Spherical shells (inner conducting and outer nonconducting)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the electrostatic potential and electric field in the context of spherical shells, specifically focusing on an inner conducting shell and an outer non-conducting shell. Participants are exploring the integration of electric fields to determine potential differences and the implications of assumptions regarding the electric field within conductors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss integrating the electric field to find the potential, questioning the limits of integration and the role of constants in the equations. Some express uncertainty about the implications of the electric field being zero within a conductor and how that affects the potential calculations.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of different integration approaches and the assumptions that underlie the problem. Some participants suggest that the potential should remain constant within the conductor, while others are clarifying the implications of the integration limits and the relationship between the potential at different points.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the assumptions stated in the problem, particularly regarding the electrostatic potential on the outer surface of the non-conducting material being zero volts. There is also mention of the potential being constant throughout the conductor, which is a key point of discussion.

goohu
Messages
53
Reaction score
3
Homework Statement
See picture
Relevant Equations
V = ## -\int E dl ##
a) I think you find V by just integrating E in regards to R. Then we integrate from the point of interest, which is a, to the 0 potential which is (R = 2a)?

b) If the same logic as a) applies here as well then we should integrate from the point of interest to the 0 potential. This should be from 0 to 2a.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled1.png
    Untitled1.png
    18.9 KB · Views: 200
Physics news on Phys.org
goohu said:
I think you find V by just integrating E in regards to R
Yes, except that R is a given constant, so better to say wrt some new variable, r say.
goohu said:
b) If the same logic as a) applies here as well then we should integrate from the point of interest to the 0 potential.
Yes, except that there is an easier way. Hint: it's a conductor.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: goohu
R is a constant? Can you explain why? E(R) seems to be a function depending on R, for me it seems like its a variable? I don't understand. What do you mean with wrt?

For b) if its a conductor you could use Gauss law I guess. C = Q/V

I'm mostly familiar with using it to determine the capacitance between two conducting plates. Usually you find E(R) then you integrate to find V and integrate from 0 to d , if d is the distance between the plates.

In this case it's from one conducting shell to origin. I'm unsure about the integration limits.
Is it from 0 to a, or a to 0?
 
goohu said:
R is a constant?
Sorry, dealing with too many threads at once.

For b, what do you know about the potential within a conductor?
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the late reply.

b)
The electric field inside a conductor (in this case 0 to a) is 0. So V should be a constant. Not sure if we need to go further than this?

I am unsure because of the wording in the task : "using the same assumptions as those of part (a)."
The assumption being "the electrostatic potential on the outer surface of the non-conducting material is 0 V." The stated assumption shouldn't affect the problem?
 
goohu said:
b)
The electric field inside a conductor (in this case 0 to a) is 0. So## V## should be a constant. Not sure if we need to go further than this?
Yes, ##V## is constant throughout the conductor. You need to express V at the center of the conductor in terms of ##\varepsilon_0, a## and ##\rho##.

I am unsure because of the wording in the task : "using the same assumptions as those of part (a)."
The assumption being "the electrostatic potential on the outer surface of the non-conducting material is 0 V." The stated assumption shouldn't affect the problem?
The choice of where ##V = 0## does affect the answer to part (b). For part (b) you want to still take ##V=0## at the outer surface of the non-conductor.
 
There is the equation for V. I assume both shells has the same charge density (a bit unclear to me).

## V = \int \frac{\rho_v}{4\pi\epsilon_0R} dV = \int \frac{\rho_v}{4\pi\epsilon_0R} R^2 sin\theta dRd\phi d\theta = \frac{\rho_v}{\epsilon_0} \int R dR = \frac{\rho_v a^2}{2\epsilon_0} ## (integrating from 0 to a)

I am unsure where to go from here?
 
goohu said:
a) I think you find V by just integrating E in regards to R. Then we integrate from the point of interest, which is a, to the 0 potential which is (R = 2a)?
Yes. What do you get for an answer?

b) If the same logic as a) applies here as well then we should integrate from the point of interest to the 0 potential. This should be from 0 to 2a.
As @haruspex stated, you could do this but there is an easier way. As you stated in post #5, you know that V is constant throughout the conductor. So, how does the potential at the center of the conductor compare to the potential at the surface of the conductor?
 
a) we are integrating from a to 2a.
## V = -\int E dl = -\int \frac{R^3 \rho}{3\epsilon_0 R^2} + \int \frac{a^3 \rho}{3\epsilon_0 R^2} = - \frac {\rho}{3 \epsilon_0} \int R dR + \frac{a^3 \rho}{3 \epsilon_0} \int \frac{1}{R^2} dR = -\frac{\rho a^2}{2\epsilon_0} + \frac{a^2 \rho}{6\epsilon_o} ##

b) Let's assume we integrate from 0 to 2a. Shouldnt the answer be the same as a) if the electric field is 0 inside the conductor? This already seems easy enough to me.

But to answer your question, I think it should be the same?
 
  • #10
goohu said:
a) we are integrating from a to 2a.
## V = -\int E dl = -\int \frac{R^3 \rho}{3\epsilon_0 R^2} + \int \frac{a^3 \rho}{3\epsilon_0 R^2} = - \frac {\rho}{3 \epsilon_0} \int R dR + \frac{a^3 \rho}{3 \epsilon_0} \int \frac{1}{R^2} dR = -\frac{\rho a^2}{2\epsilon_0} + \frac{a^2 \rho}{6\epsilon_o} ##

b) Let's assume we integrate from 0 to 2a. Shouldnt the answer be the same as a) if the electric field is 0 inside the conductor? This already seems easy enough to me.

But to answer your question, I think it should be the same?
For part (a) what limits of integration did you use?

Part (b) is really that easy. :smile:
 
  • #11
for a) integration limits were a to 2a.
 
  • #12
goohu said:
for a) integration limits were a to 2a.
Getting the signs correct can be tricky. Recall that the basic relation is

##V(B) - V(A) = -\int_A^B \mathbf E \cdot d\mathbf l##

If you integrate from ##a## to ##2a##, what does the left-hand side of the above relation become? In particular, which of ##V(A)## and ##V(B)## would be zero and which would be the potential at the point that you are interested in?
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
869
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
719
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
906
Replies
44
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K