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.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top