Just understanding capacitors and e-fields

  • Thread starter Thread starter buddingscientist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Capacitors
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the electric field (E) between two charged capacitor plates and the use of the plate length (L) in the formula E = q/(ε₀L). Participants question whether using L is appropriate, as it seems to yield incorrect units for electric field strength. There's confusion about the variable q, with suggestions it could represent charge per length (C/m) rather than total charge (C). The conversation highlights that typically, area (A) is more relevant in capacitor equations, leading to the alternative expression E = σ/ε₀. The overall consensus is that the use of L in this context is unconventional and warrants further clarification.
buddingscientist
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
It's a problem were we are given the usual - 2 plates separated in air, distance D apart, each of length L, one excess +ve charge the other exces -ve charge

The question then states:
the magnitude between the e-field plates is: E = q/EoL, calculate the potential (blah blah..)

My question is why have they used L?
Wouldn't this give the electric field units of: C / (C^2.N^-1.m^-2)*(m)
(apologies for no latex)
= Newton-metres per Coulomb?

when it should be Newtons per Coulomb (or Volts per metre)?

Is the question assuming 1D plates?
Just looking to get this cleared up, thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know why they used L either... However, you have not specified what q is. Is it a charge, thus units Coulomb? Could it be that q is a charge per length with units C/m ?

I think it's weird using the length of a capacitor plate though... It's the area that usually matters. Usually it's:
E = \frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_0} = \frac{Q}{\epsilon_0 A} so \sigma = \frac{Q}{A}.

Maybe in this case E = \frac{q}{\epsilon_0 L} = \frac{\lambda}{\epsilon_0} where \lambda = \frac{q}{L}.
 
Last edited:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top