Work and Energy Loss; Electrostatics

mateomy
Messages
305
Reaction score
0
Griffith's Problem 2.40 (a) and (b)

Suppose the plates of a parallel-plate capacitor move closer together by an infinitesimal distance ε, as a result of their mutual attraction.

a) Use

<br /> P= \frac{\epsilon_0}{2}E^2<br />

to express the amount of work done by the electrostatic forces, in terms of E and the area of the plates, A.

b) Use

<br /> \frac{\epsilon_0}{2}E^2 = energy per unit volume<br />

to express the energy lost by the field in this process.I solved the problems in my (they're both the same answer in the answer key) way getting

<br /> \frac{(q^2)\epsilon}{2A\epsilon_0}<br />

But Griffiths doesn't do that, he doesn't even delve into what E is, which I solved ambiguously using A. His answer was:

<br /> \frac{\epsilon_0}{2}(E^2)A\epsilon<br />

Is it alright that I expanded my E?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mateomy said:
Griffith's Problem 2.40 (a) and (b)

Suppose the plates of a parallel-plate capacitor move closer together by an infinitesimal distance ε, as a result of their mutual attraction.

a) Use

<br /> P= \frac{\epsilon_0}{2}E^2<br />

to express the amount of work done by the electrostatic forces, in terms of E and the area of the plates, A.

b) Use

<br /> \frac{\epsilon_0}{2}E^2 = energy per unit volume<br />

to express the energy lost by the field in this process.


I solved the problems in my (they're both the same answer in the answer key) way getting

<br /> \frac{(q^2)\epsilon}{2A\epsilon_0}<br />

But Griffiths doesn't do that, he doesn't even delve into what E is, which I solved ambiguously using A. His answer was:

<br /> \frac{\epsilon_0}{2}(E^2)A\epsilon<br />

Is it alright that I expanded my E?

Well, not really. The poblem demands that the answer be in terms of A and E.

However: was it specified whether the potential difference across the plates was kept constant, or was the voltage source used to charge the capacitor removed before the displacement took place? Makes a big difference ...
 
It didn't specify. What I posted was as much as he wrote in for the particular question. But the point you brought about about A and E was overlooked and that makes sense.
 
rude man said:
However: was it specified whether the potential difference across the plates was kept constant, or was the voltage source used to charge the capacitor removed before the displacement took place? Makes a big difference ...

No, it makes a small difference (infinitesimally small, to be precise ;-P).
 
Steely Dan said:
No, it makes a small difference (infinitesimally small, to be precise ;-P).

Well, if you don't consider 2:1 as big, then OK, it makes no big difference.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top