Electric Potential (charged conducting sphere)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the surface charge density of a charged conducting sphere with a specified diameter and electric potential. The problem involves concepts from electrostatics, particularly relating to electric potential and charge distribution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of total charge using the relationship between electric potential, charge, and distance. There are attempts to convert units correctly and check arithmetic related to surface area and charge density.

Discussion Status

Several participants are exploring different methods to arrive at the correct surface charge density. There is acknowledgment of potential errors in unit conversion and arithmetic, with some participants suggesting that working in meters from the start may simplify the calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note confusion regarding unit conversions between coulombs and microcoulombs, as well as the conversion of surface area from square centimeters to square meters. There is a recognition of the challenges faced in an algebra-based physics context.

GDGirl
Messages
49
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A 33 -cm-diameter conducting sphere is charged to 457 V (relative to a point an infinite distance from the sphere where the potential is zero).

a. What is the surface charge density σ?



Homework Equations


Surface Area= 4(pi)r^2
Surface Charge Density= Q/A
V=kQ/r



The Attempt at a Solution


So initially I found the surface area (it's 3421.1944 cm^2) and then divided the electric potential by that. This is obviously wrong.
Then, I used the formula for electric potential and solved for Q to get the charge of the sphere. I got 8.388x10^-9 C. I think I may have done something wrong because my units didn't cancel out quite right, but I didn't think too much about it. I then plugged this into my formula for surface charge density, and got 2.452x10^-10 C/m^2. My answer is supposed to be in uC/m^2 so I multiplied the answer by 10^6 and got 2.452x10^-4 uC/m^2.
I put this into the answer box, and it is wrong.
So thenI thought maybe I plugged in the wrong distance before (I used the radius of the sphere and not the diameter though I'm sure the radius is correct) and did the same as above, and ended up with 4.412x10^-3 uC/m^2.
So right now, I'm simply at a loss as for what I'm doing wrong.

I'd like to note that I'm in an algebra-based physics class for a reason- calculus is lost on me, I'm sorry.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all maybe express your total charge in μC.

V = kQ/r

Q = V*r/k = 457*.165/9*109 = 8.37*10-9C = .008378 μC
 
LowlyPion said:
First of all maybe express your total charge in μC.

V = kQ/r

Q = V*r/k = 457*.165/9*109 = 8.37*10-9C = .008378 μC
that's what I meant by 'uC'. I'm not sure how to make the symbol on my keyboard.

Did I change units wrong? to go from Coloumbs to μC you would multiply by 106, right?

EDIT: I just tried that and I come up with the same answer.
 
Last edited:
GDGirl said:
that's what I meant by 'uC'. I'm not sure how to make the symbol on my keyboard.

Did I change units wrong? to go from Coloumbs to μC you would multiply by 106, right?

Only if you are simultaneously changing to μC which are 10-6C

So you can convert 10-6 to μ, yes.
 
GDGirl said:
that's what I meant by 'uC'. I'm not sure how to make the symbol on my keyboard.

Did I change units wrong? to go from Coloumbs to μC you would multiply by 106, right?

EDIT: I just tried that and I come up with the same answer.

I get a different answer when I divide .008378 by the surface area .3421 m2
 
LowlyPion said:
I get a different answer when I divide .008378 by the surface area .3421 m2

Wait- .3421 m2? Wouldn't 3421.1944 cm2 be 34.211944 m2? This may be where my arithmetic is messing up.
 
Ah- I got it now, I was converting my cm2 to m2 wrong. I've got the answer now, thank you!
 
GDGirl said:
Ah- I got it now, I was converting my cm2 to m2 wrong. I've got the answer now, thank you!

Maybe it's better to work in m from the beginning?

Good luck.
 
LowlyPion said:
Maybe it's better to work in m from the beginning?

Good luck.

This is a good idea. It's easy to forget for me, but I'll have to keep it in mind.
Thanks again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
920
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
866
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K