Plate conductor in electrostatic equilibrium

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on a thin square conducting plate in electrostatic equilibrium with a total charge of 4.00 x 10^-8 C. The charge density on each face of the plate is calculated to be 8 x 10^-8 C/m^2. The electric field just above the plate is determined to be 9.04 kN/C, while the electric field just below the plate is -9.04 kN/C. The negative sign in the electric field below the plate indicates the direction of the field is downward, aligning with the area vector of the Gaussian surface used in the calculation. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of understanding the directionality of electric fields in relation to Gaussian surfaces.
member 392791

Homework Statement


A thin, square, conducting plate 50.0 cm on a side lies
in the xy plane. A total charge of 4.00 x 10-8 C is placed
on the plate. Find (a) the charge density on each face of
the plate, (b) the electric field just above the plate, and
(c) the electric field just below the plate. You may assume
the charge density is uniform.

Homework Equations



σ = Q/A

The Attempt at a Solution



a) σ = 4×10^-8 / (.5)^2 / 2 = 8x10^-8 C/m^2
b) Ok using gauss law

E = σ / ε = 9.04 kN/C

c) my problem is why for part C, the answer is -9.04 kN/C. If my Gaussian surface is below the plane, its area vector is pointing downward, and my positive bottom surface charges electric field is also pointing down, so they are pointing in the same direction, thus E should be positive??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Woopydalan said:
c) my problem is why for part C, the answer is -9.04 kN/C. If my Gaussian surface is below the plane, its area vector is pointing downward, and my positive bottom surface charges electric field is also pointing down, so they are pointing in the same direction, thus E should be positive??

What you should conclude is that the flux is positive for your Gaussian surface. The field is downward (as you stated) and I think that is all that is meant by the answer being negative.
 
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