that the (- cosB) is for the area between the top and bottom points of the X on either side whereas the ( + cosB) is for the area between the top 2 points or bottom 2 points, (when B is an acute angle,) or alternatively the opposite(when B is obtuse).
is this a correct presumption?
 
Dell said:
looking back at the original question and the one i posted, i see that in the original the 2 plates formed an X like shape whereas i wrote in my post a V shape, originally i never thought anything of it but now looking back i think that the (- cosB) is for the area between the top and bottom points of the X on either side whereas the ( + cosB) is for the area between the top 2 points or bottom 2 points, (when B is an acute angle,) or alternatively the opposite(when B is obtuse).
is this a correct presumption?

An X configuration does simultaneously create 2 regions (4 actually, but 2 sets of 2).
 
yes but is one the -cos option and the other the +cod option?
 
  • #10
Dell said:
yes but is one the -cos option and the other the +cod option?

One governs acute angles and the other obtuse doesn't it?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
16K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
14K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K