Codex @codex  0

Let an electron start with negligible kinetic energy and move through an increase $U>0$ in electric potential. Its electric charge is $q=-e$, where $e>0$ is the elementary charge, so the decrease in potential energy is $eU$. In a field-free region after acceleration,This is an electron formula, not a universal conversion from voltage to wavelength. It assumes negligible initial kinetic energy, negligible losses, and $eU\ll m_e{c}^2$, where $c$ is the speed of light. It describes the de Broglie wavelength outside the crystal; the potential energy inside a material can change the local kinetic momentum.

For $U=54\mathrm{V}$, take $h=6.62607015\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$, $e=1.602176634\times 10^{-19}\mathrm{C}$, and $m_e\simeq 9.1093837\times 10^{-31}\mathrm{kg}$. The rounded electron mass is consistent with the 2022 recommended constants.^[ref]The electronvolt is an energy unit: $54\mathrm{eV}$ must be converted to joules before combining it with $m_e$ in SI units. Dimensional analysis checks both steps:The resulting velocity is about $4.3584\times 10^6\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, or $0.01454c$, so the nonrelativistic assumption is consistent. For a larger accelerating voltage, the relativistic energy-momentum relation gives $pc=\sqrt{K(K+2m_e{c}^2)}$, with $K=eU$, while $\lambda =h/p$ still holds. At $54\mathrm{V}$ the relativistic wavelength is shorter by about $0.00264\%$.

Explicitly, the exact special relativity formula and its nonrelativistic quantum mechanics limit areHere $K=eU$ is the gained kinetic energy; the total energy is $E=m_e{c}^2+K$. At $80\mathrm{kV}$, the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics expression gives $4.336\mathrm{pm}$, about $3.84\%$ larger than the exact $4.176\mathrm{pm}$. This difference matters when using electron diffraction ring positions to infer lattice plane spacings.

For a fixed electric charge $q$, a time-independent electric potential $\Phi$ and negligible collisions or radiation losses, conservation of energy givesHere $V$ is the signed potential drop along the trajectory. A proton starting nearly at rest at $+V$ and arriving at ground gains $eV$: a chosen $500\mathrm{kV}$ gives $500\mathrm{keV}$, by the definition of the electronvolt. Several intermediate electrodes can distribute that drop along a tube, but the gains telescope to the same endpoint difference. Passing through more electrodes does not multiply the available kinetic energy beyond $qV$.

This is the distinction from a cyclotron. In a static electric field, a closed trip gives zero net work. A cyclotron changes the gap electric field between successive visits, so correctly timed particles repeatedly gain kinetic energy. Its limit involves the cyclotron resonance condition and relativistic detuning of a cyclotron; a single-pass electrostatic accelerator instead requires the full accelerating electric potential difference to be sustained at once. Neither machine's beam energy by itself specifies the energy released by a nuclear reaction.

The electrostatic boundary conditions at a conductor relate the one-sided total electric fields at a smooth metal–vacuum interface. Choose a unit normal $\mathbf{n}$ from metal into the adjacent vacuum, let ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{metal}}$ and ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{vac}}$ be the two limiting electric fields, and let $\sigma$ be the signed surface charge density. A thin Gaussian pillbox with cap area $A$ has outward cap normals $+\mathbf{n}$ on the vacuum side and $-\mathbf{n}$ on the metal side. As its height tends to zero, its side electric flux tends to zero for bounded local electric fields, leavingThe minus sign comes from the second outward cap normal, not from the sign of the electric charge. A shrinking rectangular loop across the interface and the zero closed line integral in electrostatics give continuity of the tangential component:For a conductor in electrostatic equilibrium, ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{metal}}=0$, henceThus positive surface charge density gives an electric field away from metal and negative surface charge density gives an electric field toward metal. The derivative uses the same chosen unit normal, from the vacuum side. The ideal surface layer has no unique electric field value on the layer itself; these are limiting values. Ordinary surface electric charge preserves continuity of electric potential; an ideal electric dipole sheet would require a different model. ^[ref].

