Oppositely charged parallel plates I don't get why

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the forces experienced by a charge placed between two oppositely charged parallel plates. Participants explore the application of Coulomb's law and the implications of treating the plates as point charges versus continuous charge distributions. The conversation includes mathematical reasoning and conceptual clarifications regarding electric fields and forces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assertion that the sum of forces from the top and bottom plates is constant, suggesting that the net force would vary depending on the position of the test charge between the plates.
  • Another participant points out that the charge on a plate is not a point charge and suggests using integration with Coulomb's law for accurate calculations.
  • A later reply emphasizes the need for integrals to account for the continuous charge distribution on the plates, rather than treating them as point charges.
  • Further contributions discuss the derivation of electric field strength from a solid disc and the approximation of an infinite plane using infinitely long strips, leading to a net force in the z direction due to symmetry.
  • Participants share links to resources that explain the mathematical background and derivations related to electric fields from charged plates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of Coulomb's law for charged plates, with some advocating for integration methods while others seek simpler explanations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to calculate the forces acting on a charge between the plates.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the assumption that the plates can be treated as continuous charge distributions and the reliance on integrals for accurate calculations. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps necessary for applying Coulomb's law in this context.

foxx38
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
"the sum of the force from the top plate and the force from the bottom plate always equals the same amount"...as shown here:

http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys03/aparplate/

I mean, if a charge was placed at different places (ie distances) between 2 point charges, the net force would not be the same?

Am I using Coloumb's law incorrectly?

For example, let the charge be q and the distance between them be 4r, then if the test charge is placed half way between them, the net force would be

kq²/(2r)² + kq²/(2r)²

and if the test charge is placed at 1/4 of the distance (ie at r), then the net force would be...

kq²/(r)² + kq²/(3r)²

Any/all help/enlightenment would be appreciated. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The charge on a plate is not a point charge. If you want to use Coulomb's law you will have to integrate it over the plate. Of course, for a very large (infinite) plate you can use Gauss' law much easier.
 
oop.s. I meant Coulomb's law.
 
DaleSpam said:
The charge on a plate is not a point charge. If you want to use Coulomb's law you will have to integrate it over the plate. Of course, for a very large (infinite) plate you can use Gauss' law much easier.

Thanks...are you saying that if we treat each plate as an infinite number of point charges and use Coulomb's law an infinite number of times to find the sum(s) (as in an intergral) they will balance each other? Could you show/tell me the intergral(s) please?

btw...How would you explain this without knowledge of intergrals? :)
 
I'm not sure this can be done without integrals. Also instead of an infinite number of point chargers, which would be infinite charge, you have a finite amount of charge per unit area from a infinite large disk or plane.

The math for field strength from a solid disc is explained here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/electric/elelin.html#c3

as [tex]R^2 \ \rightarrow \infty[/tex]

then [tex]\frac{z} {\sqrt{z^2 + R^2}} \ \rightarrow \ 0[/tex]

and you end up with [tex]E_z = k \ \sigma \ 2 \ \pi[/tex]

An alterative approach is to consider the field from an infinitely long line (= 1/z), then integrate an infinitely large plane composed of infinitely long rectangles that approach infinitely long lines as their width approaches zero.

For an infinite line charge, E = 2 k λ / r, where λ is charge per unit length and r is distance from the line. Here is the derivation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/%E2%80%8Chbase/electric/elelin.html#c1

For an infinite plane case, infinitely long strips (rectangles) approximate a line as their width -> 0. The area of a strip of lengh L is L dx, and the charge dq = σ L dx. The charge per unit length dλ = dq/L = σ dx. Assume the plane exists on the x-y plane, then the magnitude of the field at any point in space from a strip is dE = 2 k σ / r, where r is the distance from a strip to that point in space. In the case of the entire plane, the x components cancel because of symmetry, with only a net force in the z direction, and for each strip of the plane, dEz = dE (z / r) = dE sin(θ).

[tex]E = 2 k \sigma \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{{sin}(\theta)dx}{r}[/tex]

[tex]{sin}(\theta) = z / r[/tex]

[tex]E = 2 k \sigma \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{z {dx}}{r^2}[/tex]

[tex]r^2 = z^2 + x^2[/tex]

[tex]E = 2 k \sigma z \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dx}{z^2 + x^2}[/tex]

[tex]E = 2 k \sigma z \left [ \frac{1}{z} tan^{-1}\left (\frac{x}{z}\right )\right ]_{-\infty}^{+\infty}[/tex]

[tex]E = 2 k \sigma z \left ( \frac{1}{z} \right) \left ( \frac{+ \pi}{2} - \frac{- \pi}{2} \right )[/tex]

[tex]E = 2 \pi k \sigma[/tex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thanks...you've (both) given me a lot to go on...will do :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
20K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K