Why my school method doesnt work

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating electric potential between two spheres, specifically addressing the potential between an inner sphere and an outer sphere. Participants are examining the method of integrating to find the potential and questioning the assumptions made regarding reference points for potential.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring different methods to calculate electric potential, questioning the use of reference points for potential, and discussing the legality of integration techniques. There is a focus on the relationship between the potentials of the inner and outer spheres.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing guidance on integration and potential reference points. There are multiple interpretations of the problem and attempts to clarify misunderstandings, but no consensus has been reached regarding the correct approach or solution.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the information shared and the methods discussed. There is an emphasis on ensuring that potential is defined relative to a specific reference point, such as infinity.

transgalactic
Messages
1,386
Reaction score
0
the question is :
http://i39.tinypic.com/ll89s.gif

the solution is here:
http://i39.tinypic.com/bej341.gif

my question is about part b when calculating the potential between r_1 and r_2:
r1<r<r2
we take the potential from the outer sphere (-150)
which is constant inside of it,and we sum with the potential from the inner sphere
which changes by r.

so its -150+( 9*10^9 *10* 10^-9)/r

they get a different expression in another way

my question is,where is my mistake in my way of solving?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The mistake is that you haven't used "with V= 0 at r= \infty".

Any potential is "relative" to some base value. If you take V= 0 at \infty
you will should find that the constant potential inside r_2 is 0.
 
i did take it that way.
and the potential in r1<r<r2
is not zero
the answer in the book doesn't say that too??
 
i can't understand how i didnt use that the potential in infinity is 0
what part of my solution says other wise?
 
and its not legat lo put the integration variable in the interval

??
 
transgalactic said:
and its not legat lo put the integration variable in the interval

??
Sure it's legal. It just isn't done very much. When you say that something isn't legal, you'll be taken more seriously if you cite a reason for your assertion.

I think what you're having a problem with is this integral:
\int_{r_1}^r \frac{89.9}{r^2}dr<br />
To evaluate this definite integral, find the antiderivative of the integrand (which will be a function of r), and then evaluate this antiderivative at r (which involves exactly zero work), and then subtract its value at r1, which is 30 cm. What they're doing is finding the potential at a distance r, where r1 < r < r2.
 
so its -150+( 9*10^9 *10* 10^-9)/r
simplify!
 
-150+ 90/r

and they have

-450+ 90/r

??
 
  • #10
When you integrated, did you put in r1 (which is 30 cm)? I can see from the answer you posted how they got their answer. You didn't show how you got your result, so I have to guess at what you might have done wrong.
 
  • #11
but i am using a totally different method
 
  • #12
And we don't know what method you are using because you have refused to show what you have done! How can we possibly say what, if anything, you are doing wrong when you don't show what you have done?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K