How Do Strangely Aligned Capacitor Plates Affect Distance Calculations?

mateomy
Messages
305
Reaction score
0
Working along step-by-step with a text and I'm stumped as to how they reached a conclusion. In the first picture you see two plates aligned at an unspecified angle, theta. One plate is at a potential V and the other is grounded. The distance between the plates at one end is d, and at the other end d+a. You can see in the second picture how they've set it up with respect to a two dimensional coordinate system. Maybe it's late and I'm braindead or maybe not in any even I can't see how they've formed the relationship between b,d and a to determine the distance between the actual origin and the intersection of the plates (dotted lines in picture three). Can anybody enlighten me?

Thanks.

ScreenShot2012-05-18at11434AM.png


ScreenShot2012-05-18at11722AM.png


ScreenShot2012-05-18at11714AM.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
P.S. the whole point is to find the potential, but this is where I'm hung up.
 
In the triangle (in x<0) with base OO' and the height d, you have
tan(theta_0)=d/(OO').

In the trapezoid (in x>0), draw the horizontal at height d to form a similar triangle,
with base b and height a. Thus
tan(theta_0)=a/b.
 
Truly geometry is my weakest link. Thank you.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top