Circuit with potential difference across battery being zero?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the behavior of a circuit with two batteries, where the potential difference across one battery can become zero under certain conditions. Using Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL), the current is calculated based on the electromotive forces (emfs) of the batteries and the resistance in the circuit. When the current flows counterclockwise, it can reduce the emf of the first battery, potentially leading to a scenario where its emf approaches zero. The internal resistance of the battery plays a crucial role in limiting the current and maintaining a non-zero potential difference across the terminals. The outcome depends on the specific battery chemistry, particularly for rechargeable batteries, which can adjust their emf in response to the current flow.
zenterix
Messages
774
Reaction score
84
Homework Statement
Can one construct a circuit such that the potential difference across the terminals of a battery is zero?
Relevant Equations
The first circuit I thought about was something like the following
1708367087570.png


Using KVL we have ##\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2+iR=0##.

It seems that ##\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2##, and ##R## are given and the only variable is ##i##.

Thus, ##i=\frac{\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1}{R}## for the KVL equation to be true.

However, it seems like when we think about what happens to this circuit in time, ##\epsilon_1## seems to be a variable as well.

Suppose ##\epsilon_2>\epsilon_1##. Then current flows counterclockwise. It seems that this current would undo the chemical reactions inside of battery 1 and reduce its electromotive force.

The more ##\epsilon_1## decreases, the higher the current. Does this mean the reduction of ##\epsilon_1## speeds up as the process occurs?

How long would this happen for?

I imagine that zero is the lowest that ##\epsilon_1## can go, since when this happens battery 1 is acting like a short and ##i=\frac{\epsilon_2}{R}##.

Actually, the first circuit I thought of didn't have the resistor ##R## in it.

##R## can be thought of as an internal resistance of battery 1.

If this resistance were not there (and I guess this is not a realistic scenario), then my guess is that the emf of battery 1 would go to zero instantly and the flow of current would be, well, infinity.

But the resistance is there, and after ##\epsilon_1## goes to zero, ##R## represents the resistance of the current flowing through that battery. There is, however, a difference of potential across the resistor.

Since we are thinking of this resistance as actually being part of the battery, then it seems that what happens is that in the end, the difference of potential across battery 1 (including the resistance) actually stays the same at ##\epsilon_2##, but now the entire potential difference is across the resistor.

I'm not sure what to make of this last statement yet.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As I think you understand, the circuit will require a very stout coppr bar and a "perfact" battery would supply very large current. As you rightly suspect this will be limited by the reaction rates in the battery (modeled as an interrnal resistance of the battery)
 
hutchphd said:
As you rightly suspect this will be limited by the reaction rates in the battery (modeled as an interrnal resistance of the battery)
Would that not be a resistance inside the battery, not a short, which means non-zero potential difference across the battery terminals?
 
zenterix said:
Homework Statement: Can one construct a circuit such that the potential difference across the terminals of a battery is zero?
Relevant Equations: The first circuit I thought about was something like the following

Suppose ϵ2>ϵ1. Then current flows counterclockwise. It seems that this current would undo the chemical reactions inside of battery 1 and reduce its electromotive force.
I don't know why you think this will happen? This depends on the exact battery chemistry, but at least with rechargeable batteries, this will charge the battery with the lower electromotive force, and it will raise its emf until the emfs of the batteries are the same. If R is large enough, this won't set anything on fire.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
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