What Is the Electric Potential of a Conducting Sphere Surrounded by a Shell?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The electric potential at the surface of a conducting sphere with a radius of 4.5 cm and a charge of 40 nC, surrounded by a concentric spherical conducting shell of radius 20 cm with a charge of -40 nC, is calculated to be 6200 V. The potential is determined using the formula V = kQ(1/R1 - 1/R2), where R1 is the radius of the inner sphere and R2 is the radius of the outer shell. The contributions from the outer shell are zero due to Gauss's Law, as the electric field outside the shell is null. The confusion regarding the charge unit nC (nanoCoulomb) was clarified during the discussion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric potential and its calculation
  • Familiarity with Gauss's Law and Gaussian surfaces
  • Knowledge of the concept of conducting spheres and their properties
  • Basic proficiency in calculus for integrating electric fields
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Gauss's Law in electrostatics
  • Learn about electric potential and field calculations for spherical charge distributions
  • Explore the differences between conducting and non-conducting spherical shells
  • Practice problems involving electric potential and charge units, specifically nanoCoulombs
USEFUL FOR

Students studying electrostatics, physics educators, and anyone interested in understanding electric potential in conducting systems.

bmarvs04
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A conducting sphere 4.5 cm in radius carries 40 nC. It's surrounded by a concentric spherical conducting shell of radius 20 cm carrying -40 nC.

Find the potential at the sphere's surface, taking the zero of potential at infinity.

Homework Equations



Inside Sphere: V = Q / (4*pi*ε0*R)
Outside Sphere: V = Q / (4*pi*ε0*r)

The Attempt at a Solution



So I figured I would add these two potentials up, giving this:

V = 9*10^9 [ ( 4*10^-5 ) / .045 + ( -4*10^-5) /.2 ] = 6200000V
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no place where the distance from the center of the charges is .045 and .2, so your calc can't be right. Also, what the heck is a nC? NanoCoulomb?

I'm confused about this one - hope LowlyPion will help us out!
I'm picturing the "sphere" inside a "shell" (hollow sphere). Are we interested in the potential at the surface of the inner sphere?

Do you know about Gauss's Law and Gaussian surfaces?
Using that, I think the E field outside the outer shell is zero, so if we were to find V by integrating E from infinity into the surface of the inner sphere, there would be no contribution from the outer charge at all. Only the inner one need be considered and only from 20 cm to 4.5 cm.
 
Yes, nC is a nanoCoulomb, which is why my calculations were converted to Coulombs (4*10^-5). Also, I think what you're picture is correct.. and yes we are interested in the potential at the surface of the inner sphere.

Also, I probably should have said this earlier: my calculations were based off this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090120101033AAplj9b

Except in that example the spherical shell is non-conducting..
 
The site posted only the numerical answer to a different question - or did I miss something?
Check that charge. 40 nC = 40 x 10^-9 C = 4 x 10^-8 C.

No doubt there is an easier way, but using V = integral of E*dr I get
V = kQ*integral (dr/r^2) from 20 cm to 4.5 cm and Q is 40 nC of the inner charge only.
V = -kQ/r evaluated at the two radii
V = -kQ(1/.045 - 1/.2)
 
the guassian surfaces and field description sound good

so if the datum for the potential is zero at infinity, the potential will be zero at the boundary
of the shell

so how about you calculate the potential due to the sphere at the shell radius assuming there is no shell

similarly calculate the potential at the sphere surface due to the sphere assuming no shell

putting the shell in effectively shifts the potential at the shell to zero, so shift the potential at the sphere by the same amount
 
Ha! Good catch! that ended up being the problem.. The correct answer was 6200V.. I've been doing problems with microCoulombs so I must've gotten screwed up between the two.

Thanks a bunch

And by the way, your last line of work is correct.. When I wrote it in my first post I just factored out the Q
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
540
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
680
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K