How Is the Net Electric Field Calculated Between Two Negatively Charged Disks?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the net electric field between two negatively charged disks, each with a specified charge and distance apart. The original poster presents a scenario involving two disks with given diameters and charge values, seeking to determine the electric field strength at a specific point along the axis between them.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the principle of superposition in electric fields and the need to consider the direction of the fields when summing them. There is a focus on the arithmetic involved in calculating the net electric field and the significance of maintaining consistent sign conventions. Questions arise regarding the treatment of significant figures in calculations and the implications of rounding.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing feedback on calculations and discussing potential errors related to significant figures. Some participants suggest re-evaluating the calculations based on the number of significant figures required by the problem. There is also a query about the origin of a specific value used in the calculations, indicating a deeper exploration of the assumptions made.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of using the correct number of significant figures in calculations, as well as questioning the relevance of the given charge value in the context of the problem. There is an acknowledgment that the value of eta may have been derived incorrectly, prompting further investigation into its calculation.

StephenDoty
Messages
261
Reaction score
0
Two 10cm-diameter charged disks face each other, 18 cm apart. Both disks are charged to - 30 nC. What is the electric field strength a point on the axis 5.0 cm from one disk between them?

[tex]\eta[/tex]/2[tex]\epsilon[/tex]0 * [1-1/[tex]\sqrt{1+ R^2/z^2}[/tex]]
with [tex]\eta[/tex] = -4.0 X 10^(-6) C/m^2
R=.05m z=.05cm for the left one and z=.13m for the right one

As I read this question, it is asking for the net electric field at a point .05m from one disk and .13m from the other. And since both disks are negative,the point will be attracted to both disks, making E1 and E2 opposite.

E1= -66190.6 N/C
E2= -15063.2 N/C
Both are negative meaning both are pointing towards their respective ring.
So to find Enet do I add E1 and E2? Making Enet= -81253.8 N/C = 81253.8 N/C toward the left ring??

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
Stephen
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, electric fields obey the principle of superposition, which means that you must sum the vectors of all electric fields in order to get the total. Just note that in your case the vectors are facing opposite directions, so you should subtract.
 
-66190.6 N/C - -15063.2 N/C

or
66190.6N/C - 15063.2 N/C?
 
StephenDoty said:
As I read this question, it is asking for the net electric field at a point .05m from one disk and .13m from the other. And since both disks are negative,the point will be attracted to both disks, making E1 and E2 opposite.
Good.

E1= -66190.6 N/C
E2= -15063.2 N/C
Both are negative meaning both are pointing towards their respective ring.
The way to describe these fields is (I will assume that your arithmetic is OK and that E1 is the field from the left disk):
E1 = 66190.6 N/C towards the left disk
E2 = 15063.2 N/C towards the right disk

If you call left negative and right positive, that means:
E1 = -66190.6 N/C (since it points to the left)
E2 = +15063.2 N/C (since it points to the right)

Now that you're using a consistent sign convention, to find the total field just add them up:
Enet = E1 + E2.

As for your final answer, I would just give the magnitude of the field strength as the sign is arbitrary.
 
so E=51127.4 N/C?
 
When I checked your calculations I got a bit of a different answer. Don't round off your value for [itex]\eta[/itex] to 2 sig figs and expect accurate answers to 6 figs! Redo those calculations--don't round off until the last step.
 
redid it and got 48823.1.
Is this what you got?
 
That looks much better.
 
I rounded 48823.1 to two sig figs or 4.9*10^4
but when I put it into mastering physics it said it was wrong. Any suggestions?

Thanks for the help.
Stephen
 
  • #10
What might I have done wrong? Any ideas?
 
  • #11
How many significant figures does Mastering Physics expect?

Edit: I found a webpage with tips for using Mastering Physics. One of the things it said is this:
Use three significant figures for all calculations! Your answer may be incorrect if you used only 2 significant figures during steps of the calculation or 2 significant figures for your answer.​
This might be the problem.

Here's the webpage: http://phystec4.cosam.calpoly.edu/141/masteringphysics.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
2 sig figs
 
  • #13
See the comment I added to my last post. (Of course, it may not apply to your situation.)
 
  • #14
I'm just wondering where the -30 nC comes into play? I see that StephenDoty has eta listed as -4.0 * 10^(-6). Where did that come from? Thanks.
 
  • #15
ltjlogic said:
I'm just wondering where the -30 nC comes into play? I see that StephenDoty has eta listed as -4.0 * 10^(-6). Where did that come from? Thanks.
eta ≡ charge/area; since charge and dimensions are given, one can calculate eta. The value of -4.0 * 10^(-6) is incorrect.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K