Finding magnitude of electrostatic force

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the electrostatic force between two charged particles positioned colinearly but not along a single axis. Participants are exploring the relationship between vector components of force and the direct application of the electrostatic force formula.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question why calculating the force components separately and then combining them does not yield the same result as using the direct formula for electrostatic force. There are discussions about the correctness of the component calculations and the implications of using incorrect assumptions in the setup.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered guidance on the correct approach to finding force components and have pointed out potential misconceptions. There is an ongoing exploration of how to properly derive the components of the force based on the geometry of the situation.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of vector components in relation to the electrostatic force formula, with some expressing uncertainty about their calculations and assumptions regarding the positions of the charges.

transmini
Messages
81
Reaction score
1
We have a question about finding the electrostatic force acting on a particle from another particle. They are colinear since there is only the 2 particles, but not along an axis.

My question is, why does finding the force in the x direction and finding the force in the why direction, then doing

√(Fx2 + Fy2) not give me the same answer as if I did

kq1q2/ [(y2-y1)2 + (x2-x1)2]?

I'm new to typing on here also so I'm not quite sure about complete formatting yet.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
transmini said:
My question is, why does finding the force in the x direction and finding the force in the why direction, then doing

√(Fx2 + Fy2) not give me the same answer as if I did

kq1q2/ [(y2-y1)2 + (x2-x1)2]?

It should give the the same answer if you found Fx and Fy correctly.

However, it is easier to find the force directly using kq1q2/ [(y2-y1)2 + (x2-x1)2]
 
TSny said:
It should give the the same answer if you found Fx and Fy correctly.

However, it is easier to find the force directly using kq1q2/ [(y2-y1)2 + (x2-x1)2]

My guess would be I didn't find them correctly then. I used the formula for electrostatic force, except for r2, I used (x2-x1)2 and did a similar thing for the y direction
 
transmini said:
My guess would be I didn't find them correctly then. I used the formula for electrostatic force, except for r2, I used (x2-x1)2 and did a similar thing for the y direction
That's not the correct way to get the components. To convince yourself of that, suppose the two charges were both on the y-axis. What would you get for the x-component of the force if you used (x2-x1)2 for r2?
 
TSny said:
That's not the correct way to get the components. To convince yourself of that, suppose the two charges were both on the y-axis. What would you get for the x-component of the force if you used (x2-x1)2 for r2?

We would end up with 0, making the component undefined, which wouldn't make sense. So why it doesn't work makes sense now, but how would you go about finding the components, despite finding the magnitude first being easier?
 
Last edited:
The force is parallel to the line connecting the particles. The angle θ that the force makes to the x-axis is the same as the angle that the connecting line makes to the x axis.

So, ##\cos\theta = \frac{x_2-x_1}{r}## and ##F_x = F \cos\theta = \frac{kq_1q_2 (x_2-x_1)}{r^3}##

Similarly for the y component.
 
Okay, I see where that comes from now and that makes sense as well. Thanks for the help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
896
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K