Gauss's Law and Superposition of Fields

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on applying Gauss's Law to calculate the electric fields generated by a charged shape and a negatively charged sphere. The charge density is derived as 6Q/(7πR^3), leading to a total charge of 8/7Q for the filled sphere. The electric field at the surface of this sphere is calculated to be 2/(7πε₀R²). For the negatively charged sphere, the charge is determined to be -Q/7, resulting in an electric field of -Q/(7πε₀R²). The final electric field at point P is the sum of both fields, with a correction noted regarding a factor of 4 in the answer.
gadje
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Gauss's Law and Superposition of Fields (edited again, something else wrong)

Homework Statement


attachment.php?attachmentid=25861&stc=1&d=1274275158.png


Right. The shape itself has charge Q, so it has charge density \frac{Q}{\frac{4}{3} \pi R^3 - \frac{4}{3} \pi (\frac{R}{2})^3} = \frac{6Q}{7\pi R^3} Let's call this \rho. If it were filled in entirely, then, it would have charge:

Q + \rho V = Q + \frac{6Q}{7\pi R^3}\cdot \frac{4}{3}\pi\left(\frac{R}{2}\right)^3 = \frac{8}{7} Q. (V being the volume of the small sphere.)

By Gauss's Law, the field at the surface of this filled sphere would be:

E = \frac{\frac{8}{7}Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 R^2} = \frac{2}{7 \pi \epsilon_0 R^2}

Considering now the smaller, negatively charged sphere, this would be carrying a charge of

-\rho V = -\frac{6Q}{7\pi R^3} \cdot \frac{4}{3}\pi \left(\frac{R}{2}\right)^3 = -\frac{Q}{7}.

The electric field at its surface would then be \frac{\frac{-Q}{7}}{4 \pi \epsilon (\frac{R}{2})^2} = -\frac{Q}{7 \pi \epsilon _0 R^2}.

The electric field at P of the shape, then, is the sum of the individual fields of the filled sphere and the negatively charged sphere - I don't get the answer I'm meant to, and I can't see what I've done wrong. It's probably something really stupid.
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-05-19 at 14.18.16.png
    Screen shot 2010-05-19 at 14.18.16.png
    36.5 KB · Views: 2,363
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You have the correct answer. Note that (2/7) + (-1/7) = 1/7, which is the answer you are meant to get.


Oh, by the way, note that the answer you are meant to get has a 4 in the numerator and in the denominator, so multiply and divide your answer by 4. :wink:
 
Oh yeah. I didn't notice that 4 in the denominator. Knew it was something stupid! Cheers.
 
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Back
Top