Question about electrostatic force

[DandelionTheory]

So 2 like charges are traveling along an electric field, the same direction, with force F_Exx spaced next to each other.

If the electrostatic force between them is greater than F_Exx, the resulting force on each charge would be greater than 45° from F_Exx right?

I'm looking to use the electrostatic force between charges to "bounce off the surface" of a cone. (picture)

F_E1 and F_E2 are the forces between respective charges and the electric field, while F_C Represents the electrostatic force between both charges.

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by DandelionTheory

[DandelionTheory]

using the coulomb force as thrust is hard...

[swansont]

You haven’t shown the electric field. I assume it’s in the -x direction.

The force on a charge will be the vector sum of F_E and F_C

 

6 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

using the coulomb force as thrust is hard...

Ion drives do exist already

[DandelionTheory]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

Ion drives do exist already

Ion drives do not harvest beam drift for additional thrust as a primary design point.

If FC is larger than FE the side of the cone will be a shorter distance from the charge than the center.

Edited October 7, 2020 by DandelionTheory

[DandelionTheory]

The plus and minus indicate electric field direction.

If FE was alternating, so the charge wiggles in the Y-+ direction, they would contact the angled sides of the cone with each cycle due to FC.

Edited October 7, 2020 by DandelionTheory

[DandelionTheory]

*with each half cycle.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

Ion drives do not harvest beam drift for additional thrust as a primary design point.

Perhaps no, but then, I made no claims about that. 

5 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

 If FC is larger than FE the side of the cone will be a shorter distance from the charge than the center.

Can you show this mathematically? It's not obvious why this would be true. FE has no dependence on distance, and FC does not depend on the distance to the side of the cone. Seems to me if the distance to the cone could be made arbitrarily large and have no effect on the forces.

3 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

The plus and minus indicate electric field direction.

Plus being the direction a negative charge would travel?

[DandelionTheory]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Can you show this mathematically?

I can do my best, although i do need help. Vectors are shown in the Magnitude(x, y) form.

if the force on a charge in an electric field is:

F_E = qE

where E is the electric field vector and q is the charge

I messed up earlier and drew the picture with the electrodes labeled as their charge(q) and not their electric potential(battery poles).

the force between 2 like charges can be shown:

|F_C| = K(Q₁Q₂/r²)

where K is the Electrostatic Constant (9.0x109 Nm2 /C2 ),

Q₁= charge 1

Q₂= charge 2

r = the distance between charges

                                                                                                                                                       

so if the electric field vector is F_E = 1(0, -1),

the coulomb force on charge 1 from charge 2 is FQ1 = 2(1, 0), 

the coulomb force on charge 2 from charge 1 is FQ2 = 2(-1, 0), and

F_total = F_E + F_C

a vector calculator shows me F_total for Q1 = 2.23(2, -1) which is 333.43 degrees, and  F_total for Q2 = 2.23(-2, -1) which is 206.57 degrees

 

if the electric field was an alternating, F_E would cause each charge to change direction in the +-Y direction and F_C would force the charges away from each other in the +-X direction.

so i'm assuming due to the angle of the side of the cone, with every half cycle the charges would come into contact with it and reflect off; always moving from the center and always alternating their Y position with the AC cycle.

i changed the photo

 

Edited October 7, 2020 by DandelionTheory

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said:

 so if the electric field vector is F_E = 1(0, -1),

If? What if it's stronger than that? Or weaker?

 

19 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said:

the coulomb force on charge 1 from charge 2 is FQ1 = 2(1, 0), 

the coulomb force on charge 2 from charge 1 is FQ2 = 2(-1, 0), and

The distance between the charges is not given. What does an amplitude of 2 even mean? 

 

19 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said:

F_total = F_E + F_C

a vector calculator shows me F_total for Q1 = 2.23(2, -1) which is 333.43 degrees, and  F_total for Q2 = 2.23(-2, -1) which is 206.57 degrees

Why are these different angles with respect to the x axis? Your diagram looks like it has mirror symmetry along the center line.

This answer can't possibly be right, according to the information you have provided.

 

19 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said:

if the electric field was an alternating, F_E would cause each charge to change direction in the +-Y direction and F_C would force the charges away from each other in the +-X direction.

so i'm assuming due to the angle of the side of the cone, with every half cycle the charges would come into contact with it and reflect off; always moving from the center and always alternating their Y position with the AC cycle.

