Work done assembling a system of charges?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of electrostatic energy and the work required to assemble static point charges, specifically focusing on the case where the work is negative. The formula for work done, W = -kq²/r, is established as the work needed to bring a negative charge close to a positive charge. Participants clarify that the negative work indicates that energy is extracted during the assembly process, as the electric force naturally attracts the charges together, requiring no external force to bring them closer. The confusion arises from the application of the work-energy theorem, particularly in the context of charged bodies versus neutral bodies.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electrostatics and Coulomb's law
  • Familiarity with the work-energy theorem
  • Knowledge of electric fields and forces on charged particles
  • Basic mathematical skills for manipulating equations involving charges
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the electrostatic potential energy formula W = -kq²/r
  • Explore the differences between work done on charged versus neutral bodies
  • Learn about electric field concepts and their impact on charged particle movement
  • Investigate the implications of negative work in dynamic systems involving charged particles
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, electrical engineers, and anyone interested in electrostatics and the dynamics of charged particles will benefit from this discussion.

x86
Gold Member
Messages
256
Reaction score
18
This is a concept that has long since plagued me. I will quote an article off of Google about the concept I am confused about:

"Consider a collection of
img532.png
static point charges
img561.png
located at position vectors
img562.png
(where
img536.png
runs from 1 to
img532.png
). What is the electrostatic energy stored in such a collection? Another way of asking this is, how much work would we have to do in order to assemble the charges, starting from an initial state in which they are all at rest and very widely separated? " [http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node56.html]

So, I understand the general concept. But I am confused in one of the cases. The case where the work that we do is negative (i.e. the work that we have to do to assemble the charge is < 0).

Here is an example that I will use to illustrate my confusion:

Say that we have two charges q in space, one positive, and one negative, and want to move them close to each other, to a distance of r.

The answerof course, is that the work that we need to do to bring the negative charge to the positive charge is then W = -kq^2/r < 0. I know this is the answer, and I know how to solve these problems. But I have no idea why this is true.

I am confused about the concept. I will try to explain what I am confused about below:

It is known that W = Fd. In this case , d = (infinity - r)

But I am confused about this, because essentially the charges attract one another. Therefore, we don't really have to apply any force to make them get close to each other, because an electric force will handle this for us. So our applied force F = 0. Then W = 0*d = 0. But of course, this is wrong. Because we know the answer to be W = -kq^2/r. But why?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
x86 said:
This is a concept that has long since plagued me. I will quote an article off of Google about the concept I am confused about:

"Consider a collection of
img532.png
static point charges
img561.png
located at position vectors
img562.png
(where
img536.png
runs from 1 to
img532.png
). What is the electrostatic energy stored in such a collection? Another way of asking this is, how much work would we have to do in order to assemble the charges, starting from an initial state in which they are all at rest and very widely separated? " [http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node56.html]

So, I understand the general concept. But I am confused in one of the cases. The case where the work that we do is negative (i.e. the work that we have to do to assemble the charge is < 0).

Here is an example that I will use to illustrate my confusion:

Say that we have two charges q in space, one positive, and one negative, and want to move them close to each other, to a distance of r.

The answerof course, is that the work that we need to do to bring the negative charge to the positive charge is then W = -kq^2/r < 0. I know this is the answer, and I know how to solve these problems. But I have no idea why this is true.

I am confused about the concept. I will try to explain what I am confused about below:

It is known that W = Fd. In this case , d = (infinity - r)

But I am confused about this, because essentially the charges attract one another. Therefore, we don't really have to apply any force to make them get close to each other, because an electric force will handle this for us. So our applied force F = 0. Then W = 0*d = 0. But of course, this is wrong. Because we know the answer to be W = -kq^2/r. But why?
x86 said:
This is a concept that has long since plagued me. I will quote an article off of Google about the concept I am confused about:

"Consider a collection of
img532.png
static point charges
img561.png
located at position vectors
img562.png
(where
img536.png
runs from 1 to
img532.png
). What is the electrostatic energy stored in such a collection? Another way of asking this is, how much work would we have to do in order to assemble the charges, starting from an initial state in which they are all at rest and very widely separated? " [http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node56.html]

So, I understand the general concept. But I am confused in one of the cases. The case where the work that we do is negative (i.e. the work that we have to do to assemble the charge is < 0).

Here is an example that I will use to illustrate my confusion:

Say that we have two charges q in space, one positive, and one negative, and want to move them close to each other, to a distance of r.

The answerof course, is that the work that we need to do to bring the negative charge to the positive charge is then W = -kq^2/r < 0. I know this is the answer, and I know how to solve these problems. But I have no idea why this is true.

I am confused about the concept. I will try to explain what I am confused about below:

It is known that W = Fd. In this case , d = (infinity - r)

But I am confused about this, because essentially the charges attract one another. Therefore, we don't really have to apply any force to make them get close to each other, because an electric force will handle this for us. So our applied force F = 0. Then W = 0*d = 0. But of course, this is wrong. Because we know the answer to be W = -kq^2/r. But why?
It is known that W=F.d for neutral bodies but the case changes totally for charged bodies. We have equation of force F=qE for charged bodies so we can not put F=0 in case of charged bodies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That the work required to assemble the charges is negative simply means that you would extract work from doing so. Unless you counter the electric force with a force in the other direction, the final configuration will involve moving charges, which simply means the work done by the electric force has instead gone into kinetic energy of the constituents.
 
Muhammad Nauman said:
It is known that W=F.d for neutral bodies but the case changes totally for charged bodies.

There is absolutely nothing special about neutral bodies in the work-energy theorem. The only relevant issue is which force you consider and the path taken, which will determine if the force you considered did work or not.
 
Orodruin said:
That the work required to assemble the charges is negative simply means that you would extract work from doing so. Unless you counter the electric force with a force in the other direction, the final configuration will involve moving charges, which simply means the work done by the electric force has instead gone into kinetic energy of the constituents.

Ah, so by doing negative work I'm essentially slowing the particles to a stop, at this snapshot in time?
 
Thread 'Colors in a plasma globe'
I have a common plasma globe with blue streamers and orange pads at both ends. The orange light is emitted by neon and the blue light is presumably emitted by argon and xenon. Why are the streamers blue while the pads at both ends are orange? A plasma globe's electric field is strong near the central electrode, decreasing with distance, so I would not expect the orange color at both ends.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K