Does Applying an Electrical Field to One Side of a Conductor Double the EMF?

AI Thread Summary
Applying an electrical field to one side of a conductor does not double the EMF; instead, it creates an EMF equal to the applied field. The discussion highlights the difference between conductors and semiconductors, emphasizing that conductors primarily involve electron movement without considering holes. While semiconductor theory introduces the concept of hole current, which can affect current calculations, this does not apply to standard conductors. The conversation clarifies that Ohm's law is applicable to conductors, where resistance remains constant and does not account for holes. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the EMF generated remains equal to the applied electrical field, not doubled.
Ozgen Eren
Messages
51
Reaction score
1
Assume a conductor in a rectangle shape for simplicity.

Now, if I only choose one side of this rectangle, and apply external electrical field ∑ only to it, what EMF would I create on the conductor? I would simply say ∑, however then I had the following idea, and I started to doubt if I create 2∑ instead.

Here is what bugs me:
(say ∑=I*R, kirchhoffs law: R is the conductors resistance, ∑ is the field we apply)
Since nucleus of atoms are almost stable, most current will be due to electron movement, accelerating due to the force of the electrical field. Then electrons will create a current I obviously.

However, there is this topic we covered in semiconductors class in university, that is called hole current. Since electrons move from one atom to other atom, the destination atom is should initially be positively charged to be able to get the atom. When electron completes its movement, destination atom is now neutral, but the source atom is positively charged.

Although only one electron moved physically, there is also a positively charged 'hole' moved in the opposite direction, which doubles the equivalent current, making it 2I. Then it means we had created 2∑ equivalent voltage on the semiconductor by applying only ∑ electrical field.

Do we have ∑ or 2∑ voltage as a result of this experiment?

Here is the wiki page for electron hole:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole

In here, its stated that we treat differently to metals and semiconductors, (we ignore holes in metals) which do not answer the question but adds another dimension to it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_carrier
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
V=IR ... here, V would be the potential difference along the conductor. This is Ohm's law, not Kirchoffs.
The electric field with the electric potential are different things.
If the same voltage gets a higher current, it means the resistance is lower.

You state at the start that the test material is a conductor... not a semiconductor.
Semiconductors don't have to obey Ohm's law.
Semicondictors are usually modeled with only one type of charge carrier ... also remember that a "hole" is the absence of an electron.

Note: where there is a minority charge carrier, you do need to account for it when figuring the current... so you'd get more current for the same voltage... which means the resistance is lower than it would be if only one carrier were present.
 
Last edited:
Simon Bridge said:
Semicondictors are usually modeled with only one type of charge carrier ... also remember that a "hole" is the absence of an electron..

I think you meant conductors here...not semiconductors. Semiconductors generally have two types of charge carriers, electrons and holes. Conductors generally have only electrons contributing to conduction.
 
Dont confuse the model with reality.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top