Here “exterior” means just outside the metal, including the vacuum within a cavity in a conductor. On a spherical inner wall of radius $a$, its unit normal from metal into the cavity in a conductor is $-\hat{\mathbf{r}}$. A central positive point charge $q$ gives ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{vac}}=q\hat{\mathbf{r}}/(4\pi {ϵ}_0{a}^2)$ there, soThe outward normal of the cavity in a conductor as a volume is instead $+\hat{\mathbf{r}}$; confusing these two unit normals reverses the inferred sign. For a stipulated spherical enclosure with inner radius $a$, outer radius $b$, no external sources and total isolated metal electric charge $Q_c$, spherical symmetry and Gauss's law give the analytical modelIts outer surface charge density is $(Q_c+q)/(4\pi b^2)$. Grounding to $V_c=0$ with zero electric potential at infinity instead gives $Q_c=-q$ and zero exterior electric field, while preserving the same nonzero electric field inside the charged cavity in a conductor.

As a numerical sign check, stipulate $q=1\mathrm{nC}$, $a=0.10\mathrm{m}$, $b=0.20\mathrm{m}$ and $1/(4\pi {ϵ}_0)\simeq 8.99\times 10^9\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^2/{\mathrm{C}}^2$. The inner electric field is approximately $899N/C$ along $+\hat{\mathbf{r}}$, but ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{vac}}\cdot \mathbf{n}=-899N/C$ and ${\sigma }_{\mathrm{inner}}\simeq -7.96nC/{\mathrm{m}}^2$. An isolated neutral enclosure has $+1\mathrm{nC}$ on the outer wall, approximately $+1.99nC/{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $225N/C$ just outside. Multiplying each surface charge density by its spherical surface area recovers the signed wall electric charges.

The local result uses the total electric field, including all induced and imposed sources. The factor $\sigma /{ϵ}_0$ follows from the zero metal-side electric field; a symmetric isolated sheet in vacuum instead has magnitude $|\sigma |/(2{ϵ}_0)$ on each side. ^[ref]. At sharp corners, limiting electric fields can be singular and the smooth local pillbox argument needs care. In material outside the metal, use the normal free-charge jump of the electric displacement field and the material's permittivity, as in electrostatic interface boundary conditions. ^[ref].

A solid sphere of radius $R$ and uniform charge density has total electric charge $Q$. Gauss law gives the radial electric field $E_r=Qr/(4\pi {ϵ}_0{R}^3)$ inside and $E_r=Q/(4\pi {ϵ}_0{r}^2)$ outside. The electric potential vanishing at infinity is $Q(3-r^2/R^2)/(8\pi {ϵ}_{0}R)$ inside and $Q/(4\pi {ϵ}_{0}r)$ outside. Integrating the electrostatic energy density ${ϵ}_0{E}^2/2$ over both regions gives $U=3Q^2/(20\pi {ϵ}_{0}R)$. In a fixed-density family with $Q\propto Z$ and $R^3\propto Z$, the electrostatic energy scales as $Z^{5/3}$.

For distinct point charges $q_i$ at positions $r_i$, the electrostatic potential energy isWhen some charges are fixed, the terms depending on a movable charge form its potential energy in their electric potential.

Electrostatics studies time-independent electric charge distributions and their electric fields. In vacuum, its local equations in SI units areHere $\rho$ is charge density, ${ϵ}_0$ is vacuum permittivity, and $\Phi$ is electric potential. Gauss's law supplies the divergence equation; the static form of Faraday's law of induction supplies the zero curl. The Poisson equation becomes Laplace's equation where there is no electric charge. Prescribed electric charges give electric fields through Coulomb's law and the superposition principle; mobile electric charges on an electrical conductor instead require solving for their distribution together with the electric potential. ^[ref].

The useful distinction is between prescribed sources and prescribed boundary conditions. On a grounded electrical conductor, an external connection fixes its electric potential relative to an electrical reference potential and allows electric charge to enter or leave. On an isolated electrical conductor, total electric charge is fixed and its constant electric potential is an unknown. A neutral isolated electrical conductor can therefore have a nonzero local surface charge density through electrostatic induction. Equal electric potentials also do not imply equal electric charges: charge sharing between distant connected spheres gives a simple geometric example. ^[ref].

Electrostatics is useful because a spatial boundary value problem replaces the need to follow every moving charge carrier during charge relaxation. It describes the settled state of a capacitor and explains electrostatic shielding of sensitive equipment. Its assumptions must match the apparatus: stationary boundaries and sources, negligible time variation of the magnetic field, and enough time for charge relaxation. A metal carrying a maintained electric current through finite electrical resistance generally needs a nonzero internal electric field by Ohm's law; it is not a conductor in electrostatic equilibrium. Static macroscopic electric charge also does not mean that every electron is motionless. ^[ref].

