Why Am I Struggling with Calculating the Electric Field in This Setup?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the electric field at a point due to two charges positioned at the vertices of an equilateral triangle. The charges are specified in microCoulombs, and the problem involves understanding the vector nature of electric fields and unit conversions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the formula for electric field but expresses confusion regarding unit conversions and the calculation of vector components. Some participants clarify the meaning of microCoulombs and Coulomb's constant, while others question the original poster's approach to breaking down the components of the electric field.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging in clarifying concepts and addressing misunderstandings. Some guidance has been provided regarding unit conversions and the proper use of Coulomb's constant. The original poster acknowledges errors and expresses gratitude for the assistance received.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion regarding the conversion of microCoulombs to Coulombs and the application of trigonometric functions in calculating vector components. The original poster's understanding of the electric field's direction and magnitude is also under discussion.

evangelic04
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I've been stuck on this relatively simple question for over an hour, can't get the right answer. I think my fundamental understanding of the units involved is flawed, I would really appreciate any kind of clarification as to what I'm doing... okay here goes.
I'm given that three charges are at the vertices of an equilateral triangle, with side lengths of 0.8 meters. The charges are given in units of (mu)C, which I understand to be microCoulombs, is that correct? Two of the charges, mainly the left and uppermost ones, are positive; they are +2.4 microCoulombs and +6.8 microCoulombs, respectively. The third charge, on the right, is negative, a -4.2 microCoulombs. I am asked to calculate the electric field at the point of the leftmost (+2.4) charge, due to the other two charges. The answer is expected in vector format, and in kN/C (killoNewtons per Coulomb?).
This shouldn't be hard, using the equation for electric field,
Ke*(Q/r^2). What I do every time is:

convert the microCoulombs to Coulombs by dividing by 1.6 * 10^6.
So I have 6.8 * 10 ^ -6 Couloumbs, -4.9 * 10 ^ - 6 Couloumbs, and the third point doesn't matter, since that's where I'm calculating electric field at. Basically then [ Ke * (6.8 * 10 ^ -6 C) / (0.8 m) ^ 2 ], that's the magnitude, and I divide it into x and y components by multiplying by cos(60) and sin(60) respectively. x should be negative (it extends outward from positive charge to the left on the x-axis) and y is also negative (it extends outward from positive charge down on the y-axis).
For the other one, it's [ Ke * (-4.9 * 10 ^ -6 C) / (0.8 m)^2]. It lays directly horizontal to the point in question, so no y-component, it's all x-component and it's positive since the negative charge produces a field directed toward itself.
Add components, which should produce and answer in C/N, then divide by 1000 to get kN/C.
Seems simple, what am I doing wrong? Sorry if the description is too in-depth or not enough so. Please help me someone!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
evangelic04 said:
What I do every time is:
convert the microCoulombs to Coulombs by dividing by 1.6 * 10^6.
"micro" just means 1 millionth. So 1 microC = 10^-6 C.
 
I hope you're using "Ke" as a symbol for Coulomb's constant
"Ke = 9E9 [Nm^2/C^2]" , NOT as "k*e" with e=1.6E-19 [C]
 
evangelic04, See attachments
 

Attachments

Last edited:
thank you all

Forgot to come back and thank you all! How rude of me!
Of course the division by 10^-6 was a bonehead error on my part, once I got past that I almost got the problem...looking at andrevdh's generous response I could see that I was getting the y-component correct everytime, it was my x-component that was wrong...I was using sin and cos on the overall magnitude, but I don't think I was fully grasping the math behind what I was trying to figure out. Anyways thanks everyone!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K