Setting the Zero of Potential for a Charged Metal Sphere in an Electric Field

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the electric potential outside a charged metal sphere placed in a uniform electric field. Participants are exploring how to appropriately set the zero of potential in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants discuss setting the zero of potential at the surface of the sphere, questioning how this affects the analysis compared to previous examples. Others suggest that if the sphere is at zero potential, the potential at infinity should be adjusted accordingly. There are also inquiries about the reasoning behind certain potential values and the implications of the uniform electric field on the potential at infinity.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering various perspectives on setting the zero of potential and its implications. There is a mix of interpretations regarding the relationship between the sphere's potential and the uniform electric field, with some guidance on considering previous examples provided.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the constraints of the problem, including the definitions of potential at different points and the implications of the uniform electric field on potential values. There is mention of a specific example (Example 3.8) that may provide additional context for their reasoning.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Find the potential outside a charged metal sphere (charge Q, radius R) placed in an otherwise uniform electric field E_0. Explain clearly where you are setting the zero of potential.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


If I set the 0 of the potential at the surface of the sphere (which I can do because it is at an equipotential because it is a conductor), then I don't see how the analysis is different than Example 3.8?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If the sphere is at V=0, then infinity is at -Q/R.
To be consistent with other potentials, you should keep phi(infinity)=0.
Then the analysis is the same, but phi=Q/R+phi(grounded sphere).
 
pam said:
If the sphere is at V=0, then infinity is at -Q/R.

How did you get that? Did you do that in your head?
 
pam said:
If the sphere is at V=0, then infinity is at -Q/R.
To be consistent with other potentials, you should keep phi(infinity)=0.
Then the analysis is the same, but phi=Q/R+phi(grounded sphere).

Err -- given the uniform E field, the potential at infinity is always infinite. I think ehrenfest had the right idea -- make the conductor of potential zero, and do the necessary algebra. I don't have the book, so I don't know if it reduces to some other problem in there.
 
I meant the potential due only to the sphere, which is added to the -zE_0.
If the conducting sphere has charge Q, there will be the additional potential,
Q/R. Yes, done in my head.
But, do it your way if you want.
 
rethink where you set V = 0 and consider example 3.8
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
879
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K