What is the formula for the charge of a charged soap bubble?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The charge of a soap bubble with a radius of 0.1 mm and a wall thickness of 3.3 x 10-8 m, charged to a potential of 100 V, can be calculated using the formula Q = CV, where C is the capacitance of the bubble. The capacitance for a spherical shell is given by C = 4πε0R, where R is the outer radius. In this case, the outer radius is effectively 0.1 mm since the wall thickness is negligible compared to the radius. Therefore, the charge can be derived as Q = 4πε0(0.1 x 10-3) * 100.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electrostatics and capacitance
  • Familiarity with the formula for electric potential
  • Knowledge of spherical geometry in physics
  • Basic algebra for rearranging equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of the capacitance formula for spherical shells
  • Learn about the significance of wall thickness in charged objects
  • Explore the concept of electric potential and its applications in electrostatics
  • Investigate real-world applications of charged bubbles in physics experiments
USEFUL FOR

Students studying electrostatics, physics enthusiasts, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of charge distribution in spherical objects.

Pandabasher
Messages
10
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A soap bubble of radius 0.1mm has a wall thickness of 3.3x10^-8m, and is charged to a potential of 100V. Give a formula for the charge of the bubble.

I know this is probably a really easy question, but I've only ever done problems with spheres of negligible wall thickness, so not sure if the wall makes a difference.
I know the equation for potential, so I could just rearrange that to get get Q.

Any help is appreciated, cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Some malicious profs have a tendency to give you irrelevant data. Did you know that? :biggrin:

Real question is: what is the outside radius? Is it 0.1mm or 0.1mm + 3.3e-8m? The problem as stated doesn't say, but you'll have to make an assumption. Of course, 3.3e-8 << 1e-4.
 
I think the point is that the thickness IS negligible as you say, so I've been trolled by Professor after all, haha. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K