Net Force on Center Charge in Y-Direction in Square of Charges

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on calculating the net y-component of the force on a central charge (Eq) placed at the origin of a square configuration of four charges (Aq, Bq, Cq, Dq) with specific integer multipliers. The charges are defined with q = 3.50 × 10−7 C and the square's side length is 23.5 cm. Participants engage in solving the problem using Coulomb's Law (F = Kq1q2/r2) and discuss the true/false statements regarding the equilibrium of the charges. The correct net force on the center charge is confirmed to be approximately 0.1976 N, with clarifications made regarding the stability of the equilibrium point.

PREREQUISITES
  • Coulomb's Law for electric forces (F = Kq1q2/r2)
  • Understanding of electric field components and their calculations
  • Basic trigonometry, specifically sine and cosine functions
  • Concept of equilibrium in electrostatics
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation and application of Coulomb's Law in multi-charge systems
  • Study the concept of electric field and its vector components
  • Learn about stability in equilibrium points for charged particles
  • Explore the effects of varying charge magnitudes on system equilibrium
USEFUL FOR

Students studying electrostatics, physics educators, and anyone involved in solving problems related to electric forces and charge interactions.

  • #31
Winzer said:
but y the q^2, shouldn't it be q_{1}q_{2}?

edit: oh wait i see what you did. shouldn't r=.332?

I'm getting r^2 = (0.235/2)^2 + (0.235/2)^2
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
mmm...so what is wrong with:
F= \frac{qKCos(\theta)}{r^2}[-1.4e^-6-1.75e^-6+7e^-7+2.8e^-6]
i chose the negitives because -x direction.

edit: for the x direction
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Winzer said:
mmm...so what is wrong with:
F= \frac{qKCos(\theta)}{r^2}[-1.4e^-6-1.75e^-6+7e^-7+2.8e^-6]
i chose the negitives because -x direction.

edit: for the x direction

Can you show how you get your numbers? I'm not getting those numbers...
 
  • #34
well A=2*3.50e-7=7.0e-7
B=4*3.50e-7=1.4e-6...
 
  • #35
Winzer said:
well A=2*3.50e-7=7.0e-7
B=4*3.50e-7=1.4e-6...

Oh, I see now... Ok... but you should be taking the y-components, not the x-components... so the 1.4e-6 and 7e-7 should have the same sign. And the other two should have the same sign.
 
  • #36
ok so for y this should work right?
F= \frac{qKSin(\theta)}{r^2}[-1.4E^-6-1.75E^-6+7E^-7+2.8E^-6]
 
  • #37
Winzer said:
ok so for y this should work right?
F= \frac{qKSin(\theta)}{r^2}[-1.4E^-6-1.75E^-6+7E^-7+2.8E^-6]

No, that won't work.
 
  • #38
but y is what i am wondering, beside the wrong value.
 
  • #39
Winzer said:
but y is what i am wondering, beside the wrong value.

Switching from cos to sin like that will only work if you use a different angle for each charge (measure the angle from the +x - axis)...
 
  • #40
ok,ok. But how do I correct the equation?!
 
  • #41
Winzer said:
ok,ok. But how do I correct the equation?!

The quantity in your square brackets should be:

[-1.4E^-6+1.75E^-6-7E^-7+2.8E^-6]

I just fixed the signs... sin(45) = cos(45) so it doesn't matter if you use sin or cos.
 
  • #42
did u get .197N? i didn't
 
  • #43
The sum of the square brackets is: 2.45E-6

so we want:
kq/r^2* sin(45) (2.45E-6)

r^2 = (0.235/2)^2 + (0.235/2)^2 = 0.0276125

so we get:

[9E9(3.5E-7)/(0.0276125)]*sin(45)*(2.45E-6) = 0.1976N
 
  • #44
lol..ok now i get. I must have misinterperted the diagram to have small box lengths of.235...
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
989
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K