Two positively charged plates : interaction force

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interaction force between two positively charged plates, each with charge Q and area A. The force is calculated using the formula F = Q^2/2Ae0, where e0 represents vacuum permittivity. However, a paradox arises when considering energy stored between the plates, which yields a force of zero due to the absence of an electric field in that region. The conversation highlights the importance of the fringe field and the limitations of the infinite sheet approximation when the separation between plates is comparable to their dimensions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Coulomb's Law
  • Familiarity with Gauss's Law
  • Knowledge of electric field concepts and energy density
  • Experience with the infinite sheet approximation in electrostatics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of fringe fields in electrostatics
  • Explore the derivation of force between charged plates using energy methods
  • Learn about the limitations of the infinite sheet approximation
  • Investigate numerical methods for calculating electric fields in complex geometries
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and students studying electrostatics who are interested in the behavior of electric fields and forces between charged objects.

Perpendicular
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I am facing a paradox, well it seems like one, resolving the interaction force between two equally charged plates each bearing a positive charge. Let us assume this as Q, and plates having area A.

On one hand , we can claim the force = Q^2/2Ae0 where e0 is the vacuum permittivity, as each plate bears a charge Q and generates a field Q/2Ae0 at points not too far off from itself or close to the edges.

But, if we look at the energy stored, I am getting a very different result. There is no field in the region between the two plates so the energy field density 1/2e0(E^2) is zero. Outside the plates, the electric field will remain ~ Q/2Ae0 from each plate, totalling Q/Ae0 at first and then begin trailing off as we go farther and farther. Eventually it will trail off completely. So if we move a plate, this trailing off merely starts at a different point and the net energy stored outside each plate is conserved. Hence energy is a constant therefore F = -dE/dr = zero. I can't accept this logically but neglecting the fringe field, this seems to imply some sort of internal screening of charges.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no field in the region between the two plates...
How do you figure that?
 
Because at points not too far off to the edge, or corners, the field due to each plate can be approximated as charge density/2e0. They act in opposite directions.

I now realize though, this probably implies the fringe field is non-negligible in this case..
 
Oh I see, you wanted to make an approximation for the case that the dimensions of the sheets are very large compared with their separation - the infinite sheet approximation?

To use Gausses Law and F=qE ideas, each distribution of charge moves in the potential due to the other charges.

So each plate feels the force due to the field due to the other plate alone.
You appear to have been combining the fields in your arguments.

When in doubt though: return to Coulomb's law.
 
I know that each plate feels the field due to the other plate alone. I just want to derive that via energy stored in the electric field, and this seems to be impossible without the fringe field which is in turn very hard to numerically figure out. Ignoring it, I get F = zero which is absurd.
 
Well yes - the shortcut you tried (via energy density between the plates) (a) combines the fields, and (b) relies on the infinite sheet approximation ... which is not valid when the separation is comparable to or bigger than the dimensions of the sheets - which is what happens for the stored energy calculation since the sheets start at infinite separation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K