At what distance has spheres decreased Electric potential by 700V?

AI Thread Summary
A metal sphere with a radius of 15 cm and a net charge of 2.0E-8C has an electric potential at its surface calculated to be 1198.9V. The problem involves determining the distance from the sphere's surface where the electric potential decreases by 700V, resulting in a potential of 498.9V at that point. Attempts to solve for the distance using the formula r = kQ/Vsurface led to incorrect results, with calculations yielding distances of 0.2569m and 0.584m. The correct approach involves using the formula r = kQ/V to find the distance from the center, which must then be adjusted to find the distance from the surface. The final calculation suggests a distance of 0.361m from the center, indicating a need to subtract the sphere's radius to find the distance from the surface.
mr_coffee
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
1
Hello everyone, I managed to get Parts (a) and (b) of this problem but can't get the last for some reason. A metal sphere of radius 15cm has a net charge of 2.0E-8C. THe question is, at what distance from the sphere's surface has the electric potential decrased by 700V? Well i found the electric field to be 7992.7 N/C at the sphere's surface. I also found If V = 0 at infinity, what is the electric potenital at the sphere's surface? I used Vsurface = kQ/(r). to find Vsurface being equal to 1198.9V. But I can't figure this part out. I pluged in 700V for Vsurface and solved for r, and got .2569m. r = kQ/Vsurface; This was wrong So i tried, Vf - Vi = -\int E.ds Plugged 700V for Vf-Vi and solved for ds, because i know E from above and I know Vf-Vi, and i got .584m, also wrong any ideas? thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You know the potential at the surface from V = k Q /r. What's the potential at the point of interest? It's 1198.9V - 700V= 498.9V. Plug that into the formula and solve for the new distance.
 
hm...that looked like it would work perfectly but its still wrong for some reason... I got .361m, r = [(9.0E9)(2.0E-8)]/(498.9)
 
That's the distance from the center; what they want is the distance from the surface.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top