Timeline for Inconsistent image charges: what happens when three conducting planes meet?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2022 at 14:39 | vote | accept | Landak | ||
| Apr 27, 2019 at 18:15 | answer | added | knzhou | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 27, 2019 at 17:14 | answer | added | Doriano Brogioli | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 31, 2019 at 19:54 | comment | added | Vincent Fraticelli | Even the first situation does not seem to me in agreement with the 3 equipotential plans. The field created by two charges + Q and -Q will be orthogonal to the plane of antisymmetry of the charges. That's what we expect. But the field created by the third will be contained in this plane. As a result, the total field cannot be normal to the equipotentials. Qualitatively, we may have this impression because the third is farther than the other two and creates a weaker field ? | |
| Jan 31, 2019 at 0:31 | comment | added | FGSUZ | Not sure if I understand, but you do not have to cancel all charges. You only have to compensate the "real region" of the problem. The charges you place beyond the planes are virtual charges, imaginary ones, and they do not have to be compensated. | |
| Jan 31, 2019 at 0:26 | comment | added | Landak | @FGSUZ -- Because the image in the third metal plane of either of them produces a positive charge on top of the original negative image charge? | |
| Jan 30, 2019 at 23:59 | comment | added | FGSUZ | Why do you think that it is inconsistent to have two negative charges? | |
| Jan 30, 2019 at 23:45 | history | asked | Landak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |