Finding the Charge for a Specific Electric Field at the Origin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soaring Crane
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Direction Electric
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the charge of a second point charge, q_2, located on the x-axis, such that the net electric field at the origin is a specified value in either the positive or negative x-direction. The context is within electrostatics, specifically focusing on electric fields generated by point charges.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the necessary sign and magnitude of q_2 to achieve the desired electric field at the origin, with some questioning the reasoning behind the sign of the charge needed for the net electric field to be positive or negative.

Discussion Status

Some participants have confirmed the correctness of certain calculations, while others are exploring the implications of charge distances and magnitudes. There is ongoing clarification about the relationship between the charges and the resulting electric fields.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the effects of two point charges on the electric field at a specific point, with some noting the importance of understanding the direction of electric fields produced by positive and negative charges. The discussion includes assumptions about the setup and the nature of electric fields.

Soaring Crane
Messages
461
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A negative point charge q_1 = -4.00 nC is on the x-axis at x = 0.60 m. A second point charge q_2 is on the x-axis at x = -1.20 m.

a. What must the sign and magnitude of q_2 be for the net electric field at the origin to be 50.0 N/C in the +x-direction?

b. What must the sign and magnitude of q_2 be for the net electric field at the origin to be 50.0 N/C in the -x-direction?



Homework Equations



E = k*q/r^2

The Attempt at a Solution




a. The charge must be negative for subtraction to occur.

(-q2) O__<____. _>__O (-q1)
-----E2 = (-)------E1= (+)
negative diagram
. = field point (0,0)
O = particle
Arrow indicates field direction based on positive test charge

E1 = (8.988*10^9)*(-4.00*10^-9 C)/(.60 m)^2 = 99.8667 N/C (+)

99.8667 N/C + E2 = 50 N/C
E2 = -49.8667 C

q_2 = r^2*(49.86667)/(8.988*10^9) = -7.9893*10^-9 C ?




b. E1 = (8.988*10^9)*(-4.00*10^-9 C)/(.60 m)^2 = 99.8667 N/C (+)

E2 = -50 N/C – 99.8667 = -149.8667 C

q_2 = [(r^2)149.8667 N/C]/k = [(r^2)149.8667 N/C]/k = (1.2^2)*149.8667/(8.988*10^9) = -2.40*10^-8 C ?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For a), why do you say "The charge must be negative for subtraction to occur"? E field points from + charge to - charge, and a) wants a net positive E field at the origin, doesn't it? Maybe I'm misreading something.
 
u should know that q1 and q2 exert on the origin ... so there is 2 forces what means there is 2 electric fields..
the net electric fields should be =50 and in the direction of the force exert by q2 on the origin...u have this condition and the equations ...u should solve it i think
tr to get the net force on the origin assuming theer is test point charge. then using the condition u have and the values u will have the answer.
 
Part a is correct.

You can look at this by proportions as a sanity check. q2 is twice as far away as q1, so if it had an equal charge, the strength of its field at the origin would be 1/4 as strong as q1's. Since the field was half as strong as it would be with q1 alone, the charge on q2 has to be about twice as strong as q1.
 
hey BobG is what i said true? just to check if i know the concept
 
moe_3_moe said:
hey BobG is what i said true? just to check if i know the concept

That's a tough question.

You could insert a test point of some mass (1kg to keep things simple), but you don't really need it. You'd be multiplying everything by your test mass, including your field at the origin.
 
Is my answer for Part B incorrect?
 
No, I think it's correct. I just didn't look at it. A quick check comparing the proportions looks right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
19K