Electrostatic P.E. vs Gravitational P.E.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the differences between calculating gravitational potential energy (G.P.E.) for a planet and electrostatic potential energy (E.P.E.) for a charged metal sphere. For the planet, the energy needed to disassemble it against gravitational pull is derived as W = 3GM²/5R, considering mass uniformly distributed throughout its volume. In contrast, the calculation for the metal sphere yields W = 3KQ²/5R, which is incorrect due to the charge being concentrated on the surface rather than uniformly distributed. The key takeaway is the importance of distribution in calculating potential energy for different systems. Understanding these distinctions simplifies the calculations for electrostatic potential energy.
zorro
Messages
1,378
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am confused b/w two questions:

1) The mass M of a planet Earth is uniformly distributed over a spherical volume of radius R. Find and expression for the energy needed to disassemble the planet against the gravitational pull amongst its constituent particles.

2) A metal sphere of Radius R has a charge Q. Find its potential energy.

The Attempt at a Solution



In both the cases, we have to find the work done in building the whole setup of radius R.

1) The spherical volume may be supposed to be formed by a large number of their concentric spherical shells. Let's consider that there is a core of radius x at any time. The energy needed to disassemble a spherical shell of thickness dx is

dW= Gm1m2/x

On solving and integrating, we get
W = 3GM2/5R

If I proceed analogously for 2), I get W = 3KQ2/5R which is not correct (unlike 1st)
Where is the error?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the planet the mass is uniformly distributed throughout the volume. For a metallic conductor, all the charge is concentrated on the surface.
 
That was quick!
Yeah you are right...I missed that.
Its much more easier to calculate in the case of E.P.E.

Thanks!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top