Seperation between two charged ball

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lady M
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ball Charged
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves two identical insulating balls with electric charges, suspended from massless strings, and seeks to determine the separation distance between them. The context includes considerations of small angle approximations and energy conservation principles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss two methods for solving the problem: one based on energy conservation and another on statics. There are questions about the validity of these methods and the assumptions made, particularly regarding the initial energy and the small angle approximation.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, questioning the assumptions and methods used. Some have suggested using the small angle approximation to simplify the relationship between the angle and the separation distance. There is a recognition of the need to clarify the relationship between the variables involved.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty regarding the initial conditions of the system, such as the diameter of the balls and their starting positions. Participants are also considering the implications of the small angle approximation on the final expressions for separation distance.

Lady M
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Two identical insulating balls of mass m hang from massless strings of length l and carry identical electric charges, q. you may assume that the angle of separation θ is so small that tanθ ≅sinθ≅θ.
1.png

What is the separation distance between the two masses x?

The Attempt at a Solution


I made two attempts at a solution, though it has been so long since I worked a problem like this that I don't know if either attempt is correct (I do know that both methods give different values for x, so at least one is incorrect).

1st using energy conservation:
2.png


I believe this method gives the incorrect answer as there is some initial energy between the two particles I have not accounted for, when the potential energy is zero but the energy from the E-field is at its greatest. Because I do not know the diameter of the balls, or their starting position, I assume this method is a bad one?

2nd method using statics:
3.png

Based off the free body diagram...
4.png

thus
5.png

so then
6.png

where
7.png

as such
8.png

and finally
9.png

Is this correct? Can someone please point me in the right direction?
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    7.1 KB · Views: 678
  • 2.png
    2.png
    1.6 KB · Views: 345
  • 3.png
    3.png
    3.7 KB · Views: 342
  • 4.png
    4.png
    1.1 KB · Views: 374
  • 5.png
    5.png
    627 bytes · Views: 337
  • 6.png
    6.png
    908 bytes · Views: 367
  • 7.png
    7.png
    740 bytes · Views: 371
  • 8.png
    8.png
    1.1 KB · Views: 352
  • 9.png
    9.png
    923 bytes · Views: 365
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Lady M said:
I believe this method gives the incorrect answer as there is some initial energy between the two particles I have not accounted for, when the potential energy is zero but the energy from the E-field is at its greatest.
Right. You don't know the total energy in the system, and the particles being at the same place is an unphysical situation.
Lady M said:
2nd method using statics:
Shouldn't there be some equations in this part?
 
mfb said:
Right. You don't know the total energy in the system, and the particles being at the same place is an unphysical situation.Shouldn't there be some equations in this part?
My images did not upload. Give me a second... Sorry.

Edit: I've fixed it now. Not sure why it didn't work the first time...
 
Was there any reson for you to doubt your second method?
 
Chandra Prayaga said:
Was there any reson for you to doubt your second method?

The problem mentioned that I should be aware of the small angle approximation, which I did not use. Also, I was uncertain if I would have to account for the second ball in this problem. I feel like I had already done so, but I wanted to be certain of that.
 
You expressed x as function of the angle (and other constants). The answer should not depend on the unknown angle. If you could use the angle in the answer, simple geometry would be much faster.
 
mfb said:
You expressed x as function of the angle (and other constants). The answer should not depend on the unknown angle. If you could use the angle in the answer, simple geometry would be much faster.

Yes, you could just take the sin of that angle, and multiply it by twice the length of the string.

So is there a better way to do this? Is there a way to do this without knowing the final angle of separation or the distances between the particles?
 
Notice that the final result you got contains both x and θ. You can eliminate one of them simply in the small angle approximation. You can use:

tanθ≈sinθ=x/l

and then solve for x in terms of just the mass and charge of each ball.
 
Chandra Prayaga said:
Notice that the final result you got contains both x and θ. You can eliminate one of them simply in the small angle approximation. You can use:

tanθ≈sinθ=x/l

and then solve for x in terms of just the mass and charge of each ball.
Ah, so then
10.png
would be the final answer in terms of everything we "know"?
 

Attachments

  • 10.png
    10.png
    783 bytes · Views: 682
  • #10
Absolutely!
 
  • #11
Chandra Prayaga said:
Notice that the final result you got contains both x and θ. You can eliminate one of them simply in the small angle approximation. You can use:

tanθ≈sinθ=x/l
No, sinθ=x/(2l)
 
  • #12
Lady M said:
Ah, so then View attachment 229589 would be the final answer in terms of everything we "know"?
Not quite, because
Chandra Prayaga said:
sinθ=x/l
Should be sinθ=x/(2l)

... beaten to it by ehild.
 
  • #13
Oops, sorry. As seen in the diagram, ehild above is right. I overlooked that.
 
  • #14
ehild said:
No, sinθ=x/(2l)
Yes, you are correct, as we want twice the length of x (the sin part of two triangles). As such the final solution is
10.png
.

Thanks to everyone who has helped me with this problem.
 

Attachments

  • 10.png
    10.png
    844 bytes · Views: 307
  • 11.png
    11.png
    589 bytes · Views: 312

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
971
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K