What is the electric field above an infinite plate with a given charge?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the electric field above an infinite charged plate, specifically using the equations E = σ/ε₀ for a single plate and E = σ/2ε₀ for two oppositely charged plates. The user initially calculated an electric field of 106 MN/C but found a discrepancy with the textbook answer of 53 MN/C, leading to confusion about the correct equation to use. Clarification was provided that the first equation applies to a single charged plate, while the second is relevant for a parallel plate capacitor scenario. The distinction between the equations is based on the number of plates rather than their conductive or insulating nature. Understanding this difference is crucial for accurate calculations in electrostatics.
manenbu
Messages
101
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



From Resnick and Halliday:

A metal plate 8 cm on a side carries a total charge of 60 microC. Using the infinite plate approximation, calculate the electric field 0.5 mm above the surface of the plate near the plate's center.

Homework Equations



(1) E = \frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_0}
or
(2) E = \frac{\sigma}{2\epsilon_0}
\sigma being charge density.

The Attempt at a Solution



I got a bit confused here. Equation (1) should be used when the plate is a conductor, and equation (2) should be used when the plate is an insulator, according to the explanation in the book.
However, when I use equation (1) to calculate, I get 106MN/C, and in the answers in the back of the book it says it should be 53 MN/C. Either I used the wrong equation, or I should have used half of the charge.
What went wrong?

And honestly, I really did not understand why there are 2 different equations for each situation (conductor, insulator). I tried deriving them on my own but no success in gaining real understanding, so I'd be really glad if someone could shed some light on the subject.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
manenbu said:
A metal plate 8 cm on a side carries a total charge of 60 microC. Using the infinite plate approximation, calculate the electric field 0.5 mm above the surface of the plate near the plate's center.
I calculate an answer that differs by a factor of 10 from the given answer. Are you sure that the problem statement specifies 60 μC instead of say, 6.0 μC?

Homework Equations



(1) E = \frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_0}
or
(2) E = \frac{\sigma}{2\epsilon_0}
\sigma being charge density.

The Attempt at a Solution



I got a bit confused here. Equation (1) should be used when the plate is a conductor, and equation (2) should be used when the plate is an insulator, according to the explanation in the book.
However, when I use equation (1) to calculate, I get 106MN/C, and in the answers in the back of the book it says it should be 53 MN/C. Either I used the wrong equation, or I should have used half of the charge.
What went wrong?

And honestly, I really did not understand why there are 2 different equations for each situation (conductor, insulator). I tried deriving them on my own but no success in gaining real understanding, so I'd be really glad if someone could shed some light on the subject.
I'm not familiar with Resnick and Halliday text. However, I doubt a textbook would make such a mistake.

Equation (1) applies to the situation where you have two separate, oppositely charged plates, and you're looking for the electric field in between them. This is the situation when working with a parallel plate capacitor (without a dielectric).

Equation (2) applies to a single charged plate.

The difference in application between the equations has nothing really to do with the plate(s) being conducting or insulating. Rather its a matter of whether you have one or two plates.

Capacitors will invariably be constructed of conducting plates (otherwise it wouldn't function as a capacitor). Maybe that's from where the confusion stems.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top