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!
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top