 

This is assuming information that you did not provide. You didn't specify the electric field or the position of the charges, or the distance to the cone. When you make a claim absent such detail, the claim is held to be true in general. And true in general means you can show it without putting numbers in for any of the variables.

 

 

 

[DandelionTheory]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The distance between the charges is not given.

 

On 10/5/2020 at 7:51 PM, DandelionTheory said:

spaced next to each other.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What does an amplitude of 2 even mean?

|F_C| = K(Q₁Q₂/r²)

K = 9.0x109 Nm2 /C2

r = 0.001m

Q1 = 1.5x10^-8C

Q2 = 1.5x10^-8C

gives 2.02N

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You didn't specify the electric field

 

1 hour ago, DandelionTheory said:

so if the electric field vector is F_E = 1(0, -1),

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

or the distance to the cone.

true. the distance isn't important until the electric field is alternated, i should have specified that. it makes little sense for the charge to initially hit the side of the cone with the first half of the AC cycle, it seems more probable the charge would collide with a side during the other half of the cycle

 

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

When you make a claim absent such detail, the claim is held to be true in general. And true in general means you can show it without putting numbers in for any of the variables.

thank you, ill keep that in mind. did i miss anything?

Edited October 7, 2020 by DandelionTheory

[DandelionTheory]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Why are these different angles with respect to the x axis

Coulomb force between the 2 charges is on the x axis, the electric field experienced by the 2 charges is on the y. In my head it was easier to visualize, is there a preferred method?

Edited October 7, 2020 by DandelionTheory

[swansont]

4 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

 

 

|F_C| = K(Q₁Q₂/r²)

K = 9.0x109 Nm2 /C2

r = 0.001m

Q1 = 1.5x10^-8C

Q2 = 1.5x10^-8C

gives 2.02N

 

You didn’t specify this value of r until after you made your claim.

Your diagram says the charge is 1C

Are you admitting your claim is incorrect, seeing as you have to fudge the numbers to make things work?

 

[DandelionTheory]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

You didn’t specify this value of r until after you made your claim.

"Next to each other" isn't hard to grasp.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Your diagram says the charge is 1C

Yes and there was is no electric field vector either according to you. But.... Yeah I mentioned them. I explained with an if statement when things are changed for argument sake. No AC in the diagram either, yet it's part of the design.... Interesting.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Are you admitting your claim is incorrect, 

Is that before you don't understand my claim or after you assume I'm confused?

5 hours ago, swansont said:

seeing as you have to fudge the numbers to make things work?

 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

What does an amplitude of 2 even mean? 

Seems like you forgot what "if" means...

Reading comprehension is important in physics...

Edited October 8, 2020 by DandelionTheory

[swansont]

12 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

"Next to each other" isn't hard to grasp.

It’s not quantitative 

 

[DandelionTheory]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s not quantitative 

 

Neither is your respect.

"Oh gatekeeper, find another that can understand the passwords so I may enter your citadel. Oh swansonnet gatekeeper of understanding."

Is that better?

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said:

Neither is your respect.

"Oh gatekeeper, find another that can understand the passwords so I may enter your citadel. Oh swansonnet gatekeeper of understanding."

Is that better?

No, actually, it’s pathetic.

 

[DandelionTheory]

Yeah. Sharing ideas isn't something that can be done with you. Why do you reply?

Why does trolling the forums so important when you cannot comprehend a description of 2 force vectors? No for get this I'm done. Have fun gatekeeping, nobody will entertain your thoughts if you cannot entertain theirs. 

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said:

Yeah. Sharing ideas isn't something that can be done with you. Why do you reply?

I was trying to answer your question, but your problem was ill-posed, and somehow now it’s now my fault that you didn’t quantify multiple variables, made up numbers after the fact, and made an assertion that you can’t back up.

16 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said:

Why does trolling the forums so important when you cannot comprehend a description of 2 force vectors? No for get this I'm done. Have fun gatekeeping, nobody will entertain your thoughts if you cannot entertain theirs. 

I know that force vectors have a magnitude that can’t be calculated if you don’t have the information to do the calculations. Something you have not shown you understand.