The polarity of charge on the electroscope

 

The electroscope is a simple device used to detect charge. The main part of the electroscope is a very thin (about 10−7 m) piece of gold leaf hinged to a metal plate. When there is an excess of charge (a net charge) on the system, the force of repulsion of like charges causes the leaf to diverge from the plate. The tangent of the angle of divergence is roughly proportional to the amount of excess charge,
with a 45 degree angle corresponding to a charge of roughly 10−9 C, (which corresponds to a voltage relative to the case of about 1000V). Thus we have a semi- quantitative way to measure charge.
The extremely fragile gold leaf has to be protected from drafts and dirt, so it is enclosed by a case with glass windows for viewing. The case and windows also must shield the leaves from undesired external electrical fields, which might be caused by nearby charged objects. For this reason, the case is made of metal, and the glass windows have been given an electrically-conductive coating. In order to prevent uncontrolled charge buildup on the case, one can ground it once in a while by touching it with a finger. The leaf and plate are electrically connected to a spherically shaped external terminal by means of a short metal support rod that passes through a plastic insulating bushing in the case. This external terminal provides the experimenter with a means of transferring charge to and from the leaf/plate, without opening the case.
There is also a metal cap, which can be placed over the terminal ball without touching it, but by resting on the case, makes electrical contact with it. With the cap in place, the entire leaf, plate, and terminal system is completely surrounded by a conducting surface that shields it from external electrical fields.
Boseman Science, Electrostatic induction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwJ-MM7yu4E
Rimstar, Inductive Charging: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JsVZwc1dOo
GPB Education, Friction, Conduction, Induction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-tW9AOcXT4
Video by Professor Sergan, posted on Canvas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOnYVEV0csk&feature=youtu.be

1. Using the information in the passage above, your knowledge of charge transfer, and the four videos, explain in a few sentences, how to charge the electroscope to a positive net charge, via the two methods. Make sure to talk about the direction of electron movement. You should also draw some simple diagrams to illustrate charge transfer, polarity, etc.
By direct charge transfer:
By induction:
2. Describe a method that can be used to determine the polarity of charge on the electroscope. Some diagrams again might be helpful.
3. In Experiment 4 (Charge detection by an electroscope), the rubber rod was charged and slowly brought near the ball of the electroscope, but without making contact. Describe what you observed. Explain what happened from individual charges perspective, and draw a diagram.
4. In Experiment 5 (Charging the electroscope by contact), the rubber rod was charged, and the charge was transferred to the electroscope. Describe what you observed. Explain what happened from individual charges perspective, and draw a diagram.
5. In Experiment 6 (Determining the polarity of charge on an electroscope), the electroscope was once again charged using the rubber rod. Then a glass rod was slowly brought nearby. Describe what you observed. Explain what happened from individual charges perspective, and draw a diagram.
6. Where does the charge go when you touch the ball and the casing of the electroscope in Experiment 7 (Discharging the electroscope)? Answer with one sentence.
7. What does the aluminum cap do in Experiment 8 (Electrostatic shielding)? Answer in one or two sentences.
8. In Experiment 9 (Charging by induction), record your observations for each step (as described below), and write a one-sentence explanation for each, from the perspective of charges.
“With one hand ground the scope terminal to the case (ie. Have one finger touch both the case and the terminal.) Keep it there while you bring a charged rubber rod towards the electroscope terminal, but not touching the rod to the terminal, with you other had. Observe the leaf. Now, while the rod is held near the terminal, remove your grounding hand from the electroscope completely (without changing the position of the charged rod). Observe the leaf. Finally, slowly withdraw the charged rubber rod. Observe the leaf. What happens? Is there a final charge on the scope? Test to determine the sign of the charge on the scope. What is it? Is it the same as the charge you would get b the direct contact method? Explain and draw diagrams showing what has happened. How did the charge get on the electroscope?”

 

 

Sample Solution 

Transient memory is the memory for a boost that goes on for a brief time (Carlson, 2001). In reasonable terms visual transient memory is frequently utilized for a relative reason when one can’t thoroughly search in two spots immediately however wish to look at least two prospects. Tuholski and partners allude to momentary memory similar to the attendant handling and stockpiling of data (Tuholski, Engle, and Baylis, 2001). They additionally feature the way that mental capacity can frequently be antagonistically impacted by working memory limit. It means quite a bit to be sure about the typical limit of momentary memory as, without a legitimate comprehension of the flawless cerebrum’s working it is challenging to evaluate whether an individual has a shortage in capacity (Parkin, 1996).

