Simple application of Coulomb's Law/Equation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Coulomb's Law to calculate the electrostatic force between two pieces of copper after transferring a fraction of electrons. The participants explore the implications of the given weights and distances, as well as the charge calculations involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the calculation of charge, particularly the value of 15.12 C, and whether it should be treated as a positive or negative value in Coulomb's equation. There is also discussion about the number of free electrons contributed by copper atoms and the implications of the fraction of electrons transferred.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants examining the details of the problem and the textbook solution. Some express confusion regarding the calculations and seek clarification on specific points, while others provide insights into dimensional analysis and the reasoning behind their interpretations.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of a textbook solution that may contain discrepancies, and participants are reflecting on their own calculations in relation to the text. The original poster is working independently without a teacher's guidance, which may influence the depth of the discussion.

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
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
896
Replies
6
Views
9K
  • · 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