Simple application of Coulomb's Law/Equation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on calculating the electrostatic force between two copper pieces, each weighing 10 grams and separated by 10 cm, after transferring 1/1000 of their electrons. The participants debate the correct application of Coulomb's Law, specifically questioning whether to use the charge value of +15.12 C for one piece and -15.12 C for the other, or to square the charge in the equation. The consensus is that the book's solution is correct in terms of numerical value but lacks clarity in its explanation, leading to confusion regarding the factors involved in the calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Coulomb's Law and its application in electrostatics
  • Understanding of charge quantization and electron transfer
  • Basic knowledge of dimensional analysis in physics
  • Familiarity with the concept of moles and Avogadro's number
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and application of Coulomb's Law in electrostatic problems
  • Learn about charge quantization and how to calculate charge from electron transfer
  • Explore dimensional analysis techniques for verifying physical equations
  • Review concepts related to moles and Avogadro's number in chemistry
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, particularly those focusing on electrostatics, as well as educators seeking to clarify common misconceptions regarding Coulomb's Law and charge calculations.

kostoglotov
Messages
231
Reaction score
6

Homework Statement



Two pieces of copper weighing 10 grams each are 10 cm apart and 1/1000 electrons are transferred from one to the other. Find the force of electrostatic attraction between them.

Homework Equations


[/B]
Molar mass Cu: 63.5 g/mol

\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} = 9 \times 10^9

##e = 1.6 \times 10^{-19} \ C##

Avagadro: ##6 \times 10^{23}##

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
Actually, I only have one minor thing I don't understand.

In my solution I have

F = 9 \times 10^9 \frac{-15.12 \times +15.12}{0.1^2}

Whereas the solution outlined in the book only uses one charge in the numerator

F = 9 \times 10^9 \frac{15.12}{0.1^2}

So my answer is out by a factor of 15.12.

I don't get it. Wouldn't the charge on one of the copper pieces be +15.12 C and the other -15.12 C and therefore q1 x q2 would equal ##- 15.12^2##...?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you show how you arrived at 15.12 C for the charge? It seems a bit small to me for 1/1000 of the electrons in a 10g chunk of copper (29 electrons per atom).
 
gneill said:
I agree, but the problem as stated by the OP says 1/1000 of the electrons. So I wished to see the reasoning.

My reasoning is exactly the same as the solution as outlined in the text. No different. Number of moles of copper in a 10g piece multiplied by avagadro multiplied by 1/1000.

I get 15.12 C the book says 15.12 C. If we're both wrong, that's interesting, but what I'd like to know is: Should it be 15.12 or -15.12^2 in the numerator of Coulomb's Equation?
 
kostoglotov said:
My reasoning is exactly the same as the solution as outlined in the text. No different. Number of moles of copper in a 10g piece multiplied by avagadro multiplied by 1/1000.

Please. I say 15.12 C the book says 15.12 C. If we're both wrong, that's interesting, but beside the point. Should it be 15.12 or -15.12^2 in the numerator?
If we're questioning the book's solution then I believe that it behooves us to examine the details. But perhaps that's just my picky nature :smile:

One could answer the question by considering the units of the equation... kQ/r2 yields a field strength (V/m or N/C) rather than a force.
 
gneill said:
If we're questioning the book's solution then I believe that it behooves us to examine the details. But perhaps that's just my picky nature :smile:

One could answer the question by considering the units of the equation... kQ/r2 yields a field strength (V/m or N/C) rather than a force.

Sorry, I sounded a bit pushy there, I went back and edited my comment pretty much immediately after, realizing.

Interesting! Thanks for the reply. I should have thought of doing dimensional analysis on it. I really should have. Thanks again.
 
gneill said:
If we're questioning the book's solution then I believe that it behooves us to examine the details. But perhaps that's just my picky nature

The text shows a worked solution, not just an answer, so I can see where my work differs from the texts, and it differs only in that it has only 15.12 in the numerator of Coulomb's equation, not -15.12^2. :)
 
I don't understand. The book is wrong by a factor of about 15 x 109 and all we care about is a factor of 15 ? I understand kosto, but I feel with gneill a whole lot more.
What book is this and what does teacher say ?
 
  • #10
BvU said:
I don't understand. The book is wrong by a factor of about 15 x 109 and all we care about is a factor of 15 ? I understand kosto, but I feel with gneill a whole lot more.
What book is this and what does teacher say ?

How is the book wrong by a factor of 15 x 10^9? I don't think it is. It gives an answer of about 2 x 10^14 N for the force between the charges.

It is Physics for Competitions by C. G Agrawal Vol II A Master Book for IIT, PMT, AIEEE, UPSEAT, CET, PET, JEE, BCECE
 
  • #11
Ah, thanks for clarifying. The book has the right numerical value but the 2 was missing.

I was forgetting the 1 in a 1000 , and ended up comparing that wrong value to 2 x 10^14/ 15000 which is also the wrong idea of what the book might have come up with. Two wrongs never make a right and there you are :smile: talking nonsense.

Time to slow down o:) !
Once again. Oh boy.
I'm almost ready to adopt a PF signature like "sorry folks!"
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kostoglotov
  • #12
BvU said:
Ah, thanks for clarifying. The book has the right numerical value but the 2 was missing.

I was forgetting the 1 in a 1000 , and ended up comparing that wrong value to 2 x 10^14/ 15000 which is also the wrong idea of what the book might have come up with. Two wrongs never make a right and there you are :smile: talking nonsense.

Time to slow down o:) !
Once again. Oh boy.
I'm almost ready to adopt a PF signature like "sorry folks!"

LOL, I think I need to adopt the sorry folks signature. Though at the moment I can pass it off as being a noob.

I think next time I should just write out everything, especially since folks here seem to want to get more deeply into explanations than in other parts of the internet. Which is excellent. I didn't want to write a longer post originally because I didn't want to waste anybody's time, just cut to chase sort of thing.

Next time I need to include more of the working.
 
  • #13
BvU said:
what does teacher say ?

No teacher, teaching myself right now. I imagine I'll be posting around here a lot :oldsurprised:
 
  • #14
kostoglotov said:
No teacher, teaching myself right now. I imagine I'll be posting around here a lot
[/QUOTE]kudos and good luck. look forward to the next post :cool:
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
824
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K