On the derivation of Child-Langmuir law

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter elgen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Law
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the Child-Langmuir law, specifically the relationship between the constant current ##I## and the potential difference ##V_0## in a parallel plate configuration where electrons are emitted from the cathode and move towards the anode. The conversation includes theoretical aspects, mathematical reasoning, and challenges faced in solving the relevant equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant begins with Poisson's equation and attempts to derive the relationship ##I \propto V_0^{\frac{3}{2}}##, expressing confusion over the steps involved in solving the differential equation.
  • Another participant questions the assumptions regarding the signs of charge ##q## and potential ##V##, suggesting that the kinetic energy relation may not align with the expected behavior of the potential between the plates.
  • A later reply indicates that the assumption of constant electron acceleration was incorrect and proposes a modified form of Poisson's equation, leading to a new expression that does not yield elementary solutions.
  • Another participant hints at a method to solve the differential equation by multiplying with ##\mathrm{d} V/\mathrm{d} x## to obtain a first integral.
  • One participant claims to have derived expressions for ##V## and ##I##, suggesting a successful resolution of the problem.
  • Another participant raises a question about the independence of current ##I## from time ##t## and position ##x##, prompting a discussion about whether this is an experimental fact or requires further proof.
  • A final response asserts that the constant current is accepted based on experimental results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the assumptions and derivations related to the Child-Langmuir law. There is no consensus on the correctness of the initial assumptions or the implications of the derived equations, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the independence of current from time and position.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their assumptions and the complexity of the differential equations involved, indicating that some steps may not lead to straightforward solutions.

elgen
Messages
63
Reaction score
5
This problem is from Griffiths' book Introduction to Electrodynamics [Problem 2.53 in 4th edition].
IMG_4076.jpg


It considers that electrons are emitted from the cathode and move to the anode. This establishes a constant current between the parallel plates. It asks to show that the constant current ##I## and the potential difference ##V_0## have this relation ##I\propto V_0^{\frac{3}{2}}##, the Child-Langmuir law.

I started with Poisson's equation
$$\frac{d^2 V}{dx^2} =- \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}$$
The relation among the current ##I##, the charge density ##\rho##, and electron speed ##v## is
$$I = A \rho v$$
where ##A## is the plate area. My understanding is that
$$v=\sqrt{\frac{2x}{m}(-\frac{dV}{dx}q)}$$
where ##m## is the electron mass and ##q## denotes the charge. This leads to the following DE
$$\frac{d^2 V}{dx^2} =- \frac{I}{\epsilon_0 A \sqrt{\frac{2x}{m}(-\frac{dV}{dx}q)}}$$
which I do not know how to proceed to solve for ##V##.

In the meanwhile, I suspect that I need to use ##-\frac{dV}{dx}=V_0/d## on the RHS of Poisson's equation. This leads to
$$V=-\alpha\frac{4}{3}x^{3/2}+\frac{V_0+\alpha\frac{4}{3}d^{3/2}}{d}x$$
where ##\alpha=\frac{I}{\epsilon_0 A \sqrt{2V_0q/md}} ##, and
$$-\frac{dV}{dx}=\alpha 2 x^{1/2}-(V_0+\alpha\frac{4}{3}d^{\frac{3}{2}})/d$$.
Wouldn't this contradict to assumption of ##-\frac{dV}{dx}=V_0/d##? I am confused. Any comments on this derivation is appreciated.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
elgen said:
My understanding is that
v=2xm(−dVdxq)
where m is the electron mass and q denotes the charge.
\frac{1}{2}mv^2=qV
isn't it though sign of q,V are to be investigated carefully ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2 and vanhees71
Thank you for the pointer.

##q## is the electron charge, so it is negative. To have a positive kinetic energy, ##V## is negative, no? This does not feel right, as I would expect ##V## to remain positive between the plates.

In the meanwhile, when I wrote v=\sqrt{2x/m(-dV/dx)q, I wrongly assumed a constant electron acceleration. From the energy relation, Poisson's equation becomes
$$\frac{d^2V}{dx^2}=-\frac{I}{\epsilon_0 A\sqrt{\frac{2q}{m} V}}$$
which does not yield a solution in terms of elementary functions. What else is missing here?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2 and vanhees71
Nothing is missing here except the solution of the differential equation. Hint: Multiply with ##\mathrm{d} V/\mathrm{d} x## for a first integral!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: elgen
Thank you. I got $$V=V_0(x/d)^{\frac{4}{3}}$$ and $$I=\frac{-4\epsilon_0 A}{9d^2}\sqrt{\frac{2q}{m}}V_0^{\frac{3}{2}}$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Is there a way to prove that the current ##I## is independent of time ##t## and position ##x## or we just take it as a fact because that's what the experiment tell us?
 
The constant current is given as an experiment result.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
688
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
720
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
855
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
789