Problem regarding induction and Gauss' Theorem

In summary, there are three concentric thin spherical shells A, B, and C with radii a, b, and c respectively. The shells A and C have charges q and -q respectively, while the shell B is earthed. Using Gauss' Theorem and Induction charging, the charges appearing on the surfaces of shells B and C can be found. The potential at the surface of shell B is zero, so the net charge on it is -Q on the inner surface and +Q on the outer surface. This charge induces an additional charge of -(Q+q) on the inner surface of shell C and Q+q on the outer surface. The net potential on shell B is 0, therefore k(Q+q
  • #1
sankalpmittal
785
26

Homework Statement



There are three concentric thin spherical shells A,B and C of radii a,b and c respectively. The shells A and C are given charges q and -q respectively and the shell B is earthed. Find the charges appearing on the surfaces of B and C.

Homework Equations



Gauss' Theorem and Induction charging.

The Attempt at a Solution



I know I will have to show an attempt. But here is the thing which hinders by attempt :

If the shell B is earthed then the net potential at its surface should be zero. Then how does this question expect me to evaluate for the net charge at shell B ? I cannot understand. Please clear this up. Then I will be happy to show my effort to solve further.

Thanks in advance... :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You can assign zero potential at any place. It does not influence the charge.

ehild
 
  • #3
ehild said:
You can assign zero potential at any place. It does not influence the charge.

ehild

I know its up to the user to choose an arbitrary point as zero potential. By convention and mere logic the point in vicinity of charge is defined to be zero potential.

But the potential of Earth is always zero. If a shell is earthed, its potential can only be zero when the charges on the shell are neutralized by conduction. I can not understand.. :confused:
 
  • #4
sankalpmittal said:
I know its up to the user to choose an arbitrary point as zero potential. By convention and mere logic the point in vicinity of charge is defined to be zero potential.
No, that is not true. Think of a point charge. We say, the potential is kQ/r at distance r from is. Where is that potential zero?

sankalpmittal said:
But the potential of Earth is always zero. If a shell is earthed, its potential can only be zero when the charges on the shell are neutralized by conduction. I can not understand.. :confused:

A conducting plate or sphere connected to the Earth is at zero potential, but that does not mean it is not charged. Think of a parallel plate capacitor. One plate earthed, the other is given some charge. The earthed plate becomes oppositely charged, as the electric field of the charged plate repels like charges from it into the ground and attracts opposite charges from the ground on it.


ehild
 
  • #5
ehild said:
No, that is not true. Think of a point charge. We say, the potential is kQ/r at distance r from is. Where is that potential zero?

Seems like a replied hastily and thus misused the vocabulary by inserting the word "vicinity" here. :redface: Apologies on my part. I meant that a point, infinitely far from the influence of any other charge is defined to be the point of zero potential, by convention.

A conducting plate or sphere connected to the Earth is at zero potential, but that does not mean it is not charged. Think of a parallel plate capacitor. One plate earthed, the other is given some charge. The earthed plate becomes oppositely charged, as the electric field of the charged plate repels like charges from it into the ground and attracts opposite charges from the ground on it.


ehild

Ok got the concept. But I am feeling troubled as to how to begin this problem. "A" shell being +q charged induces -q charge on inner surface of shell B and +q charge on outer surface of the same shell B. Correct till now ?
 
  • #6
sankalpmittal said:
Seems like a replied hastily and thus misused the vocabulary by inserting the word "vicinity" here. :redface: Apologies on my part. I meant that a point, infinitely far from the influence of any other charge is defined to be the point of zero potential, by convention.

For an isolated charged object the zero potential is in infinity, but you can put an earthed object close and then the potential is zero there.

sankalpmittal said:
Ok got the concept. But I am feeling troubled as to how to begin this problem. "A" shell being +q charged induces -q charge on inner surface of shell B and +q charge on outer surface of the same shell B. Correct till now ?

It is correct that the q charge of shell A induces -q charge on the inner surface of shell B. But B is grounded, and can suck up charges from the earth. You do not know what charge is on the outer surface of B. Let it be Q. Then -Q charge is on the inner surface of C - what is on the outer surface? And then, what is the potential of C? The potential has to be zero at infinity, and also on the shell B.

ehild
 
  • #7
sankalpmittal said:
Seems like a replied hastily and thus misused the vocabulary by inserting the word "vicinity" here. :redface: Apologies on my part. I meant that a point, infinitely far from the influence of any other charge is defined to be the point of zero potential, by convention.


