Electric potential of a solid copper sphere

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the electric potential of an isolated solid copper sphere with a radius of 0.12 m and a positive charge of 6.4 x 10^-9 C. The first calculation involves determining the electric potential at a distance of 0.10 m from the center, where the initial assumption of zero potential was corrected. The second calculation at 0.24 m from the center required using the formula V = kQ/R, but the distance R must account for the entire charge distribution on the sphere's surface. The correct approach emphasizes the importance of understanding electric potential in relation to charge distribution and symmetry, rather than solely relying on distance from the surface.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric potential and charge distribution
  • Familiarity with Gauss' law and its applications
  • Knowledge of the formula V = kQ/R for electric potential
  • Basic concepts of conductors and electrostatics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Gauss' law in electrostatics
  • Learn about electric potential inside and outside conductors
  • Explore the concept of electric field due to spherical charge distributions
  • Investigate the mathematical derivation of electric potential using integrals
USEFUL FOR

Students studying electrostatics, physics educators, and anyone interested in understanding electric potential in conductive materials.

bfusco
Messages
126
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


An isolated solid copper sphere of radius .12m has a positive charge of 6.4x10^-9 C.
i) calculate the electric potential at a point .10 m from the center of the sphere.
ii)calculate the electric potential at a point .24 m from the center of the sphere.

The Attempt at a Solution


i) originally i thought the answer was 0 because since the sphere is copper it is conducting, so all the charge is on the surface of the sphere so at a distance .1 m (not reaching the surface) i assumed the potential was 0. i now know that this is incorrect. if someone could explain that to me i would appreciate it. is it because the electric potential doesn't work exactly like Gauss' law in that where the charge is matters.

ii)i used the equation V=kQ/R, however instead of using the .24 meters from the center, i used .12 m as R because the charge is at the surface, so a point .12m away from the surface of the sphere is only .12 m away from the charge. its apparently wrong and i don't understand why.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bfusco said:
i) originally i thought the answer was 0 because since the sphere is copper it is conducting, so all the charge is on the surface of the sphere so at a distance .1 m (not reaching the surface) i assumed the potential was 0. i now know that this is incorrect. if someone could explain that to me i would appreciate it. is it because the electric potential doesn't work exactly like Gauss' law in that where the charge is matters.
You're right that all the charge would be on the surface of the sphere. But this does not mean the potential is zero inside the sphere. You should really try to do the second problem, so you can work out the potential at the surface of the sphere, then you can work out what it should be inside the sphere.

bfusco said:
ii)i used the equation V=kQ/R, however instead of using the .24 meters from the center, i used .12 m as R because the charge is at the surface, so a point .12m away from the surface of the sphere is only .12 m away from the charge. its apparently wrong and i don't understand why.
You've used the equation V=kQ/R, and used the distance R to mean the distance from the nearest point on the sphere to wherever you are calculating V to be. But of course, the charge is going to be spread all over the surface of the sphere, so you should really be doing an integral over all the charges, where R is a variable. But luckily, the answer is quite simple for a charge distribution which is spread over the surface of a sphere, so you shouldn't have to do an annoying integral. Think about the symmetry of the problem. You've mentioned Gauss' law, so try to use that to show the answer.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
764
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K