Potential in a conductor within an external field

AI Thread Summary
When a conductor is placed in an external uniform electric field, charges are induced on its surface, distributing in a way that nullifies the internal electric field. This results in the surface of the conductor being equipotential, despite the presence of induced charges. The potential difference created by the charge distribution on the conductor is countered by the external field, leading to no net potential difference across the surface. For the conductor to remain in equilibrium, the electric field inside must be zero, which necessitates a constant potential throughout the conductor. Ultimately, the initial misunderstanding about charge separation and potential gradient is clarified by recognizing the balance between induced charges and the external field.
lormanti
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Just got a doubt, which is probably silly but nonetheless cannot solve.
Say you have a conductor placed in an external uniform electric field. We know that charges will be induced on the conductor and distribute on its surface as to nullify the field inside the conductor. Then, at equilibrium, the conductor surface is equipotential: but, because of the induced charges due to the external field, should not we have that one side of the conductor has, say, excess postive charge and the other end negative ones, hence a difference in potential on the surface?

Thanks
Lor
 
Physics news on Phys.org
but if I am correct, then the difference in potential contradicts the fact that the conductor's surface must be equipotential, doesn't it?
 
lormanti said:
Hi,
... because of the induced charges due to the external field, should not we have that one side of the conductor has, say, excess postive charge and the other end negative ones, hence a difference in potential on the surface?

The potential difference due to the charge distribution cancels the potential difference due to the external field. Net, actual effect: no potential difference.
 
Reiterating what redbelly said. When you are looking at just the charge distribution on the conductor and saying there should be a potential difference there you are not looking at the net effect anymore you are then neglecting to include the external field that induced the charge separation in the first place and the effect this external field has on the potential.

The electric field is the negative gradient of potential. If you agree that for the conductor to be in equilibrium the net E field inside the conductor must be zero (if its not, it has not reached equilibrium yet) then the potential has to be the same constant everywhere in the conductor otherwise the gradient of the potential would not be zero and you would have a non zero E field and therefore not in equilibrium.
 
Ok, guys, you persuaded me. I guess I was misled by the charge separation being induced by the external electric field, so naively I thought: excess charge present at the two ends of the conductor = potential gradient, but obviously it is not like that.

Thanks a lot for your time, much appreciated.
Lor
 
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