Charge inside of Conducting Shell

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on determining the electric potential at the inner radius of a hollow spherical conducting shell containing a point charge at its center. The potential at the inner radius, x = a, is argued to be Kq/b, as the potential must be consistent across the shell's surfaces. The confusion arises from the assumption that the potential inside the shell can be calculated using Kq/a, which is incorrect due to the nature of electric fields in conductors. The potential outside the shell approaches zero as r approaches infinity, reinforcing that the potential at the inner surface must match that of the outer surface. Ultimately, the correct understanding hinges on recognizing the behavior of electric fields and potentials in conductive materials.
Jzhang27143
Messages
38
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


A positive point charge q is located inside a neutral hollow spherical conducting shell. The shell has inner radius a and outer radius b; b − a is not negligible. The shell is centered on the origin. Assume that the point charge q is located at the origin in the very center of the shell.

a. iii. Determine the electric potential at x = a.

http://www.aapt.org/physicsteam/2015/upload/E3-2-2-solutions.pdf

Homework Equations


V = Kq/r, gauss's law

The Attempt at a Solution


Ok so the solution is in the link above. However, I don't understand why the potential at a is Kq/b. I know that the potential at A and B must be the same. If you look at it from outside the shell, the potential is Kq/r for r>b and this predicts Va = Vb = Kq/b. However, if you look at it from inside the shell, the potential is Kq/r for r<a and this predicts Va = Kq/a which is not correct. What is wrong with the second approach?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jzhang27143 said:
However, if you look at it from inside the shell, the potential is Kq/r for r<a and this predicts Va = Kq/a which is not correct.
That would be true if the field from the charge extended unbroken to infinity. But it does not. The field has a gap from r = a to r = b.
 
Jzhang27143 said:
...

Ok so the solution is in the link above. However, I don't understand why the potential at a is Kq/b. I know that the potential at A and B must be the same. If you look at it from outside the shell, the potential is Kq/r for r>b and this predicts Va = Vb = Kq/b. However, if you look at it from inside the shell, the potential is Kq/r for r<a and this predicts Va = Kq/a which is not correct. What is wrong with the second approach?
The usual convention is for the potential to be zero as r → ∞ .

If you take Va = kq/a, then the potential on the outer surface, r = b, is also kq/a rather than being kq/b. This gives a potential as r → ∞ of kq(1/a - 1/b) .
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
669
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
10K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
16K