Electric Potential of Conducting Sphere: Charge & Charge Density

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the charge and charge density of a conducting sphere with a radius of 0.21 m and a potential of 290 V. The correct charge (q) is determined using the formula q = Vr/k, yielding a value of 6.8E-9 C, while the charge density (σ) is calculated using σ = q/SA, resulting in 1.2e-8 C/m². The initial miscalculations were due to an error in applying the constant k, where the user mistakenly divided instead of multiplying.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric potential and its relationship to charge
  • Familiarity with the formula for charge density (σ = q/SA)
  • Knowledge of the surface area of a sphere (SA = 4πr²)
  • Basic grasp of electrostatics, including Coulomb's law and constants like k
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation and application of Coulomb's law in electrostatics
  • Study the concept of electric potential and its implications in different geometries
  • Learn about the properties of conductors in electrostatic equilibrium
  • Explore the implications of charge density in various physical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Students studying electrostatics, physics educators, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of charge distribution on conductors.

popo902
Messages
59
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



What are (a) the charge (in C) and (b) the charge density on the surface of a conducting sphere of radius 0.21 m whose potential is 290 V (with V = 0 at infinity)?

Homework Equations



v = kq/r
\sigma = q/SA
SA of a sphere = 4\pir^2

The Attempt at a Solution


so this is what i did
i used the first equation and solved for q = Vr/k
i plugged in the numbers
v= 290, r is the same as the radius because its only the surface r = 0.21,
k = 1/(4\pi\epsilon)
I got 5.5e11
the right answer is 6.8E-9

Then for the charge density,
i put the numbers in too
but this is also wrong for sure because it uses my q value
I got 9.9e11
the right answer is 1.2e-8

I don't know how i got that far off :frown:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How did you get that value for q?

ehild
 
yeh sorry i realized i divided by 1/k istead of multiplying by k/1 :S
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
865
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
918
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K