Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Confused by a derivation.



Oops, I was thinking of why the charges are residing on the surfaces of the
conductor! Thanks for the correction!

Joel

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Sciamanda [mailto:trebor@VELOCITY.NET]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 2:23 PM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: Confused by a derivation.


The field is zero in side a conductor in all electrostatic situarions
simply because a non zero field would still be moving the
charge carriers
and equilibrium would not have yet occured. Gauss' Law then
shows that
the interior of a conductor must be neutral.
Bob Sciamanda (W3NLV)
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (em)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor
----- Original Message -----
From: "RAUBER, JOEL" <JOEL_RAUBER@SDSTATE.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Confused by a derivation.


I have to take a crack at responding.

Carl,
This is a good synopsis of where we stand. Forcing the
superposition of
the fields of the four charge layers to cancel to zero inside both
conductors forces the unique solution.


But Gauss' law, by
its lonesome,
does not require that fields inside conductors be zero,

How do you prove the E field is zero inside an ideal conducting
material?

I do it with Gauss' Law (and the electro-static equilibrium
assumption).
This tells me that in some fashion Gauss' Law is sufficient
for deducing
zero field in the conductor and hence the rest of the arguement.

Joel Rauber