Understanding Potential Difference in Terms of Electric Field and Distance

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of potential difference (ΔV) using electric field (E) and distance (Δx). The user questions the book's solution, asserting that their calculations of Δx and ΔE are correct, leading to a ΔV of -200 V. They highlight a misunderstanding in the book's representation, noting that the vertical axis should reflect V/m, indicating the rate of change of voltage with distance rather than voltage itself. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly interpreting the graph to derive accurate results. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for grasping the relationship between electric field, distance, and potential difference.
Miike012
Messages
1,009
Reaction score
0
I posted the question and the answer from the book inside the paint document.

My question is why is the answer not...

Δx = 3-1 = 2m
ΔE = 200-0 = 200V/m

ΔV = -(Area under E vs x graph) = -Δx*ΔE/2 = -200 V
 

Attachments

  • Question.jpg
    Question.jpg
    7.3 KB · Views: 384
Physics news on Phys.org
Miike012 said:
I posted the question and the answer from the book inside the paint document.

My question is why is the answer not...

Δx = 3-1 = 2m
ΔE = 200-0 = 200V/m

ΔV = -(Area under E vs x graph) = -Δx*ΔE/2 = -200 V
Your answer looks right to me.

What the book has for a solution is bizarre .
 
The vertical axis isn't Volts it's V/m (eg the rate of change of V with distance).
 
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...
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 .
Back
Top