Gauss' Law: Infinite plane with charge

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the distance between equipotential surfaces for an infinite plane of charge with a given surface charge density. The context is rooted in electrostatics, specifically applying Gauss' Law and concepts related to electric fields and potential differences.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of the electric field using the surface charge density and the relationship between electric field, potential difference, and distance. There is a focus on unit conversion and significant figures.

Discussion Status

The discussion has seen participants verifying calculations and addressing unit conversion issues. Some guidance has been provided regarding significant figures and the importance of proper unit conversion.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of homework rules, which may limit the information they can share or seek. There is an emphasis on ensuring that the final answer is expressed in the correct units.

SnakeDoc
Messages
27
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


An infinite plane of charge has surface charge density 6.8 µC/m2. How far apart are the equipotential surfaces whose potentials differ by 100 V? In mm

Homework Equations


E=σ/(2ε0)

The Attempt at a Solution


So first I solved for E= 6.8e-6/(2*8.85e-12) = 384170.791

then because ΔV= E *ΔX
so
ΔX=ΔV/E

so then I substituted
ΔX = 100/ 384170.791
ΔX = .0002603

The site says that I've made a power of ten error the answer must be in mm but I'm not sure what I am doing wrong
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SnakeDoc said:
ΔX = 100/ 384170.791
ΔX = .0002603

The site says that I've made a power of ten error the answer must be in mm but I'm not sure what I am doing wrong
So far you've expressed your ΔX in meters. What value did you enter for your answer in mm? How many significant figures did you provide?
 
I entered 2.603 mm
 
SnakeDoc said:
I entered 2.603 mm
Numerically the result looks to be good. How many significant figures do the given data support?
 
I realized my mistake its supposed to be .2603mm I converted from Meters to millimeters improperly. Thank you.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K