 

This survey frames George Miller’s verifiable perspective on transient memory limit and how it tends to be impacted, prior to bringing the examination state-of-the-art and outlining a determination of approaches to estimating momentary memory limit. The verifiable perspective on momentary memory limit

 

Length of outright judgment

The range of outright judgment is characterized as the breaking point to the precision with which one can distinguish the greatness of a unidimensional boost variable (Miller, 1956), with this cutoff or length generally being around 7 + 2. Mill operator refers to Hayes memory length try as proof for his restricting range. In this members needed to review data read resoundingly to them and results obviously showed that there was a typical maximum restriction of 9 when double things were utilized. This was regardless of the consistent data speculation, which has proposed that the range ought to be long if each introduced thing contained little data (Miller, 1956). The end from Hayes and Pollack’s tests (see figure 1) was that how much data sent expansions in a straight design alongside how much data per unit input (Miller, 1956). Figure 1. Estimations of memory for data wellsprings of various sorts and bit remainders, contrasted with anticipated results for steady data. Results from Hayes (left) and Pollack (right) refered to by (Miller, 1956)

 

Pieces and lumps

Mill operator alludes to a ‘digit’ of data as need might have arisen ‘to settle on a choice between two similarly probable other options’. In this manner a basic either or choice requires the slightest bit of data; with more expected for additional complicated choices, along a twofold pathway (Miller, 1956). Decimal digits are worth 3.3 pieces each, implying that a 7-digit telephone number (what is handily recollected) would include 23 pieces of data. Anyway an evident inconsistency to this is the way that, assuming an English word is worth around 10 pieces and just 23 pieces could be recollected then just 2-3 words could be recalled at any one time, clearly mistaken. The restricting range can all the more likely be figured out concerning the absorption of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the qualification being that a lump is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can differ generally (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option enormous pieces right away, fairly that as each piece turns out to be more recognizable, it tends to be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and appointed to lumps.

Transient memory is the memory for a boost that goes on for a brief time (Carlson, 2001). In down to earth terms visual momentary memory is frequently utilized for a relative reason when one can’t search in two spots without a moment’s delay however wish to look at least two prospects. Tuholski and partners allude to transient memory similar to the attendant handling and stockpiling of data (Tuholski, Engle, and Baylis, 2001). They likewise feature the way that mental capacity can frequently be unfavorably impacted by working memory limit. It means a lot to be sure about the ordinary limit of momentary memory as, without a legitimate comprehension of the unblemished mind’s working it is hard to evaluate whether an individual has a shortfall in capacity (Parkin, 1996).

 

This survey frames George Miller’s verifiable perspective on transient memory limit and how it tends to be impacted, prior to bringing the exploration forward-thinking and representing a determination of approaches to estimating momentary memory limit. The authentic perspective on transient memory limit

 

Length of outright judgment

The range of outright judgment is characterized as the breaking point to the precision with which one can recognize the greatness of a unidimensional upgrade variable (Miller, 1956), with this cutoff or length generally being around 7 + 2. Mill operator refers to Hayes memory length explore as proof for his restricting range. In this members needed to review data read out loud to them and results obviously showed that there was an ordinary furthest restriction of 9 when twofold things were utilized. This was in spite of the steady data speculation, which has recommended that the range ought to be long if each introduced thing contained little data (Miller, 1956). The end from Hayes and Pollack’s tests (see figure 1) was that how much data sent expansions in a direct style alongside how much data per unit input (Miller, 1956). Figure 1. Estimations of memory for data wellsprings of various kinds and digit remainders, contrasted with anticipated results for steady data. Results from Hayes (left) and Pollack (right) refered to by (Miller, 1956)

 

Pieces and lumps

Mill operator alludes to a ‘cycle’ of data as need might have arisen ‘to go with a choice between two similarly probable other options’. In this manner a straightforward either or choice requires the slightest bit of data; with more expected for additional complicated choices, along a parallel pathway (Miller, 1956). Decimal digits are worth 3.3 pieces each, implying that a 7-digit telephone number (what is effortlessly recollected) would include 23 pieces of data. Anyway a clear inconsistency to this is the way that, assuming an English word is worth around 10 pieces and just 23 pieces could be recalled then just 2-3 words could be recollected at any one time, clearly inaccurate. The restricting range can more readily be grasped concerning the digestion of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the qualification being that a piece is comprised of numerous pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall pieces of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can shift broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, fairly that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it tends to be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recalled itself. Recoding is the cycle by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and relegated to lumps.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.