Some confusion about work done to separate charges

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the work done in separating charged particles, specifically oppositely charged ones. Participants are exploring the relationship between distance and work done, particularly in the context of potential energy equations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants attempt to clarify the meaning of the potential energy equation and its implications for work done as distance changes. Others question the interpretation of the problem statement and the specific conditions under which the work is calculated.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the potential energy formula and its application. There is a recognition of differing interpretations of the problem, and some guidance is offered regarding the calculation of work done based on initial and final positions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential ambiguities in the problem statement, particularly regarding the initial and final distances between charges and the assumptions about their separation. There is also mention of the need for specific values or conditions that may not be clearly defined in the exercise.

Jaccobtw
Messages
167
Reaction score
32
Homework Statement
A carbon atom's nucleus and its electrons become separated by 20nm. How much work does it take to separate them in J?
Relevant Equations
##k \frac {q_1 q_2}{r}##
The reason I'm posting this is because I'm confused about the reasoning behind the equation. For oppositely charged particles, wouldn't work done increase with distance? According to this equation you get a higher magnitude of work done the smaller the distance. How can that be? I got the answer right, I just don't understand how this equation works. Some help is much appreciated, thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The equation you posted is the expression for potential energy, which is the work done by an external agent to assemble the charged particles. For oppositely charged particles it gives you a negative number. As you increase the distance between the particles the magnitude of the potential energy decreases, but since it's negative, that's an increase. Like when you change from ##-5## to ##-3## that's an increase, but it's a decrease in magnitude.
 
Mister T said:
The equation you posted is the expression for potential energy, which is the work done by an external agent to assemble the charged particles. For oppositely charged particles it gives you a negative number. As you increase the distance between the particles the magnitude of the potential energy decreases, but since it's negative, that's an increase. Like when you change from ##-5## to ##-3## that's an increase, but it's a decrease in magnitude.
What equation would you have used?
 
Jaccobtw said:
According to this equation you get a higher magnitude of work done the smaller the distance
No you don't: the charges are of opposite sign.

Jaccobtw said:
What equation would you have used?
Same equation. I'm not sure what the exercise composer wants you to do: take the average distance and increase that by 20 nm ?

##\ ##
 
Jaccobtw said:
Relevant Equations:: ##k \frac {q_1 q_2}{r}##

According to this equation you get a higher magnitude of work done the smaller the distance.
First, that's a formula, not an equation. Second, as @Mister T notes, it's the formula for the energy required to bring two charges from infinity to be distance r apart. If the charges are of the same sign, it will require more energy the closer you squeeze them.

Btw, I do not understand the question as posted. Is it the energy to take them from some unstated separation in the base state to be 20nm apart, or that required to take them from 20nm apart to infinitely separated?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU
haruspex said:
First, that's a formula, not an equation. Second, as @Mister T notes, it's the formula for the energy required to bring two charges from infinity to be distance r apart. If the charges are of the same sign, it will require more energy the closer you squeeze them.

Btw, I do not understand the question as posted. Is it the energy to take them from some unstated separation in the base state to be 20nm apart, or that required to take them from 20nm apart to infinitely separated?
I guess I'm supposed to know the normal separation between a carbon atom and its nucleus
 
Jaccobtw said:
I guess I'm supposed to know the normal separation between a carbon atom and its nucleus
an atom consists of a nucleus surrounded by a cloud of electrons. The average distance of the electrons to the center for a carbon atom isn't all that easy to calculate (it is not the atomic radius. For carbon I find 0.0914 nm as atomic radius) -- and for the energy you would need the average ##1\over r##, which is almost, but not exactly, the same as ##1\over < r > ##.
Hence our puzzledness ...

##\ ##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jaccobtw
You are starting with a related, but wrong formula for the question. You need to calculate the work done which is a quantity that depends on the initial and final position, so it depends on two different position. You can calculate the work as the difference in potential energy (with a minus sign) between the two points so you need to have two terms in the expression for work. $$W=-(U_2-U_1)=-(\frac{kq_1q_2}{r_2}- \frac{kq_1q_2}{r_1}) $$.
You can see that this is not the same as $$ \frac{kq_1q_2}{r_{12}} $$
where r12 is the displacement between the two positions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jaccobtw
Jaccobtw said:
I guess I'm supposed to know the normal separation between a carbon atom and its nucleus
But you stated that you got the right answer, so what did you do? Please post your working.
 
  • #10
haruspex said:
But you stated that you got the right answer, so what did you do? Please post your working.
I just plugged the numbers into ##k \frac{q_1 q_2}{r}##. Its probably technically the wrong way to do it, but the answer is close enough.
 
  • #11
Jaccobtw said:
What equation would you have used?
Not sure, because the question is so poorly worded.

How are you interpreting the statement of the problem? Do you see the distance between the particles increasing or decreasing?
 
  • #12
Jaccobtw said:
I just plugged the numbers into ##k \frac{q_1 q_2}{r}##. Its probably technically the wrong way to do it, but the answer is close enough.
That is the same as finding ##k \frac{q_1 q_2}{r}-k \frac{q_1 q_2}{r'}## if ##r'=\infty##. But, at a guess, you ignored the resulting minus sign and so found ##k \frac{q_1 q_2}{r'}-k \frac{q_1 q_2}{r}##, so what you calculated was the energy to move the electrons from being 20nm from the nucleus to being infinitely far from it.
That fits the question if we change "become" to "start". Is it a translation?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
934
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
865
Replies
1
Views
1K