Sometimes the potential at infinity cannot be zero. For example, the potential of an infinitely long wire cannot be zero at infinity since it requires an infinite amount of work to bring a point charge from infinity to any point a finite distance from the wire.

In this case you can still define zero potential at any finite distance from the wire and then speak of the potential at any other point a finite distance from the wire.
 
  • #8
Ok, so let the final charge on shell B be -Q on inner surface and +Q on outer surface. Inner shell also induces charge q, so that inner surface of B now have charge -(Q+q) and outer surface has a charge of Q+q. Now the shell B again induces charge of -(Q+q) on inner surface of shell C and Q+q on outer surface of shell C.

Now since shell B is earthed, the net potential on it is 0. So, k(Q+q)/b -k(Q+q)/c=0

:confused:
 
  • #9
Remember, the electric field emerge from charges and end in charges (or infinity).
Assume a<b<c, shell A is inside, C is outside and B is in between.

Shell A has charge q, that entirely appears on its surface. That means q/ε electric field lines between shells A and B, according to Gauss' Law. These end on the surface charges on the inner surface of B, which means -q surface charge there.

As B is grounded, it can have any charge. Assume that the surface charge on the outer surface is Q. Gauss' Law says that that the number of the electric field lines between B and C is Q/ε. These must end on the negative charges on the inner surface of C: The surface charge on the inner surface is -Q. The total charge of C is -q, the charge is shared among the inner and outer surfaces, so there is Q-q surface charge outside.

The potential is zero in infinity and on shell B. You need to write up the potential difference between C and infinity and between C and B , in terms of q and Q and the radii b and c. That gives two expressions for the potential of C. Equating them, you get the charge Q.

ehild
 

Attachments

  • threeshellcap.JPG
    threeshellcap.JPG
    13.8 KB · Views: 394
  • #10
ehild said:
Remember, the electric field emerge from charges and end in charges (or infinity).
Assume a<b<c, shell A is inside, C is outside and B is in between.

Shell A has charge q, that entirely appears on its surface. That means q/ε electric field lines between shells A and B, according to Gauss' Law. These end on the surface charges on the inner surface of B, which means -q surface charge there.

As B is grounded, it can have any charge. Assume that the surface charge on the outer surface is Q. Gauss' Law says that that the number of the electric field lines between B and C is Q/ε. These must end on the negative charges on the inner surface of C: The surface charge on the inner surface is -Q. The total charge of C is -q, the charge is shared among the inner and outer surfaces, so there is Q-q surface charge outside.

The potential is zero in infinity and on shell B. You need to write up the potential difference between C and infinity and between C and B , in terms of q and Q and the radii b and c. That gives two expressions for the potential of C. Equating them, you get the charge Q.

ehild

Thanks for the explanation ehild ! :smile:

I got the correct answer !

BTW, thanks to "rude man" too.
 
  • #11
sankalpmittal said:
I got the correct answer !


Congratulation!:smile:

ehild
 

FAQ: Problem regarding induction and Gauss' Theorem

What is induction and how does it relate to Gauss' Theorem?

Induction is a mathematical method used to prove statements for all values of a variable by first proving it for a base case and then showing that if it is true for a certain value, it is also true for the next value. Gauss' Theorem, also known as the divergence theorem, is a fundamental theorem in vector calculus that relates the flux of a vector field through a closed surface to the divergence of the field within the enclosed volume.

Why is Gauss' Theorem important in physics and engineering?

Gauss' Theorem is important in physics and engineering because it allows for the conversion of a difficult surface integral into a much simpler volume integral. This simplifies many problems in electromagnetism, fluid mechanics, and other fields, making it a powerful tool for solving real-world problems.

Can you explain the difference between strong and weak forms of induction?

Strong induction is a variation of induction that allows for the use of multiple base cases, while weak induction only uses one base case. In strong induction, the inductive step assumes the truth of all previous cases, while in weak induction, the inductive step only assumes the truth of the previous case.

What are some potential limitations or challenges with using induction to prove statements?

One limitation of induction is that it can only be used to prove statements that are true for all natural numbers. It is also not always straightforward to determine the base case and inductive step for a given problem. Additionally, there are some statements that cannot be proven using induction, such as the statement "all sets are countable."

How is induction used in other areas of science and mathematics?

Induction is a widely used method in many branches of mathematics and science. In computer science, it is used to prove statements about algorithms and data structures. In logic, it is used to prove statements about sets and functions. It is also used in number theory, combinatorics, and other areas of mathematics. In science, induction is used to make predictions and draw conclusions based on observed patterns in data.

Similar threads

Back
Top