What is the Magnitude of the Electric Field Between Parallel Plates?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the magnitude of the electric field between two parallel metal plates with a uniform surface charge distribution. The plates are separated by a distance and have equal and opposite charges.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the formula for the electric field due to one plate versus both plates, questioning whether to use E = sigma/(2 * epsilon) or E = sigma/epsilon for the total field.
  • There are inquiries about how to calculate the area of the plates to determine the surface charge density (sigma).
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the value of epsilon and its correct representation in calculations.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, sharing calculations and questioning the correctness of their approaches. Some have provided values for area and sigma, while others are clarifying the need to consider the contributions from both plates to find the total electric field.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted uncertainty regarding the correct use of constants and the interpretation of the formulas involved. Participants are also navigating the implications of using the area of one plate versus considering both plates in their calculations.

badd99
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Problem:

Two square metal plates are placed parallel to each other, separated by a distance d= 1.56 cm. The plates have sides of length L = 0.560 m. One of the plates has charge Q= + 1.74×10-6 C, while the other plate has charge -Q. Calculate the magnitude of the electric field between the plates, not close to the edge, i.e., assume a uniform surface charge distribution

Here's what I have so far: The electric field between them obviously isn't 0.

I've got sigma = (magnitude of charge)/area.
The electric field for one plate is E = sigma/(2 * epsilon).
Since the fields from both plates in between them point in the same direction, the total field would be E = sigma/epsilon. Would I use E=sigma/epsilon OR E=sigma/(2*epsilon) here for the correct answer?

epsilon is just 8.85 here not 8.85E-12 I am 99% but I don't really know why.

How in the WORLD do I find the area to find sigma though?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
badd99 said:
The electric field for one plate is E = sigma/(2 * epsilon).
Since the fields from both plates in between them point in the same direction, the total field would be E = sigma/epsilon. Would I use E=sigma/epsilon OR E=sigma/(2*epsilon) here for the correct answer?
You want the total field, of course.

epsilon is just 8.85 here not 8.85E-12 I am 99% but I don't really know why.
You're wrong here: It's 8.85E-12.

How in the WORLD do I find the area to find sigma though?
The plates are square. Find the area.
 
Im still not getting it right...

I used 1.74×10-6 C as my charge and found the area of the one plate...do I need to find the total area (ie. add the two areas?)

I then got sigma using the above and plugged it into E= sigma / (2* epsilon)

I tried using 8.85 and 8.85E-12 and both incorrect.

Help?
 
badd99 said:
I used 1.74×10-6 C as my charge and found the area of the one plate...
Good. What did you get for the area.

do I need to find the total area (ie. add the two areas?)
No.

I then got sigma using the above and plugged it into E= sigma / (2* epsilon)
What did you get for sigma?

I tried using 8.85 and 8.85E-12 and both incorrect.
No point in plugging the wrong value.
 
area came out to: .3136 m^2
sigma came out to be: 5.548E-6

Plugged that into E = sigma / (2* epsilon) gave me: 313472.85 N/C and it was incorrect.
 
badd99 said:
Plugged that into E = sigma / (2* epsilon) gave me: 313472.85 N/C and it was incorrect.
You want the total field, not just that from one side. Double your answer.
 
I thought since we were doing 2*epsilon it was for both plates...aka total field.

I have the answer right now but don't really get why we had to double as I thought it was as stated above.

Thanks for the help!
 
badd99 said:
I thought since we were doing 2*epsilon it was for both plates...aka total field.
That factor of 2 is in the denominator, so that version is only half the field. (See my response in post #2.)
 
Thank you very much...I posted one more question if you don't mind.

Much appreciated!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K