Exactly.. But these are the exact words used.. The concept of average force was there!
Consider these two explanations for this result, energy stored in a capacitor = 12CV2 !
Explanation 1:
Suppose the plates of capacitor of surface area A and charged with charges +Q and -Q are almost in contact. Now, the plates are moved to a separation of x. Let the plate with +Q be P1 and the other be P2.
Now, force on P1 by P2 = Q22Aε°
Therefore work done in increasing separation from 0 to x = Fd = Q2x2Aε°=Q22C where C is the new capacitance of the system.
Using Q=CV,
Energy = 12CV2
Explanation 2:
Let the field existing between the two plates be E.
Now, the plate P1 is pulled away from P2 and the separation is increased to x from 0.
Force acting on the plate P1 = 12QE
Half because the charges on the surface of the plate last over a few atomic layers and hence some of the charges are actually inside the conductor where field is zero.
Hence, average force = 0+QE2
Now work done = Fd = 0+QE2.x = 12Q(E.x)=12QV where V is the potential difference between the plates.
Now, using Q=CV, Energy of the system = 12CV2
-------------------------------------------
Now, doubt arises because of the way the two explanations exploit the electric field. One explanation says force acts because of the field due to charge distribution on the other plate while the other uses the net field of the system which includes the field due to the charge distribution of the plate being moved too. So, which one is wrong or are they both correct? Big problem is the explanations are not mine, and come from two trusted sources, where probability of being wrong goes down exponentially! [3]
-
UP 0 DOWN 0 0 4
4 Answers
"Half because the charges on the surface of the plate last over a few atomic layers and hence some of the charges are actually inside the conductor where field is zero. "
Itna demonous kuch nahi...
E is as a result of both plates..
Half E coz the plate cannot attract itself! :P
okay to explain this:
Half because the charges on the surface of the plate last over a few atomic layers and hence some of the charges are actually inside the conductor where field is zero.
The problem is in here the author has not assumed continuous charge distribution but has visualised them as discreet electrons..
the first author has considered a macroscopic view neglecting the granularity of charge...
(if u get confused by the "bombastic" words..
macroscopic view neglects presence of electrons...
it considers a gel of charge..a continuous distribution..
microscopic view considers electron as individual PARTICLES carrying charge..
thus there is a granular picture!
I was totally in a fix over this. Then, I guess the issue gets resolved [1] .