Modeling Thunderclouds with Point Charges and Conducting Planes

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on modeling a thundercloud using two point charges and a conducting plane representing the Earth's surface. The user describes their approach to satisfy boundary conditions by placing image charges and deriving the electric potential and field equations. They confirm that the electric field below the cloud points in the positive z-direction and discuss the safest location to be during a thunderstorm, which is where the electric field vanishes on the surface. The user expresses uncertainty about the required sketch of electric field lines and acknowledges a mistake in depicting the field below the conducting plane. Overall, the thread emphasizes the mathematical modeling of electric fields in relation to thunderclouds and safety considerations.
CAF123
Gold Member
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
87

Homework Statement


A thunder cloud can be loosely modeled by two point charges -q and q at heights h and d above the Earth's surface with d > h. Model the Earth's surface as a conducting plane at z=0.
Sketch the Electric field lines (on a plane perpendicular to the earth). Indicate the field below the cloud, at a radial distance r, and far away from the cloud. Considering ##\underline{E}##, where is the safest place to be?

The Attempt at a Solution


To satisfy the boundary conditions (V=0 on surface of earth), two image charges are placed at a distance -h (a +q charge) and -d(a -q charge) from the plane. I have the potential due to all 4 charges as a function of x,y and z, from which I found the electric field as a function of the same variables.

From looking at the sketch, it appears to me that the E field should point in the +ve z direction below the cloud and this is confirmed by my eqn for E.
My expression for V is $$V=\frac{q}{4\pi\epsilon_o}\left(\frac{1}{(x^2+y^2+(z-d)^2)^{1/2}} - \frac{1}{(x^2+y^2+(z-h)^2)^{1/2}} - \frac{1}{(x^2+y^2+(z+d)^2)^{1/2}} + \frac{1}{(x^2+y^2+(z+h)^2)^{1/2}}\right)$$ and I found E by doing -gradV. (the expression is messier than the potential so I won't post it).. I can draw the general sketch of the field lines emanating form the dipole, but I am not sure if that is what the question requires. Perhaps it wants me to draw the general sketch and then confirm it with my eqn for E at particular points.
The safest place would be the place where E vanishes on the surface, but I am not sure how to express this in words or mathematically. I set ##E_z(x,y)=0## and I obtained a condition on ##r^2 = x^2 + y^2##.

I attached a sketch of my drawing
Many thanks.
 

Attachments

  • dipole.png
    dipole.png
    2.2 KB · Views: 462
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Anybody any comments? I should have not drawn the E field below the plane, because the charges there are only there to help establish the boundary conditions.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
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