Clarification about the sign of EMF in batteries and electrochemistry

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between electromotive force (EMF) and cell potential in electrochemistry, particularly how these concepts apply during the charging and discharging of batteries. Participants explore the definitions and implications of EMF and cell potential, questioning the consistency of their signs and values in different contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines the cell potential as ##E_{cell} = E_{cat} - E_{an}## and discusses its implications for spontaneous and non-spontaneous reactions.
  • Another participant presents the integral definition of EMF, questioning whether ##\varepsilon## always equals ##E_{cell}## or if it represents its magnitude, highlighting a potential inconsistency in the sign of EMF during charging.
  • There is a discussion about the direction of the electric field vector during discharge, with one participant suggesting that if the cathode is at a higher potential, the electric field should point from the cathode to the anode, leading to a negative dot product in the integral.
  • A later reply acknowledges the need for a negative sign in the relationship between electric field and potential gradient.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between EMF and cell potential, particularly regarding their signs and the implications during charging and discharging. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing interpretations present.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and assumptions related to EMF and cell potential, particularly in the context of charging versus discharging batteries. The discussion highlights the complexity of these concepts without reaching a consensus.

etotheipi
In electrochemistry, we define ##E_{cell} = E_{cat} - E_{an}##, the difference between the electrode potentials of the cathode and the anode. This has the effect that if the reaction is spontaneous, we obtain a positive ##E_{cell}## and if it is not - i.e. we need an external driving voltage source in order to fix one as the cathode and the other as the anode - ##E_{cell}## comes out as negative. This is fine, since if we are driving a cell "backward" then the half cell at lower potential is in this case fixed as the cathode, and the change in potential going from the anode to the cathode (as is the definition of ##E_{cell}##) is negative.

In a Physical sense, the EMF from point A to point B is given by
$$\varepsilon = -\int_{A}^{B} {\vec{E}} \cdot d\vec{l}$$
With this said, I'm slightly confused as to how ##\varepsilon## relates to ##E_{cell}##. If it is always the case that ##\varepsilon = E_{cell}##, then the implication is that the integral is always from the anode to the cathode (again this would be fine, but I haven't been able to find a reference that says this!).

The problem is that most of the time (in Physics anyway) ##\varepsilon## is given as a positive value even when the cell is being driven backward/charged - which doesn't seem consistent with the electrochemical definition of ##\varepsilon##.

So I was wondering if somebody could clarify whether ##\varepsilon## does indeed always equal ##E_{cell}##, or whether it represents the magnitude of ##E_{cell}##. Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chemistry news on Phys.org
During discharge
V_{cell}=\phi_{cat}-\phi_{an}=\int_a^c \mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{dl}>0
For circuits of no EM induction
\oint \mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{dl}=0
V_{cell}=\int_a^c \mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{dl}=-\int_c^a\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{dl}
If you think of more complicated case of EM induction, EMF and battery ##\phi_{cell}## work additionary on the circuit.
 
Last edited:
mitochan said:
During discharge
V_{cell}=\phi_{cat}-\phi_{an}=\int_a^c \mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{dl}>0

Thanks for your reply; though if the cathode is at higher potential during discharge, then shouldn’t the electric field vector point from the cathode to the anode? In which case ##\vec{E}## and ##d\vec{l}## are in opposite directions so their dot product is negative, and we would instead require a negative sign out the front?
 
Ah, you are right.
\mathbf{E}=-\nabla \phi
minus sign.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K