Potential difference in an alternator

AI Thread Summary
In an alternator, there is indeed a potential difference across its outputs, which varies rapidly unlike a battery. The energy associated with the movement of electrons is not primarily their kinetic energy, as the electrons move slowly and their kinetic energy is negligible in typical circuits. Instead, the energy can be conceptualized as potential energy, as the magnetic field moves electrons from a lower to a higher potential. This movement results in a change in electric potential, increasing the electrons' potential energy. Understanding this distinction is crucial for grasping how energy is transferred in alternators.
gigie
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Hi,

In a current generated by an alternator, can we really say that there is a potential difference like in a battery?

The magnetic field exerts a force on the electrons which makes them move. We can calculate the work done to the electrons in joules, and we can divide this energy by the amount of charge in coulomb which gives a voltage (J/C) but this energy calculated gives the kinetic energy of the electrons, not their potential energy...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gigie said:
this energy calculated gives the kinetic energy of the electrons
No, the energy you described is most definitely not the KE of the electrons. In an ordinary circuit the KE of the electrons is negligible.
 
  • Like
Likes cnh1995
gigie said:
In a current generated by an alternator, can we really say that there is a potential difference like in a battery?
Yes, there is a potential difference across the outputs of an alternator. Unlike a battery output, the potential difference varies rapidlywith time; how much variation depends on the details of the rectifiers and voltage regulator circuitry as well as the speed that we're spinning the alternator.

And as Dale says, the kinetic energy of the electrons in a circuit is pretty much completely unrelated to the potential; this is true for a battery as well as for an alternator.
 
  • Like
Likes cnh1995
Dale said:
No, the energy you described is most definitely not the KE of the electrons. In an ordinary circuit the KE of the electrons is negligible.

But the magnetic field makes the electrons MOVE... how is it not kinetic energy? What is this energy?

If it is potential energy, could you help me conceptualize how it is potential energy?
 
gigie said:
But the magnetic field makes the electrons MOVE... how is it not kinetic energy? What is this energy?
The electrons do move and therefore do have KE, but they move very slowly and weigh very little so the amount of KE is utterly insignificant in ordinary circuits. You can do the calculation or find them done somewhere on PF.
gigie said:
If it is potential energy, could you help me conceptualize how it is potential energy?
The fields themselves have an associated energy density. It is proportional to the square of the field, so if you double the field then you quadruple the energy density. The fields can also transfer energy to other locations or do work on matter. It is called Poyntings theorem.
 
  • Like
Likes cnh1995 and vanhees71
gigie said:
But the magnetic field makes the electrons MOVE... how is it not kinetic energy? What is this energy?
Yes, the electrons are moved by the magnetic field, or should that be swept or lifted by the magnetic field, from a conductor of low potential to a conductor of higher potential. The electrons then have a higher potential energy, due to their change in electric potential or voltage.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top