Point Charges Composing A Sphere

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the electrostatic potential of a sphere composed of multiple point charges. The user seeks to find a single equivalent charge for the sphere, acknowledging the complexity of summing individual charges. They mention using Gauss's Law but find it challenging due to the number of charges involved. Participants suggest that applying Gauss's Law to the entire sphere simplifies the problem. The user decides to move the discussion to the classical physics section for further assistance.
RockMc
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I have a quick question about understanding the theory behind point charges and electrostatic potentials. I've not had any classes in electrodynamics, so I lack a comfortable foundation to help me think about these problems.

I need to determine the electrostatic potential a certain distance from a charged sphere. I know you can view a sphere as a point charge and apply Gauss's Law, but the difference for me is that my sphere is made up of hundreds of individual charges composing this sphere. Each charge can be viewed as individual point charges and they all have the same value.

My question is how do I get a single charge value for the sphere.

Homework Equations



E = Q / 4∏(ε0)r

The Attempt at a Solution



I thought about taking the (Q/r) portion of Guass's law and doing a summation over all the atoms, but with the amount of atoms making up the sphere this is unreasonable. Is there some simpler way to think about this problem?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
welcome to physicsforums, RockMc. Is this really homework? This thread might be better in the classical physics section instead (if it is not homework).
 
Ah, it's not homework! Thanks for the advice. I'll close this and move over to there!
 
Welcome to PF!

Hi RockMc! Welcome to PF! :smile:

Can't you just apply Gauss' law to any sphere round all the charges?
 
RockMc said:
Ah, it's not homework! Thanks for the advice. I'll close this and move over to there!

Excellent. I'll try to give helpful advice there.
 
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 '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