Why is the negative sign in the equation for motional EMF often discarded?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the equation for motional electromotive force (emf) in electric generators, specifically addressing the implications of the negative sign in the equation ##V = -Blv##. Participants explore the relationship between the Lorentz force, charge separation, and the interpretation of voltage in the context of generators.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the negative sign in the emf equation and its implications for charge movement in a generator.
  • Another participant questions the apparent contradiction between the Lorentz force causing positive charges to accumulate at the top and the equation suggesting the top is more negative.
  • A later reply suggests reviewing the integration process related to electric potential and the direction of the electric field.
  • Another participant clarifies that moving along the direction of the electric field results in a potential drop, which may affect the interpretation of voltage signs.
  • Further discussion includes the suggestion that the negative sign may be overlooked in educational contexts, leading to potential misinformation regarding the voltage equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the negative sign in the emf equation and its significance in understanding charge movement and voltage in generators. The discussion remains unresolved regarding whether the negative sign should be retained or discarded in practical applications.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the assumptions made in the integration of electric potential and the definitions of voltage being used in the discussion. The implications of the magnetic field's orientation and its effects on the emf equation are also not fully clarified.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and educators in physics, particularly those exploring concepts related to electromagnetism, electric generators, and the mathematical treatment of electric potential and emf.

loginorsinup
Messages
54
Reaction score
2
I'm trying to understand how electric generators work on a very basic level. I understand the heart of this is the application of the Lorentz force on a conductor moving at a velocity ##v## in the presence of a magnetic field ##B##. I also understand how it can be shown that the emf is equal to ##-Blv## where ##l## is the length of the conductor.

Now, this emf corresponds to the separation of charges (positive charges pile up at the top and negative charges pile up at the bottom) due to the Lorentz force, which is then balanced by the Coulombic attraction between the positive and negative charges. I also understand that the negative sign comes from Lenz's law, which says that this voltage that is developed is intended to move current in the conductor to produce an induced magnetic field so that it opposes the change in the magnetic field through the conductor.

I would expect the top of the conductor to be more positive relative to the bottom. But if ##V = -Blv##, then the voltage at the top is more negative relative to the bottom? That part confuses me. What confuses me further is that this negative sign is commonly discarded. Consider for example, this at 7 minutes.

Why is this allowed? Isn't the negative sign crucial to labeling how charges move through the conductor and ultimately through a generator? I know that a generator involves multiple linked segments of conductors that push the charges around a loop with two sides being responsible for the total voltage being developed at the terminals of the generator. So, I would think preserving the minus sign in calculating the total voltage generated at the terminals of a generator would be important.

Thanks in advance for the help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I want to show a diagram of my own that really illustrates the heart of what I'm confused about.

MzopwV5.png

Basically, the Lorentz force should make positive charges go up top, but ##V_{\ell} = -Bv\ell## implies that the top is more negative than the bottom. How is this possible? Where does the contradiction come from?
 
loginorsinup said:
Basically, the Lorentz force should make positive charges go up top, but Vℓ=−BvℓV_{\ell} = -Bv\ell implies that the top is more negative than the bottom. How is this possible? Where does the contradiction come from?
No , it doesn't . When you move along the direction of electric field , does potential drop increase or decrease ?
Hint : - ∫ E.dl = ΔV . Check your integration in your second post .
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: loginorsinup
As you move along the direction of the electric field, the potential drops because the field is doing work on you. I am not sure what is wrong with the integration.
 
Last step , left hand side - to first on the right - it would be V0 - Vl .

Hope this helps .
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: loginorsinup
Why is it ##V_0 - V_l## and not ##V_i - V_0##? I thought the definition of voltage was
V_{\text{final}} - V_{\text{initial}} = -\int_{\text{initial}}^{\text{final}} E \cdot dl
 
Yes , but in this case , you are moving in a direction opposite to electric field .
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: loginorsinup
That makes perfect sense. That is where the extra negative sign comes from. So, that means ##V_{\ell} = B\ell v## in the end. I wonder if those teachers / professors in those YouTube videos / lectures were all assuming something about the B field and just forgetting to include it? It feels like misinformation to say ##V_{\ell} = -B\ell v## then.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Qwertywerty

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
799
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K