Another Electrostatics Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter AKG
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electrostatics
AI Thread Summary
The problem involves calculating the force of repulsion between the northern and southern hemispheres of a charged metal sphere. The electrostatic pressure formula is applied, leading to the calculation of surface charge density and subsequently the force acting on one hemisphere. The derived force is F = Q^2 / (16πε₀R²), which is confirmed as correct. However, there is confusion regarding the interpretation of this force as a repulsion between hemispheres, since the book primarily discusses flat surfaces. The discussion highlights the distinction between forces on spherical conductors and flat surfaces, questioning the terminology used in the problem.
AKG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
2,559
Reaction score
4
Problem: A metal sphere of radius R carries a total charge Q. What is the force of repulsion between the "northern" hemisphere and the "southern" hemisphere?

My book gives a formula for the electrostatic pressure:

P = \frac{\sigma ^2}{2\epsilon _0}

pushing the surface outwards (and hence pushing the northern hemisphere away from the southern one). I can find \sigma:

\sigma = \frac{Q}{4\pi R^2}

so I get:

P = \frac{Q^2}{32\pi ^2 \epsilon _0 R^4}

The force acting on one hemisphere will be the pressure times the area of that hemisphere, which is just 2\pi \R^2, so I get:

F = \frac{Q^2}{16\pi \epsilon _0 R^2}

Is this right? The whole problem seems weird to begin with, I'm not sure if the numbers I'm using actually give me the quantity I'm looking for, and not just some other quantity related to the system. So is this right? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That looks ok. I'm not sure what your confused about.
 
Thanks. I was confused because the book doesn't talk about spherical objects (although it says that the formula for pressure applies to any conductor), but things like flat surfaces. In a flat surface, you would still see this force, but it wouldn't make sense to think of the force in terms of a repulsion from some other conducting surface, since there is none. I wasn't sure why in this case the force was being called the force of repulsion. The force acting on one hemisphere didn't seem to be the force of repulsion due to the other hemisphere, but rather just the same type of force that exists for "open" surfaces when there isn't even any other hemisphere to repel it.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top