Force on a charge due to charged sheet

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the force on a positive charge near a positively charged infinite plate. The conventional method involves using Gauss's Law to determine the electric field, which results in a force independent of distance. However, an alternative method suggested by the teacher involves considering the field lines as if a negative charge were placed on the opposite side, forming a dipole. This approach yields a force that depends on the distance, calculated as ##\frac{kQ^2}{(2d)^2}##. The discussion raises questions about the validity of this method and whether it simplifies to the force between two charges.
Yashbhatt
Messages
348
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement


I want to find the force on a positive charge placed at a distance ##d## from a positively charged infinite plate. Of course, it can be simply done by finding the electric field due to the plate using Gauss's Law.

But my teacher suggested a different method and I am unable to comprehend it. He said that the field lines due to this particular configuration would be the same as the one in which a negative charge were to be placed on the opposite side of the plate at a distance ##d## forming a dipole.

3xPUL.png


Here ##d = d_1##.

Homework Equations


$$F=\frac{kq_1q_2}{r^2}$$
$$E=\frac{\rho}{2\epsilon_0}$$
$$\ \ \ \oint _S \vec{E} \cdot \vec{dA} = \frac{Q_{enclosed}}{\epsilon_0}$$
$$F=qE$$

The Attempt at a Solution


The normal electric field is ##\frac{\rho}{2\epsilon_0}## which gives a force independent from ##d## but using the above method, the force is ##\frac{kQ^2}{(2d)^2}## which depends on ##d## . What is the method at work? Is the force now simply the force between two positive and negative charges? i.e. Is the force on ##+Q## just ##\frac{kQ^2}{(2d)^2}## ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yashbhatt said:

Homework Statement


I want to find the force on a positive charge placed at a distance ##d## from a positively charged infinite plate. Of course, it can be simply done by finding the electric field due to the plate using Gauss's Law.

But my teacher suggested a different method and I am unable to comprehend it. He said that the field lines due to this particular configuration would be the same as the one in which a negative charge were to be placed on the opposite side of the plate at a distance ##d## forming a dipole.

3xPUL.png


Here ##d = d_1##.

Homework Equations


$$F=\frac{kq_1q_2}{r^2}$$
$$E=\frac{\rho}{2\epsilon_0}$$
$$\ \ \ \oint _S \vec{E} \cdot \vec{dA} = \frac{Q_{enclosed}}{\epsilon_0}$$
$$F=qE$$

The Attempt at a Solution


The normal electric field is ##\frac{\rho}{2\epsilon_0}## which gives a force independent from ##d## but using the above method, the force is ##\frac{kQ^2}{(2d)^2}## which depends on ##d## . What is the method at work? Is the force now simply the force between two positive and negative charges? i.e. Is the force on ##+Q## just ##\frac{kQ^2}{(2d)^2}## ?
Copy the original text of the problem, please.
You said that the infinite plate was positively charged. Was the plate metal or insulator? What was the surface charge density on it?
 
ehild said:
Copy the original text of the problem, please.
You said that the infinite plate was positively charged. Was the plate metal or insulator? What was the surface charge density on it?

The plate is a metal plate and the surface charge density is ##\rho##.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
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