Finding Electric Field of Two Charges

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the electric field created by two charges: a positive charge of 1 μC at x=0 and a negative charge of -0.5 μC at x=4 m. The key problem is determining where the electric field is zero, leading to confusion in the calculations. The user initially arrives at an incorrect answer, mistakenly introducing an extra factor of 2 in their final expression. The solution involves correctly applying the relationship between the charges and their distances to find the accurate position where the electric field equals zero. Clarifications are provided on the proper manipulation of equations to isolate the variable r.
erok81
Messages
454
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



There is a charge Q=1 μC located at x=0 and a charge -Q/2 located at x=4 m. What is the E-field.

At what value of x is the E-field zero? Express your answer in meters and do not approximate decimals digits.

Homework Equations



E=\frac{q_1 q_2 k_c}{r^2}

Removing the test charge:

\frac{E}{q}=\frac{q_n k_c}{r^2}

The Attempt at a Solution



I have this solved, but I am going wrong somewhere and can't see my mistake. Here is my work and the correct final answer.

To find the E field at x=100, E1-E2=0. E2 is being subtracted due to q2 being negative.

This gives E1=E2

\frac{q_1 k_c}{r^2}=\frac{q_2 k_c}{(r-4^2)}

\frac{(r-4)^2}{r^2}=\frac{q_2 k_c}{q_1 k_c}

\left(\frac{(r-4)}{r}\right)^2=\frac{q_2 k_c}{q_1 k_c}

\frac{r-4}{r}= \pm \sqrt{\frac{q_2}{q_1}}

1-\frac{4}{r}= \pm \sqrt{\frac{q_2}{q_1}}

-1\left(-\frac{4}{r}= \pm \sqrt{\frac{q_2}{q_1}} -1\right)

\frac{4}{r}= \pm \sqrt{\frac{q_2}{q_1}} +1

\frac{r}{4}= \pm \sqrt{\frac{q_1}{q_2}} +1

r= \left(\pm \sqrt{\frac{q_1}{q_2}} +1\right)4

r= \pm 4\sqrt{\frac{q_1}{q_2}} +4

r= 4 \pm 4\sqrt{\frac{1}{0.5}}

r= 4 + 4 \sqrt{2}


But that isn't correct. That isn't the correct answer. The correct answer is:

r= 8 + 4 \sqrt{2}

Where does the extra factor of 2 come from making the 4 an 8?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
erok81 said:

Homework Statement



There is a charge Q=1 μC located at x=0 and a charge -Q/2 located at x=4 m. What is the E-field.

At what value of x is the E-field zero? Express your answer in meters and do not approximate decimals digits.

Homework Equations



E=\frac{q_1 q_2 k_c}{r^2}

Removing the test charge:

\frac{E}{q}=\frac{q_n k_c}{r^2}

The Attempt at a Solution



I have this solved, but I am going wrong somewhere and can't see my mistake. Here is my work and the correct final answer.

To find the E field at x=100, E1-E2=0. E2 is being subtracted due to q2 being negative.

This gives E1=E2

\frac{q_1 k_c}{r^2}=\frac{q_2 k_c}{(r-4^2)}

\frac{(r-4)^2}{r^2}=\frac{q_2 k_c}{q_1 k_c}

\left(\frac{(r-4)}{r}\right)^2=\frac{q_2 k_c}{q_1 k_c}

\frac{r-4}{r}= \pm \sqrt{\frac{q_2}{q_1}}

1-\frac{4}{r}= \pm \sqrt{\frac{q_2}{q_1}}

-1\left(-\frac{4}{r}= \pm \sqrt{\frac{q_2}{q_1}} -1\right)

\frac{4}{r}= \pm \sqrt{\frac{q_2}{q_1}} +1

\frac{r}{4}= \pm \sqrt{\frac{q_1}{q_2}} +1

You made a mistake. The red line is wrong.

ehild
 
I am assuming I can't take the inverse of that thing like I did?

Would the more appropriate solution to cross multiply everything to get r alone?
 
hi erok81! :smile:
erok81 said:
Would the more appropriate solution to cross multiply everything to get r alone?

that'll still leave you with the problem of what the inverse of the RHS is :redface:

hint: 1 = √q1/√q1 :wink:
 
Last edited:
erok81 said:
I am assuming I can't take the inverse of that thing like I did?

Would the more appropriate solution to cross multiply everything to get r alone?


You can not. Try it with numbers: if 1/r = 2/3 +1
=5/3
is r=3/2 +1
=5/2?
?

You can take the reciprocal of both sides of an equation if neither sides can be zero. If

4/r =a+b

then

r/4=1/(a+b)

Multiply both sides by 4:

r=4/(a+b)

Your equation is

\frac{4}{r}= \pm \sqrt{\frac{q_2}{q_1}} +1

Substitute the numerical values of the charges q2=Q/2 and q1=Q.

\frac{4}{r}= \pm \sqrt{1/2} +1

Take the reciprocal of both sides.


ehild
 
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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
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