Electric fields change in the spacing between the plates?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a problem involving four metallic parallel plates connected to a voltage source. The potentials of plates A, B, C, and D are analyzed, with A at potential V and D at 0 volts, while B and C, when connected by a wire, equalize to V/2. The electric fields between the plates change, with increased fields between A and B and C and D, while the field becomes zero between B and C. The net capacitance of the system is affected by the connection of B and C, reducing the number of capacitors in series from three to two. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the relationship between electric fields, potential differences, and capacitance in the given configuration.
tsgkl
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A,B,C,D are four 'thin',similar metallic parallel plates,equally separated by distance d,and connected to a cell of potential difference(V) as shown in the attachement.
  1. Write the potentials of A,B,C,D.
  2. If B and C be connected by a wire,then what will be the potentials of the plates?
  3. How will the electric fields change in the spacing between the plates?
  4. Will the charges on the plates A and D change?

Homework Equations


C=\frac{εA}{d}
(for parallel plate capacitor with air as dielectric)
V=\frac{E}{d}

The Attempt at a Solution


for part(1) i know that potential for A is V and for D is 0 as it is earthed,but i am a bit confused for B and C
for part(2) for B and C, V=1/2[2V/3+V/3]=V/2. for A and D, V is same as in (1)
for part(3) the electric field between A and B will increase from V/3d to V/2d,become 0 between B and C and increase from V/3d to V/2d between C and D.
i have little clue on part(4)


Please clear my confusions...
 

Attachments

  • IMG0229A.jpg
    IMG0229A.jpg
    9.2 KB · Views: 420
Physics news on Phys.org
For part (1) you can use the geometry of the situation to determine the potential w.r.t. plate D given that the field should be uniform between A and D (plates B and C have a neutral net charge and are supposedly "thin", so they won't unduly disturb the overall field even if charge separation occurs between surfaces).

Alternatively, if you want you can look at the setup as an electronic circuit where adjacent pairs of plates form individual capacitors. In the initial setup there are effectively three equal capacitors in series. Work out the potentials using circuit rules.

It looks like you did okay for part (2); presumably you took advantage of the geometry and the fact that the wire between B and C forces them to be at the same potential.

For part (4), if you consider the electronic circuit point of view you've gone from three capacitors in series to only two. How might this effect the net capacitance as "seen" by the voltage supply?
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top