Distance between equipotential surfaces

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the distance between equipotential surfaces for a non-conducting sphere with a uniform charge density of ρ = 0.596 μC/m³. The initial calculations yielded incorrect results due to algebraic errors and unit mismanagement. After correcting the calculations, the final distances were determined as r1 = 1.998 m for V1 = 16.2 Volts and r2 = 0.7651 m for V2 = 42.3 Volts, resulting in a distance of 1.23 m between the equipotential surfaces.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electrostatics, specifically equipotential surfaces.
  • Familiarity with the equation V = kQ/r for electric potential.
  • Knowledge of charge density and its relation to total charge (ρ = Q/V).
  • Basic algebra skills for manipulating equations and unit conversions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of electric potential and equipotential surfaces in electrostatics.
  • Learn about the implications of charge density on electric fields and potentials.
  • Explore the use of dimensional analysis to verify calculations in physics problems.
  • Investigate common mistakes in algebraic manipulation within physics contexts.
USEFUL FOR

Students studying electrostatics, physics educators, and anyone involved in solving problems related to electric potential and charge distributions.

Alan I
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A non-conducting sphere (radius 11.3 cm) has uniform charge density ρ = 0.596 μC/m3. Find the distance, in meters, between equipotential surfaces V1 = 16.2 Volts and V2 = 42.3 volts. (Distance is always positive.)

Homework Equations


V=kq/r
ρ=Q/V

The Attempt at a Solution


ρ=0.596*10-6 C/m3 = Q/V ⇒ (0.596*10-6)=Q/(4/3*π*(0.113m)3)
⇒Q=3.60*10-9

for V1
16.2=k(3.60*10-9)/r1
⇒r1≅0.5

for V2
42.3=k(3.60*10-9)/r2
⇒r2≅1.3

⇒r2-r1=0.807m → this answer is wrong. :oldconfused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Volts relative to what?

There are missing units.
How do you get a larger radius for the larger potential? Something got wrong with the multiplication/division there, you got the inverse values. An error that would have been easy to spot with units.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alan I
mfb said:
Volts relative to what?

There are missing units.
How do you get a larger radius for the larger potential? Something got wrong with the multiplication/division there, you got the inverse values. An error that would have been easy to spot with units.

OK thanks! I don't know how I messed up that algebra so bad. After re-checking my calculations this is what I got:

r1 m = k N*m2/C2 * (3.6*10-9) C / 16.2 N*m/C

r1 = 1.998 m

r2 m = k N*m2/C2 * (3.6*10-9) C / 42.3 N*m/C

r2=0.7651 m → smaller for the higher potential

r1-r2 = 1.23 m

Now it seems to make more sense. Thank you!
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
17K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K