Finite Sheets of Charge Compared to Infinite Sheets of Charge

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the ratio of the radius of two charged disks to their separation, where one disk has a positive charge density and the other a negative charge density. The electric field at a specific point is derived from the formula for the electric field due to a disk, and the goal is to find the ratio R/a such that the electric field differs by only 1% from that of infinite sheets of charge. The solution involves setting the calculated electric field equal to 99% of the infinite sheet's electric field and solving for R/a. Ultimately, the result indicates that the ratio R/a must equal 50 to meet the specified condition. This problem highlights the complexities of electric fields generated by finite charge distributions compared to infinite ones.
Gaupp
Messages
10
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



6bjqsgn.jpg


Consider two thin disks, of negligible thickness, of radius R oriented perpendicular to the x-axis such that the x-axis runs through the center of each disk. The disk centered at x=0 has positive charge density n, and the disk centered at x=a has negative charge density -n, where the charge density is charge per unit area.

For what value of the ratio R/a of plate radius to separation between the plates does the electric field at the point x=a/2 on the x-axis differ by 1 percent from the result n/epsilon_0 for infinite sheets?


Homework Equations



E(disk_x) = n/(2epsilon_0) * (1-((x)/(sqrt(x^2 + R^2))))

The Attempt at a Solution



I have found the electric field at x=a/2 to be:

E(disk_x) = 2*(n/(2*epsilon_0) * (1-((.5a)/(sqrt((.5a)^2 + R^2))))

However, I'm not sure where to go from here. Should I work the above equation to get what R/a is equal to and then set it equal to .99*(n/epsilon_0)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gaupp said:
I have found the electric field at x=a/2 to be:

E(disk_x) = 2*(n/(2*epsilon_0) * (1-((.5a)/(sqrt((.5a)^2 + R^2))))
Set that expression equal to .99*(n/epsilon_0) and solve for R/a. (Hint: First rewrite that expression in terms of R/a.)
 
So now I have:

Sorry this is going to be messy...

R/a = sqrt(.25*((1-((epsilon_0*E)/n))^-2)-.25) = .99(n/(epsilon_0))

How do I deal with the E? If I sub in the other equation won't that just negate everything? I'm also asked to give the answer to two significant digits, but I don't see how the R/a ratio is going to give me numbers without that E still in it.

Help me out Doc please :)
 
Okay I got it on my own.

Using the %difference = (E_infinite - E)/(E_infinite)

Since E = n/epsilon_0 * (1-((.5a)/(sqrt((.5a)^2 + R^2)))) approaces n/epsilon_0 as R/a approaches infinity you can plug in n/epsilon_0 for E_infinite and the original equation for E. Solving this for %difference = .01 you arrive at R/a = 50.

Nasty little problem...
 
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Back
Top