Stuck on surface change density problem.

In summary: E-field at the surface of the sphere.In summary, a spherical conductor of radius .438m has a potential of .876m from the center. The surface charge density is 1.822*10^-13 C/m^2.
  • #1
NINHARDCOREFAN
118
0
Stuck on surface charge density problem.

Calculate the surface charge density for a solid spherical conductor of radius .438m if the potential is .876m from the center of the sphere is 1.87kV. Answer in units of C/m^2

Ok I did this:
V= Kq/r
q= V*r/k
q= 1.87e-3*.876/8.99e9
q= 1.822e-13

E= kq/r^2
E= 8.99e9*1.88e-13/.438^2
E= 8.809e-3

SCD= 2*epsilon*E
SCD= 1.559e-13

But it's wrong.

The only thing I'm not sure about is the Electric field.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I am learning this material right now, but here goes a stab:

I think you calculated the total charge of the sphere correctly.
Assuming that q=1.822*10^-13, I think the next step is to simply divide this by the area of the sphere:
SCD=Q/A
SCD=1.822*10^-13 (C)/ 4*pi*r^2
SCD=1.822*10^-13 (C)/ 4*pi*(.438m)^2
SCD=1.822*10^-13 (C)/ 4*pi*(.191844m^2)
SCD=7.55*10^-14 (C/m^2)

I hope that is the answer. If not, I would really like someone else to let us know where our errors are. I am learning this material too, but figured I would give it a try.

Thanks.
 
  • #3
Your radial distance in your potential equation is incorrect. Also, why are you trying to find the E-field at the surface of the sphere? That is going to be ill-defined. Listen to paul he has the correct method. Also 1.87 kV = 1.87e+3 V not to e-3.
Good luck.
 
  • #4
...

I am learning this material right now, but here goes a stab:

I think you calculated the total charge of the sphere correctly.
Assuming that q=1.822*10^-13, I think the next step is to simply divide this by the area of the sphere:
SCD=Q/A
SCD=1.822*10^-13 (C)/ 4*pi*r^2
SCD=1.822*10^-13 (C)/ 4*pi*(.438m)^2
SCD=1.822*10^-13 (C)/ 4*pi*(.191844m^2)
SCD=7.55*10^-14 (C/m^2)

I hope that is the answer. If not, I would really like someone else to let us know where our errors are. I am learning this material too, but figured I would give it a try.

Thanks.
Forgot to tell that I also tried that. Thanks for trying though.

Your radial distance in your potential equation is incorrect. Also, why are you trying to find the E-field at the surface of the sphere? That is going to be ill-defined. Listen to paul he has the correct method. Also 1.87 kV = 1.87e+3 V not to e-3.
Good luck
When using V in calculations, it should be in V not KV so that's why it's 1.87e-3
 
  • #5
At the risk of sounding dumb, what should his radius be in the potential equation?
 
  • #6
At the risk of sounding dumb, what should his radius be in the potential equation?

radius .438m if the potential is .876m
.876m because it's telling the potential from that distance. You did the same calculations as I did.
 
  • #7
Since you seem to know E JUST outside the conductor, I found in my text where:

E=SCD/epsilon

So can we use this rearranged to solve for SCD?
 
  • #8
I did that, it's in the first post but it's wrong I don't know why

SCD= 2*epsilon*E
SCD= 1.559e-13
 
  • #9
Right, I should have realized before I posted that is where the 2*epsilon*E came from. I guess I thought I was onto something and got excited. Should have ran the numbers first.

Does you book have an answer for this problem? Maybe we can back into it?
 
  • #10
This is an online howework question. Answers aren't posted until after the due date.
 
  • #11
2*epsilon*E

Where does the 2 come from?
 
  • #12
I am calling it a night. I will pick up with this one in the morning. Hopefully I will be a little sharper.
 
  • #13
Never mind my friend did it for me, he got 7.558366e-8 and it's right
 
  • #14
Can you let me know how he got that? I am curious now.
 
  • #15
Q = ( bigR * V ) / K

then Q / a
a = 4pi small r ^2

V= 1870

that's where we went wrong
 

FAQ: Stuck on surface change density problem.

What is the concept of "stuck on surface change density problem"?

The "stuck on surface change density problem" is a phenomenon where a substance becomes immobilized on the surface of a material, causing changes in its density. This can occur due to various factors such as adhesion, surface tension, and intermolecular forces.

How does this problem affect scientific experiments?

This issue can significantly impact the accuracy and reproducibility of scientific experiments. It can alter the properties and behavior of the substance being studied, leading to incorrect results and conclusions.

What are some common materials that are prone to this problem?

Materials with high surface energy, such as glass, metals, and certain polymers, are more susceptible to the "stuck on surface change density problem." This is because they have a stronger tendency to attract and trap substances on their surface.

How can scientists prevent or mitigate this issue?

One way to prevent this problem is by using surface modifications or coatings that reduce the surface energy of the material. This can make it less likely for substances to stick and change the density. Additionally, careful control and manipulation of experimental conditions can also help mitigate this issue.

Can this problem occur in natural environments?

Yes, the "stuck on surface change density problem" can occur in natural environments as well. For example, pollutants and contaminants can become trapped on the surface of soil particles, affecting their density and properties. Understanding and addressing this issue is crucial in environmental studies and remediation efforts.

Similar threads

Back
Top