Electric field of infinite plate

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the electric field between two infinite plates arranged in a V formation with charge densities σ1 and σ2. The electric field components are derived, leading to two potential expressions for the magnitude of the electric field, depending on the angle β. The participants explore how the sign of cosβ affects the equations, concluding that one expression applies when cosβ is positive and the other when it is negative. The conversation also touches on the geometric implications of the plates' arrangement, suggesting that the configuration influences which expression is applicable based on the angle's acute or obtuse nature. Ultimately, the discussion clarifies that the two solutions arise from the angle's effect on the 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?
 
Back
Top