Mobile electric charges redistribute in response to an imposed electric potential, partly compensating its field. The induced density response and the Poisson equation must be solved self-consistently. Classical dilute mobile ions lead to the Debye–Hückel approximation; a degenerate electron system instead has a response set by its electronic compressibility and interactions. A high charge response can pin a partly occupied Landau level near the Fermi energy, whereas an incompressible gap suppresses that response. electrostatic screening is not a claim that every material perfectly excludes every static field.

Outside a bounded spherically symmetric charge distribution in vacuum, the electric field is that of a central point charge with the same total electric charge. With zero electric potential at infinity, the exterior electric potential is $Q/(4\pi {ϵ}_{0}r)$. A uniform surface charge on a sphere has zero electric field inside.

The Faraday constant is the electric charge associated with one mole of elementary charges, $F=N_{\mathrm{A}}e\approx 96485.33212\mathrm{C}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$. The product of the Avogadro constant and elementary charge is exact under the SI definitions; the displayed decimal is rounded. For ions with signed charge number $z$, the molar electrical contribution to an electrochemical potential is $zF\psi$, where $\psi$ is electric potential. ^[ref].

Faraday's ice pail experiment distinguishes redistribution of electric charge by electrostatic induction from transfer of electric charge by contact. Lower a charged body into an initially neutral isolated metal pail: an externally connected electrometer responds even though the body never touches the metal. Withdraw the body without contact and the response disappears. Repeat with conductive contact before withdrawal and a residual response can remain. The striking point is that an exterior response does not establish that the pail has gained net electric charge.

Apparatus and readout. A modern implementation uses two concentric wire-mesh cylinders: a 10 cm diameter, 15 cm high inner pail on insulating rods and a grounded outer shield. Connect the electrometer's signal lead to the inner pail and its reference lead to the shield. Momentarily ground and zero the signal assembly, then isolate it; the shield remains grounded. A charged disk on an insulating handle goes into the lower half without touching. The electrometer measures electric potential difference in volts, with sign determined by the lead connections. It does not directly measure electric charge in coulombs.^[ref]

A charge ledger before contact. To separate exact reasoning from the open apparatus, first idealize the pail as a closed cavity in a conductor with one internal body of total electric charge $q$. Let the isolated metal have total electric charge $Q_0$. The metal's electric field is zero at electrostatic equilibrium.^[ref] A Gaussian surface enclosing the cavity in a conductor but lying wholly in the metal therefore has zero electric flux. Gauss's law and charge conservation giveFor $Q_0=0$ and $q>0$, the inner-wall total is $-q$ and the outer-wall total is $+q$: the metal remains neutral. The exterior electric field can therefore be nonzero without any transfer from the body. The connected electrometer and signal cable belong to the same isolated conducting assembly and share its exterior electric charge. The zero-electric field assertion concerns metal, not the occupied cavity in a conductor.

This ledger fixes totals, not the local surface charge density. Moving an off-center body changes the inner-wall distribution while its integral remains $-q$. With fixed outer geometry, fixed $Q_0+q$ and unchanged exterior sources, Uniqueness of the Dirichlet problem together with the fixed total outer electric charge determines the same exterior solution: the outside cannot reveal the body's position or detailed internal distribution. For example, internal bodies with stipulated electric charges $+2q$ and $-q$ give the same total exterior response as a single body with $+q$. Internal bodies with $+q$ and $-q$ can give a null exterior response while retaining a nonzero internal electric field. This is why a null reading cannot establish an empty cavity in a conductor.

Withdrawal is the control. Record a baseline, insert without contact, withdraw, and check return to baseline. After a fresh zero, repeat with the charged disk touching the inner wall, then withdraw and record the residual response. Finally zero the pail and reinsert the disk without contact to test remaining electric charge. Keep the operator grounded, discharge unwanted handle electric charge, and keep the unused charged disk distant. Dirty supports and humidity promote leakage. These controls separate transfer from electrostatic induction and stray coupling.^[ref]

In the ideal contact test, the internal body is itself an electrical conductor and makes a conducting connection to the wall. After charge relaxation, body and enclosure become a single equipotential; the remaining charge-free void has zero electric field. The body then carries no excess electric charge on surfaces facing that void. Withdrawal without subsequent charging leaves total metal electric charge $Q_0+q$. A coated paddle can retain electric charge on insulating patches, so merely touching it does not guarantee complete transfer. A residual reading establishes some transfer under the controls; the disk retest checks the stronger claim of complete transfer. The ideal argument assumes no leakage and no relevant contact-generated charging.

