Electrostatic potential on the surface of a conductor

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of electrostatic potential on the surface of a conductor, particularly the assertion that the potential is constant across the surface. Participants are exploring the implications of this assertion in the context of electric fields and potential gradients.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand why the electric field is not zero if the potential is constant, raising questions about the relationship between electric field and potential gradient. Other participants discuss the implications of constant potential in relation to spatial derivatives of the potential.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of the relationship between electric potential and electric field. Some guidance has been offered regarding the implications of constant potential, but no consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

There appears to be some confusion regarding the behavior of electric fields at the surface of conductors, particularly in relation to the spatial derivatives of potential. The original poster expresses uncertainty about the implications of their reasoning.

rbnphlp
Messages
53
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



At the surface of a conductor the potential is constant .. I can't get my head around this ..

Homework Equations


E=-grad V

The Attempt at a Solution



The only reason I can think about this is Electric field is perpendicular at the surface , hence no work is done when moving a point charge around the surface , hence potential is constant ..

But if V is constant , the surely E=-grad (V)-> E=0 , which is not the case since there are charges on the surface of the conductor, so surely must provide a E field normal to the surface ..

Thanks for any help
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Noone ? Does no one understand what I am saying or does no one know the anwer?
 
Say the surface lies in the xy-plane, for example. You'd have V(x,y,0)=V0 so that ∂V/∂x=∂V/∂y=0, but that doesn't imply that ∂V/∂z=0.
 
vela said:
Say the surface lies in the xy-plane, for example. You'd have V(x,y,0)=V0 so that ∂V/∂x=∂V/∂y=0, but that doesn't imply that ∂V/∂z=0.

Cheers :D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K