What is the Solution to Gauss's Law for a Charged Plate Capacitor?

  • Thread starter Thread starter exitwound
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gauss's law Law
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
5 replies · 2K views
exitwound
Messages
291
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



problem.jpg


Homework Equations



[tex]\Phi = \int{\vec E \cdot d\vec A}= \frac{q_{enc}}{\epsilon_0}[/tex]


The Attempt at a Solution



The positive plate is drawn to the left of the negative plate. If we draw a Gaussian surface around the inner edge of of the positive plate, we can see that E and A are both pointing in the +x direction. Therefore: [itex]\epsilon_0EA=q_{enc}[/itex]

However, I have no idea where to go from here. Certainly I can't just solve for Qenc if they give me distances between plates in the problem.

How do I continue?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
exitwound said:
Certainly I can't just solve for Qenc if they give me distances between plates in the problem.
Says who? :wink:
 
This isn't just a teacher's problem tho. Comes from a textbook. Why would they give you EXTRA information? I've rarely ever come across something like that.

What purpose does giving the distance serve? I know that the Efield is independent of distance when talking about infinite plates. And since we're negating the edging in this problem, that's what we're dealing with. But giving extraneous numbers leads to confusion.

So if I just plopped in:

(8.85e-12)(60)(1.2) I should get the right answer.
 
Sure, it's a bit odd to give extraneous information, but it's not out of the question. It's up to you to realize that it's extraneous. (Are there other parts to this problem?)

The distance is not entirely extraneous. What if the distance was 4.8 m instead of 4.8 cm?
 
Understood about the distances between the plates. There are no other parts to this question. I don't believe textbooks are out there to swindle us, or cause us pain. Normally, at least in all textbooks that I've encountered, the problem gives you exactly what you need to solve it. Here's A, find B. In this way, they teach along constant lines. Certainly, there are multifaceted questions that often ask "does this make sense?" and "what does X rely on?" But when problems typically ask for absolute answers, they normally feed you what you need, and nothing more.

So far, I'm really really unimpressed with the problem sets in this book.

Fundamentals of Physics, 8th Ed, Jearl Walker (halliday/resnick)
 
exitwound said:
So far, I'm really really unimpressed with the problem sets in this book.

Fundamentals of Physics, 8th Ed, Jearl Walker (halliday/resnick)

Try the "few" (compared to Halliday's) exercises of Purcell's book (Berkeley Physics course, volume 2).