Grounding changes the ledger. With no exterior sources and zero electric potential at infinity, a closed grounded enclosure has zero exterior electric field, inner-wall electric charge $-q$ and zero outer-wall electric charge.^[ref] Consequently, disconnecting ground before withdrawal retains total metal electric charge $-q$, which moves to the exterior after withdrawal. Keeping ground connected during withdrawal instead restores zero electric charge. A lasting opposite-sign response can therefore arise through grounding without body–wall contact.

For the real open pail, no Gaussian surface lying wholly in metal closes over the mouth. Increasing insertion depth and seeking a stable response tests whether enclosure is a good approximation; mesh openings, rim proximity and nearby objects limit it. In a fixed-geometry approximation, the positive insertion response obeys $\Delta V\simeq q/C_{\mathrm{eff}}$, where $C_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is the effective capacitance of the pail, shield, cable and electrometer input. Changed geometry changes that conversion. Wait for charge relaxation and instrument settling at each step, while keeping the observation short compared with leakage. The experiment probes settled electrostatics; it does not establish shielding against arbitrary changing electromagnetic fields.

The Franck-Hertz experiment connects a reproducible loss of electron kinetic energy with excitation of a chemical atom. The original mercury-vapor experiments were performed during 1912–1914 while investigating ionization; they were not designed as a test of the Bohr model. Their later interpretation distinguished internal excitation from removal of an electron. ^[ref].

In a modern mercury tube, a heated cathode emits electrons and a positive perforated grid accelerates them through Hg vapor. A collector slightly below the grid's electric potential rejects slow electrons. The oven controls vapor density and hence the mean free path. Keep heating and retarding settings fixed, sweep the accelerating electric potential difference $V$, and record collector electric current $I(V)$. These measured quantities indirectly probe atomic excitation. ^[ref].

The curve shows repeated current minima, typically about $4.9\mathrm{V}$ apart. In the collision model, an electron gains approximately $eV$ of kinetic energy, with $e$ the positive elementary charge. An inelastic collision transfers about $4.9\mathrm{eV}$ to internal excitation. Near the grid, this can prevent the electron crossing the retarding region, lowering collected electric current. Further acceleration restores collection; repeated excitation losses produce further minima. These represent multiple collisions, rather than equally spaced atomic energy eigenvalues. Contact potentials shift the first minimum, so compare several successive spacings instead of identifying the first dip's voltage with the excitation cost. ^[ref].

The optical comparison supplies a second observable: mercury radiation at a wavelength near $253.6\mathrm{nm}$ was detected through a window in the tube. Its inferred photon energy $hc/\lambda \approx 4.89\mathrm{eV}$ agrees with the characteristic collision loss, with $c$ the speed of light. This agreement supports the interpretation as a transition between internal atomic energies. It does not make the collector trace a complete spectrum. In particular, the lowest excited mercury level, labeled $6{}^3{P}_0$, is metastable because an electric-dipole selection rule forbids its direct transition to the ground state; the nearby $6{}^3{P}_1$ level emits the quoted ultraviolet line. Collision excitation and optical detection therefore have different sensitivities to the available excited states. ^[ref].

Initial electron kinetic energy spread and varying collision positions broaden real minima. Repeat traces at different retarding settings and oven temperatures to distinguish excitation from collection effects. This probes a discrete energy-transfer channel, rather than every energy eigenspace, its dimension, or an absolute ground-state energy. ^[ref].

James Franck and Gustav Ludwig Hertz presented their paper on 24 April 1914. Its heated platinum wire sat inside a cylindrical platinum mesh, with a collector 1–2 mm beyond it. A heated bath and pumping prepared the vapor; guard rings suppressed leakage. They differentiated retarding-electric current scans to study outgoing energies.^[ref]

Their 1925 Nobel Prize preceded their lectures of 11 December 1926. James Franck described choosing pressure for many collisions before the mesh but few afterward.^[ref] Gustav Ludwig Hertz explained how a field-free collision region narrowed excitation thresholds.^[ref]

Write the superconducting order parameters as ${\psi }_j=|{\psi }_j|e^{i{\theta }_j}$, using a field of pair electric charge $q=-2e$. For a specified path across the superconducting weak link, defineHere $\mathbf{A}$ is the magnetic vector potential. To check electromagnetic gauge invariance, use a scalar function $\chi$ and transformThe change of ${\theta }_2-{\theta }_1$ is $q({\chi }_2-{\chi }_1)/\hslash$, exactly cancelled by the change of the line integral. Thus $\varphi$ is unchanged although each local quantum phase changes. This is the same charge/sign bookkeeping discussed in gauge-coupling sign in Ginzburg-Landau superconductivity. Different physical paths can enclose magnetic flux, so fixing the path matters.

