Equilbrium charge between 2 charges

  • Thread starter Thread starter thursdaytbs
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charge Charges
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on finding the equilibrium point between two charges, +6.8 microCoulombs (q1) and -1.7 microCoulombs (q2), separated by 1 meter. The net electric field is zero at a calculated position of 0.2 meters inward from q2, leading to confusion regarding the existence of two equilibrium points. The correct approach involves using the inverse square law for electric fields, resulting in the equation kq1/(1+r)^2 + kq2/r^2 = 0, which simplifies to r = R(1 + (q2/q1)^(1/2))^(-1) for the equilibrium position.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric fields and forces
  • Familiarity with Coulomb's law and the inverse square law
  • Knowledge of algebraic manipulation and quadratic equations
  • Basic concepts of electric potential and energy
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Coulomb's law in electric field calculations
  • Learn about the inverse square law in the context of electrostatics
  • Explore the concept of electric potential and its relationship to electric fields
  • Practice solving quadratic equations related to electric field problems
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, electrical engineers, and anyone interested in electrostatics and electric field analysis will benefit from this discussion.

thursdaytbs
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
+6.8microC -1.7microC
(q1) ------ 1m ------ (q2)

"Two charges are separated by 1.0 m as shown. q1 has a positive charge of 6.8micro-C, and q2 has a negative charge of 1.7micro-C. At what position is the net electric field that is produced by both q1 and q2 equal to zero?

If a +5.0 micro-C charge is placed at this position, what force would act on it as a result of q1 and q2?
So what I did was:

Kq1/(1+r) + Kq2/r = 0, making r =the distance away from q2 outside of the system to be the equilibrium point. so q1 is 1m + r distance away from the point, and q2 = r distance away from the point.

K's cancel out, you get:
q1/(1+r) + q2/r = 0
Some algebra, turns out r = -0.2m.

Does that mean the point is 0.2m inwards from q2->q1 instead of outside of the system?
aka: (q1) -----0.8m----(qe)--0.2--(q2), where qe = equilibrium point?

Also, arent there two points which are in equliibrium of the system? We did a problem in class similar to this and had 2 pointsat equlibrium. Any help is greatly appreciated.
:smile:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure you're supposed to be using the first power of r in your equations ? How does the inverse square law pertain here ? When should you instead use the first power as you did here (hint : potential).

I get a "nice" answer between the two charges.
 
isn't the potential of a charge: kq/r?

well q(Vb - Va) = kq(q-initial) / ra - kq(q-initial) / rb
but that's for moving a charge from one place to another, right?
 
OHhhhh is it:

Kq1 / r-from-q1 + kq2 / r-from-q2 = 0

so the K's cancel out leaving:

q1 / r1 + q2 / r2 = 0

q1 and q2 are knowns but r1 and r2 are unknowns. how would that be solved?

Would it be, kq1qe / r1^2 = kq2qe / r2^2
where q1 = q1
q2 = q2, and qe = equilbrium charge
r1 = distance from q1 - qe,
r2 = distance from q2 - qe

from that you get kq1qe / r1^2 = kq2qe / r2^2
becomes: q1 / r1^2 = q2 / r2^2
where q1, and q2 are known.

Then using system of equations, solve for r1 and r2?
 
Last edited:
This makes no sense to me...

equation 1) q1/r1 +q2/r2 = 0
equation 2) r1 [distance between equilibrium charge -> q1] = 2(R2)

plugging it in just gives me zero. help please, anyone?
 
thursdaytbs said:
isn't the potential of a charge: kq/r?

Potential yes, electric field strength, no.

What is the definition of electric field strength ? What is the electric field strength at distance r from point charge q ? Show some equations to prove understanding.
 
Alright, well.

The definition of electric field strength? The amount of force that is pulling or pushing on charges surrounding a charge?

E=F/q, so the Electric Field strength would be the Force [kq1q2/r^2] divided by the charge, q.

That means, E = kq1 / r^2.

Oh, also - Eleectric Potential Energy = qV, where V = kq/r. So, EPotential Energy = kq^2/r.
 
Last edited:
thursdaytbs said:
Alright, well.

The definition of electric field strength? The amount of force that is pulling or pushing on charges surrounding a charge?

E=F/q, so the Electric Field strength would be the Force [kq1q2/r^2] divided by the charge, q.

That means, E = kq1 / r^2.

This is correct. So you realize you were wrong to use the first power in your first attempt, correct ? Because there you were trying to find a zero potential point, which is NOT what the question was asking for.

So rewrite your first attempt using the second power of r and get a result and I'll check to see if it's right.
 
OHHH wow. Thanks a lot.

Ok, so for the net electric field to be 0, kq1 / (1+r)^2 + kq2/(r^2) = 0

Alright so:
1) k's drop out, leaving q1 / (1+r)^2 + q2/(r^2) = 0
2) (6.8x10^-6) / (1+2r+r^2) + (-1.7x10^-6) / (r^2) = 0
- multiply through by (1+2r+r^2)(r^2)
3) (6.8x10^-6)(r^2) + (-1.7x10^-6)(1+2r+r^2) = 0
4) R becomes a quadratic formula giving +.66667 and -.66667??

I feel so lost. Does that seem remotely correct?

*For q2, should I be putting in the negative (-) in front of it since it's a negative charge??
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I don't see why you're having so much trouble.

Let q1 (the +6.8 \mu C charge) lie at position r = 0 and the other q2 (-1.7 \mu C)lie at position r = R. Here R = 1 m.

Then at a position r, the net electric field strength of the system is :

+ \frac{kq_1}{r^2} - \frac{kq_2}{(R - r)^2}

isn't it ?

Equate that expression to zero, and solve for r in terms of R. What do you get ?

You should get r = R(1 + (\frac{q_2}{q_1})^{\frac{1}{2}})^{-1}

BTW, q1 and q2 refer to the absolute numerical values of the charges, since I've taken care of the signs in my formulation.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Yep r = R(1 + (\frac{q_2}{q_1})^{\frac{1}{2}})^{-1} equates to 0.66666. That's what I got too using what I said above. I think it's doing the same thing.

Anyway, thanks a lot for the help.
 
  • #12
thursdaytbs said:
Yep r = R(1 + (\frac{q_2}{q_1})^{\frac{1}{2}})^{-1} equates to 0.66666. That's what I got too using what I said above. I think it's doing the same thing.

Anyway, thanks a lot for the help.

Then you have basically the right idea, but you don't have to solve a quadratic to get the answer. Just do this :

+ \frac{kq_1}{r^2} - \frac{kq_2}{(R - r)^2}

\frac{q_2}{q_1} = (\frac{R}{r} - 1)^2

\frac{R}{r} = 1 + (\frac{q_2}{q_1})^{\frac{1}{2}}

and you can manipulate that easily.

But it's OK to do it via a quadratic, just more tedious. You do understand why you should ignore the negative root though, correct ?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K