# Electric potential and potential difference

boris16
hiya

1)
Some quotes from physics tutorial site:

Electric potential is a location dependent quantity which expresses the amount of potential energy per unit of charge at a specified location.
Suppose we move positive test charge within a uniform electric field from location A to location B as shown in the following diagram :

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/6707/u9l1c28fs.gif [Broken]

In moving the charge against the electric field from location A to location B, work will have to be done on the charge by an external force. The work done on the charge changes its potential energy to a higher value; and the amount of work which is done is equal to the change in the potential energy. As a result of this change in potential energy, there is also a difference in electric potential between locations A and B. This difference in electric potential is represented by the symbol V and is formally referred to as the electric potential difference
The above all makes sense. But this is where I get lost:

As depicted in the diagram below, a charge carrier traversing the external circuit from A to H passes through three different light bulbs. Each light bulb results in a loss of electric potential for the charge.

Wouldn't it be more correct if instead we said:

*The kinetic energy charge has was transformed from charge's potential energy, and this kinetic energy gets lost as charge goes trough light bulb?*

The way I understand it, as electron moves trough electric field its potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy ( same way as potential energy of object falling towards the ground is transformed into kinetic energy W[k] ). And when this W[k] goes trough lightbulb, W[k] gets transformed into other types of energy. So, if two charged parallel plates are 1 meter apart and electron is put inside their EF at point A(near negatively charged plate), then once electron travels half the distance between the plates it will loose half of its potential energy

In short, loss of potential energy depends on how much closer a charge is to its final destination ( compared to its initial position ) and not how much of this charge's kinetic energy a device like lightbulb has transformed into other kinds of energies ( light etc ). Correct?

2)

The following text

As depicted in the diagram below, a charge carrier traversing the external circuit from A to H passes through three different light bulbs. Each light bulb results in a loss of electric potential for the charge.

also makes it sound as if potential energy is not location dependent, but instead it solely depends on where the devices such as ligh bulb are located!

Let me explain what I mean:

Note - green thingy represents a light bulb and red is wire. The two boxes are positive and negative terminals.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3802/a4rc.jpg [Broken]

If potential difference is defined as how much closer charge is at point B ( compared to point A ) to its final destination ( final destination being positive terminal ), then how can there be potential loss resulting from current going trough the light bulb? I know there is loss of energy due to electrons passing trough the lightbulb, but since charge in point B is not at all closer to positive terminal then in point A, the kinetic energy ( the one electrons lost while going trough light ball ) was not created from potential energy. Actually, I'd say that no potential energy charge posseses has yet been transformed into kinetic energy?

thank you

Last edited by a moderator:

Homework Helper
boris16 said:
Wouldn't it be more correct if instead we said:

*The kinetic energy charge has was transformed from charge's potential energy, and this kinetic energy gets lost as charge goes trough light bulb?*
No. You are oversimplifying what happens in a conductor. In a cathode ray tube electrical potential is converted into the kinetic energy of electrons. But in a conductor it is altogether different and quite complex. Electrical energy moves through a conductor at virtually the speed of light. Electrons don't move nearly that fast. In fact, the drift velocity of the electrons in a conductor is actually rather slow.

In a conductor, current flow has to do with the properties of a conductor including quantum effects. See other discussion on PF such as https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=121027"or try reading a good text on Electricity and Magnetism on "Conductivity in Metals".

In conductors, loss of energy or energy per unit charge (electrical potential) does not depend on distance. Potential loss depends on resistance, which in itself is rather complicated.

AM

Last edited by a moderator:
boris16
Andrew Mason said:
No. You are oversimplifying what happens in a conductor.

In conductors, loss of energy or energy per unit charge (electrical potential) does not depend on distance. Potential loss depends on resistance, which in itself is rather complicated.

AM

I'm confused why my textbook would explain how loss of potential energy depends on the distance the force acts on a charge, and then in next chapter it would without any explanations ignore all of what it was said in the previous chapter and and declare that loss of potential energy does not depend on the distance traveled by this object inside EF? In one chapter it was said that potential energy is location dependent, and in very next chapter it kinda negate that.

This simply doesn't make sense. It's kinda like if object at some height above the ground would turn its potential energy into another type of energy without falling to the ground. You can't turn potential energy into anything but kinetic energy.It doesn't make sense.

If loss potential energy indeed does depend on the distance and force acting on charge during this distance, then why in conductors potential energy won't follow natural laws and instead "act against its nature" ?

What you are saying is something like this, in an analogy to gravity: "the chapter on gravity says that a ball of mass m falling a distance h due to a gravitational field g will gain kinetic energy of mgh. But the chapter on fluid flow says that when I drop that ball through a fluid of viscosity $\nu$, it does not gain kinetic energy based on the height fallen - it moves at a constant speed related to $\nu$ even if I increase the mass." See the point?