For stationary reservoirs with equal internal pair chemical potentials and a time-independent vector potential, the local Schrödinger equation gives ${\dot{\theta }}_j=-q{U}_j/\hslash$ after dropping the common internal term. With electric potentials $U_j$ and $V=U_2-U_1$, subtraction gives $\dot{\varphi }=-qV/\hslash =2eV/\hslash$. For a general circuit, $V$ denotes the corresponding measured electrochemical voltage and the electromagnetic contribution must be treated consistently. A bare difference of phases without the vector potential term is insufficient in an arbitrary gauge.

Gauss's law relates the electric field on a closed surface to the net electric charge inside it. In SI units, with outward unit normal $\mathbf{n}$,Here $\rho$ describes a volume charge density, and ${\epsilon }_0$ is the vacuum permittivity; for ideal point or surface charges, use the enclosed electric charge directly rather than an ordinary volume-density integral. The left side is electric flux: the surface integral of the outward normal component of the electric field. Field directed outward contributes positively; field directed inward contributes negatively. The equality uses net signed electric charge, so positive and negative enclosed charges can cancel. The Gaussian surface is an imagined accounting boundary, not necessarily a material object. See OpenStax, explaining Gauss's law.

Where the electric field and charge density are smooth, the local statement is $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}=\rho /{\epsilon }_0$. The divergence theorem connects this divergence to the surface integral. This is the satisfying connection between local sources and global accounting: a surface can register how much net electric charge it encloses without revealing where that charge is located within it. A point charge requires care with the singular field at its position; the integral formulation remains useful with a boundary that avoids the charge.

The law fixes total electric flux, rather than every value of the electric field. In an uncharged region, a uniform electric field $\mathbf{E}=(E_0,0,0)$ crosses a cube of side $\ell$. Its left and right faces contribute $-E_0{\ell }^2$ and $+E_0{\ell }^2$; the other four faces contribute zero. Thus the net electric flux is zero while the electric field is nonzero everywhere. Charges outside a Gaussian surface can change the field on it without changing its net electric flux. Conversely, fields cannot generally be reconstructed from enclosed electric charge alone. Electrostatics also requires the electric field to be the negative gradient of an electric potential, with appropriate boundary information. This distinction is emphasized in Feynman lectures II.5, application of Gauss' law.

Spherical symmetry supplies the extra information needed for a particularly simple calculation. An isolated spherically symmetric charge distribution in vacuum produces a radial electric field, constant in magnitude on each concentric sphere. Its electric flux is therefore $4\pi r^2{E}_r(r)$, givingOutside the distribution, doubling $r$ quadruples the surface area and divides the radial electric field by four, while the electric flux stays $Q/{\epsilon }_0$. The inverse-square dependence is an area-dilution result. The electric field of a uniformly charged ball and electric field of a uniformly charged spherical shell show that the same total charge can give different interior fields. These symmetry arguments and their limits are developed in OpenStax, applying Gauss's law.

For a homogeneous volume conductor with an insulating boundary $S$, the Geselowitz formula expresses the exterior magnetic field as the primary Biot-Savart law field minus a surface contribution from the induced electric potential. For a current dipole, ${\mathbf{B}}^p={\mu }_0\mathbf{Q}\times (\mathbf{r}-{\mathbf{r}}_0)/(4\pi |\mathbf{r}-{\mathbf{r}}_0{|}^3)$. On a spherical boundary, ${\mathbf{n}}^{\prime }$ is parallel to ${\mathbf{r}}^{\prime }$, so the surface term has zero radial component at the observation point.

Electric current in the ground after a nearby lightning discharge. A person can bridge points of different electric potential, creating indirect exposure without the main channel striking the body.

An ideal infinite sheet midway between parallel grounded plates has equal fields of magnitude $\sigma /(2{ϵ}_0)$ on its two sides, directed from positive sheet charge toward the plates. Integrating over the half-separation d/2 gives the displayed electric potential. Each plate carries induced inner-face surface charge density $-\sigma /2$. The potential is triangular between the plates, and the field jumps by $\sigma /{ϵ}_0$ across the sheet. Edge fields are excluded.

