Uniform charged sphere with hole?

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about a uniformly charged sphere with a hole, the application of Gauss's law is questioned, leading to the suggestion of using superposition instead. The recommended approach involves first calculating the electric field of the original sphere, then determining the field from an oppositely charged sphere representing the hole, and finally summing these two fields. This method allows for the maintenance of electrostatic conditions despite the presence of the hole. The participants confirm this approach as a valid way to analyze the electric field in this scenario. Overall, the consensus is that superposition is a practical solution for this problem.
philipc
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
Lets say I have a sphere of uniform charge, and a hole was removed any where within the sphere, would Gauss law be usless and I would have to go with superpostion? And I'm wondering how to set the integral in either case.
Thanks
Philip
 
Physics news on Phys.org
many times the divergence teorem is hard to apply, then you can try to solve that thinking about the hole has a charge opposite to the complete sphere in order to maintain the electrostatic condition.
 
If you're trying to calculate the electric field in the case of the sphere "with a hole" in it then I recommend (a) calculate the field for the original charge distribution, (b) calculate the electric field produced by an oppositely charged sphere where the hole is and then (c) adding the results of (a) and (b).
 
Oh, sorry, I see Diego essentially made the same suggestion!
 
Thanks, let's see if I'm thinking right here? First I find the efield at the point as though there was no hole. 2) I find the efield of the point do to the smaller sphere using a -charge density. 3) I sum the two efields together to get final results?
Again thanks for your help
Philip
 
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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
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