Electric field of a current carrying conductor along its sur

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the existence of an electric field along the surface of a cylindrical current-carrying conductor with radius r, length L, current I, and resistance R. The participant initially considers Gauss's Law but realizes that zero electric flux does not necessarily indicate a zero electric field. They conclude that a non-zero electric field must exist along the surface due to the presence of current and resistance, which creates a friction force opposing the motion of charged particles. The argument is supported by analyzing potential differences along different paths, confirming that the electric field along the surface is indeed non-zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gauss's Law in electrostatics
  • Familiarity with electric fields and potential differences
  • Knowledge of current, resistance, and their relationship in conductors
  • Concept of conservative and non-conservative electric fields
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Gauss's Law in different geometries, particularly cylindrical conductors
  • Explore the relationship between electric fields and potential differences in conductive materials
  • Investigate the effects of time-varying currents on electric fields
  • Learn about the behavior of electric fields in non-conservative systems
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, electrical engineers, and anyone interested in the principles of electromagnetism, particularly in understanding electric fields in conductors.

fab123

Homework Statement


I am trying to figur out whether there is or isn t an Electric Field along the surface of a cylindrical current carrying wire With radius r and length L, current I and resistance R. I was trying to see if someone already asked this and i found one discussion, however where a Clear answer wasn't given, so i thought i d asked the same question (and something concering the question that confuses me).

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I first thought about using Gauss Law. Since the net charge of the current element would be zero, I d get that the flux through a surface of the same shape as the current element would be zero. Concluding that the E Field has to be zero along the surface would be false since zero flux doesn t imply e Field Equal to zero which got me thinking about how one would argue for that the e Field inside a conducting symmetric sphere With excess charge q, is zero by using gauss Law where one takes a concentric sphere With radius less than the actual sphere as a surface such that the enclosed charge would be zero. I remember that we did exactly this in class but thinking about using the same approach on a dipole would give a wrong result. For a dipole we have two point charges, q and -q apart a distance d. taking a closed surface enclosing both charges, we d get that the enclosed charge Equals zero, however the Electric Field inside the surface wouldn t have to be zero. Clearly there is something wrong in my argumentation regarding the use and interpretation of gauss Law.
Now, back to the actual problem:
I read about the following approach which argues for that there has to be a nonzero e Field along the surface, namely:
There is a current and a resistance, thus some sort of friction force that tries to slow Down the charged particles in motion. Assuming constant I, we have to have a force that opposed the friction force due to R, namely qE, where E is the e Field inside the conductor. Now, assuming the e Field i due to an electrostatic charge distribution, the e Field has to be purely conservative, meaning that the potential difference from a to b along the conductor has to be Equal to, say, V no matter what path we take (There is a nonzero potential difference since there is a resistance R). If we now take a path C1 to be a straight line from a to b an another path C2 that would start in a orthogonal to C1 until we Reach the surface of the conductor, then parallel to C1 and then, when we are "above" or "below" b, straight Down to b such that C2 would intersect C1 orthogonally. The first and the Third piece of C2 are orthogonal to the E Field inside the conductor, thus we get 0 from E dot dl, so the potential difference from a b along C1 has to Equal the potential difference from the parallel line along the surface. Thus the e Field along the surface has to be the same as the e Field inside the conductor.
Assuming we'd have a timevarying current, we d get an induced nonconversative e Field that would be orthogonal to the parallel line from a to be, thus we'd get the same answer, namely, that there has to be an e Field along the surface of the conductor.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think i just got the answer to the question regarding gauss Law, so the only thing i m still unsure about is whether there is a nonzero e Field along the surface of a current carrying conductor or not.
 
fab123 said:
Concluding that the E Field has to be zero along the surface would be false since zero flux doesn t imply e Field Equal to zero
Isn't that only because you might have chosen an area element with its normal orthogonal to the field?
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K