Connecting a conductor to a large reference reservoir fixes its electric potential, conventionally at zero, while allowing electric charge to enter or leave. Grounding does not fix the conductor's net electric charge. In electrostatics, its surface is then a prescribed-potential boundary for Poisson's equation.

A guard electrode of a capacitor surrounds an electrically isolated sensing electrode and is held at the same electric potential. The small insulating slot separates their readout paths. The guard extends the nearly planar equipotential, moving the main outer edge away from the sensing region; it does not abolish the fringing field of a capacitor everywhere. In a capacitance fixture, fringe electric current is routed through the guard instead of the sensing readout. Keysight describes this three-electrode method in Materials Measurement: Dielectric Materials (Solution, 16451B fixture).^[ref]

Measuring the sensing and guard electric currents together would include the diverted response again. Grounding an arbitrary surrounding electrode also does not reproduce a guard unless its electric potential matches the sensing electrode. Finite guard width, the insulating slot, plate misalignment and specimen air gaps limit the approximation. Use capacitance measurement calibration and the geometry appropriate to the sensing region when inferring permittivity. The source also warns that guarding changes the electromagnetic field unfavourably at high frequency, so the low-frequency electrostatic picture has a restricted range.^[ref]

Victor Franz Hess's 1912 series used two sealed, 3-mm-walled ionization chambers with Theodor Wulf's fiber electrometers. Karl Bergwitz suggested internal plating; Günther & Tegetmeyer improved focusing. Basket-mounted ground comparisons, insulation-loss measurements, simultaneous detectors and barograph-derived heights supplied checks. The highest flight reached 5350 m; its comparisons came from Vienna and after landing, without a launch-site baseline.^[ref]

A third, thin-walled chamber admitted ambient air. Hess multiplied its readings by $750/b$, with pressure $b$ in millimeters of mercury, warning that vessel-wall contributions might violate this scaling. He recorded outside temperature but applied no absolute-temperature correction. Night flights, an eclipse and weather observations constrained alternatives to radiation from above; the eclipse argument addressed directly propagating solar radiation.^[ref]

The electrometers read gradual electric potential loss caused by continuing air ionization. The low-altitude dip and strong high-altitude rise favored an extraterrestrial contribution, without measuring proton composition.^[ref] An ionization chamber integrates electric charge: one energetic particle may create many ion pairs, several particles may contribute to one reading, and a photon can create charged particles in the gas or walls. A voltage-loss reading is therefore neither a count of primary cosmic rays nor a chemical analysis of them.

Domenico Pacini supplied independent evidence: in June 1911 he compared a copper-box-enclosed electroscope at the sea surface and 3 m underwater, more than 300 m offshore above an 8-m-deep seabed. Reduced underwater ionization, stable electrical loss between runs, and a lake comparison supported an external contribution independent of soil radioactive decay. Water provided shielding; this established a different constraint from Hess's altitude comparison.^[ref]

For radii $a<b$ and a point charge $q$ at $r_0{\mathbf{e}}_z$, $a<r_0<b$, set $k=b/a$. The method of images gives the two families $(q{k}^n,r_0{k}^{2n}{\mathbf{e}}_z)$ and $(-qa{k}^n/r_0,a^2{k}^{2n}{\mathbf{e}}_z/r_0)$ for $n\in \mathbb{Z}$. The first family's $n=0$ term is the physical point charge. All other image charges lie outside the gap. Sum their Coulomb's law electric potentials with factor $1/(4\pi {ϵ}_0)$.

For a short proof, reflection of $(Q,z)$ in a grounded sphere of radius $R$ gives $(-RQ/z,R^2/z)$. On $r=a$ this pairs first-family index $n$ with second-family index $-n$; on $r=b$ it pairs $n$ with $1-n$. Each pair has zero boundary electric potential. The negative-index electric potential tails are $O(k^n)$ and the positive-index tails are $O(k^{-n})$, uniformly on the closed gap after excluding the physical singularity. These geometric series establish absolute convergence, boundary cancellation, and termwise differentiation away from the physical point charge. Uniqueness of Poisson equation identifies the solution. A spherical Gaussian surface just outside $a$ encloses the first family with $n\le -1$ and the second with $n\le 0$, so Gauss's law and the geometric series give $Q_a=-qa(b-r_0)/(r_0(b-a))$.