How much negative charge do I accumulate by touching the earth?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter aaronsky12
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charge Earth Negative
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Earth carries a negative electric charge of approximately 500,000 Coulombs. When a person touches the Earth, they can theoretically accumulate some of this charge, but calculations using the equation for two connected conducting spheres yield an unrealistic value of 0.0785 Coulombs. This discrepancy arises because the model assumes a separation distance that is not valid in this context. A more accurate approach would consider the charge distribution across the Earth's surface and its interaction with the human body.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electrostatics and charge distribution
  • Familiarity with the concept of conducting spheres in physics
  • Knowledge of the equation for potential difference in electrostatics
  • Basic grasp of image theory in electrostatics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of electrostatics, focusing on charge distribution and potential difference
  • Review David Cheng's "Field and Wave Electromagnetics, 2nd Ed." for detailed examples on conducting spheres
  • Explore the concept of image theory and its applications in electrostatics
  • Investigate the effects of grounding and charge neutrality in practical scenarios
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, electrical engineers, and anyone interested in electrostatics and grounding phenomena will benefit from this discussion.

aaronsky12
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
The Earth carries a negative electric charge of roughly 500 thousand Coulombs (according to different sources I've seen). If I touch the Earth I should therefore pick up some of this electric charge (through conduction) and become negative charged. Assuming the Earth can modeled as a conducting sphere with radius 6371 km and me as a conducting sphere with radius 1 m, around how much negative charge would I accumulate? The reason I ask is because I'm trying to prove to myself that grounding does indeed render a charged object neutral (i.e. transfers all the object's charge to the Earth). Using the well known equation for two connected conducting spheres with different radii (see Example 3-13 on page 115 in David Cheng's "Field and Wave Electromagnetics, 2nd Ed."), I calculate 0.0785 C, which is way too big and must be wrong. Any help in this matter would be appreciated. Thank you.

Here is my calculation:

V_sphere=k*Q1/r1 (potential of conducting sphere with radius r1 and and net charge Q1) V_earth=k*Q2/r2 (potential of conducting sphere with radius of the Earth, r2, and and net charge of the Earth, Q2)

where k is a constant. If the sphere touches the Earth then their potentials (V_sphere and V_earth) must be equal, assuming that the charges on the spherical conductors may be considered as uniformly disturbed. Setting V_Sphere=V_earth, we get:

Q1/r1=Q2/r2

Setting Q1+Q2=Qtotal, yields:

Q1=Qtotal*r1/(r1+r2)

Substituting Qtotal=500,000C, r1=1 m,r2=6371000 m (radius of Earth is 6371km) I get:

Q1=0.0785C.

I feel this number is way too large to be correct. If you take coupling into account (by modeling Earth as PEC plate and using image theory), the charge that is accumulated only gets larger! What am I doing wrong here? There seems to be no way you accumulate -0.0785 C of charge by touching the earth.

Every textbook I read just says that the Earth is so big that it acts as an infinite sink/source for charge... without an explanation or calculation to prove this.

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We are all touching Earth all the time, astronauts and airplanes as an exception (and airplanes are still in the air, and tend to land from time to time).

I think the formula for those two spheres assumes that the separation of the spheres is large compared to their diameter, this is not true for you.

You get an upper estimate with the assumption that the whole charge is distributed over 7 billion humans (plus much more trees, bushes, houses and some other animals).

I think a more reasonable approach would be the assumption that charge is proportional to the (vertical?) surface area.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K