1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Equilbrium charge between 2 charges

  1. Jan 16, 2005 #1
    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 = equilbirium 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: Jan 16, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 16, 2005 #2

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  4. Jan 16, 2005 #3
    isn't the potential of a charge: kq/r?

    well q(Vb - Va) = kq(q-initial) / ra - kq(q-initial) / rb
    but thats for moving a charge from one place to another, right?
     
  5. Jan 16, 2005 #4
    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: Jan 16, 2005
  6. Jan 16, 2005 #5
    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?
     
  7. Jan 16, 2005 #6

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  8. Jan 16, 2005 #7
    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: Jan 16, 2005
  9. Jan 16, 2005 #8

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    This is correct. So you realise 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.
     
  10. Jan 16, 2005 #9
    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: Jan 16, 2005
  11. Jan 16, 2005 #10

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I don't see why you're having so much trouble.

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

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

    [tex]+ \frac{kq_1}{r^2} - \frac{kq_2}{(R - r)^2}[/tex]

    isn't it ?

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

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

    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: Jan 16, 2005
  12. Jan 16, 2005 #11
    Yep [tex]r = R(1 + (\frac{q_2}{q_1})^{\frac{1}{2}})^{-1}[/tex] 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.
     
  13. Jan 17, 2005 #12

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

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

    [tex]+ \frac{kq_1}{r^2} - \frac{kq_2}{(R - r)^2}[/tex]

    [tex]\frac{q_2}{q_1} = (\frac{R}{r} - 1)^2[/tex]

    [tex]\frac{R}{r} = 1 + (\frac{q_2}{q_1})^{\frac{1}{2}}[/tex]

    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: Jan 17, 2005
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Equilbrium charge between 2 charges
Loading...