Work done assembling a system of charges?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of electrostatic energy and the work required to assemble a system of charges. It highlights the confusion surrounding negative work when bringing a positive and negative charge together, where the calculated work is W = -kq²/r. The confusion arises from the assumption that no force is needed to move the charges due to their attraction, leading to the incorrect conclusion that W = 0. However, it clarifies that for charged bodies, the relevant force must be considered, and negative work indicates that energy is extracted from the system, contributing to the kinetic energy of the charges. Ultimately, understanding the role of electric forces is crucial in resolving these conceptual challenges.
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 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top