Understanding the Relationship between Work and Volts

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the relationship between work and volts, emphasizing that while work is measured in joules (J), volts represent energy per unit charge (J/C). Participants confirm that the equation for work, expressed as Nm (newton-meters), is not equivalent to volts, which are defined as joules per coulomb. The confusion arises from the shorthand use of "volts" in place of "electron volts," which is a specific measure of energy related to electric potential. The correct interpretation is that voltage indicates the work done per unit charge, not work itself.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts such as work, energy, and electric potential.
  • Familiarity with units of measurement in physics, specifically joules and volts.
  • Knowledge of electric charge and its relation to voltage (Coulombs).
  • Basic grasp of calculus as it relates to physics, particularly integrals in work-energy equations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the relationship between work and energy in physics, focusing on the units of joules and their applications.
  • Learn about electric potential and how it relates to voltage using the formula V = W/Q.
  • Explore the concept of electron volts (eV) and its significance in particle physics.
  • Investigate the mathematical derivation of work done in electric fields, including integrals involving electric force.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, electrical engineers, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of work, energy, and electric potential in both theoretical and practical contexts.

jeff1evesque
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Question
I was wondering how the concept of work can have units of volts? I mean work has the units of N/m = J =/ J/(A*S) = Volts? Yet I am reading they are equal? Can someone enlighten me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you check your units? [E]=[F][L] which is energy = force * distance. You're saying energy/(current*time) = volts on the right side which is dimensionally correct but were you meaning to equate the two equations? Particularly what do you mean by "I mean work has the units of N/m = J =/[/size] J/(A*S) = Volts" ? Do you mean =/= which is not equal to or do you mean possibly 1/J/(A*s) which is equal to A*s/J?
 
jeff1evesque said:
Question
I was wondering how the concept of work can have units of volts? I mean work has the units of N/m = J =/ J/(A*S) = Volts? Yet I am reading they are equal? Can someone enlighten me?
This statement is wrong.
Work = Nm
 
Pengwuino said:
Can you check your units? [E]=[F][L] which is energy = force * distance. You're saying energy/(current*time) = volts on the right side which is dimensionally correct but were you meaning to equate the two equations? Particularly what do you mean by "I mean work has the units of N/m = J =/[/size] J/(A*S) = Volts" ? Do you mean =/= which is not equal to or do you mean possibly 1/J/(A*s) which is equal to A*s/J?

What I meant was: Nm = J =/= J/(A*S) = Volts
 
jeff1evesque said:
What I meant was: Nm = J =/= J/(A*S) = Volts

Well that certainly is true... what seems to be the situation? Joules is definitely not going to be equivalent to Joules divided by charge (that is, current * time).
 
Pengwuino said:
Well that certainly is true... what seems to be the situation? Joules is definitely not going to be equivalent to Joules divided by charge (that is, current * time).

Note: \hat{E} = - \frac{V_0}{d}\hat{z} (volts/meter) is the electric field between a capacitor, and V_0 is the potential difference in a power supply for a circuit.

Then the following statement (from my notes) is not correct?

Work

= \int_{bottom}^{Top} \frac{\hat{F}}{Q} \bullet \hat{dl} \equiv potential-difference = \int_{bottom}^{Top} \hat{E} \bullet \hat{dl} = \int_{bottom}^{Top} - \frac{V_{0}}{d}(\hat{z} \bullet \hat{dl}) = -\int_{bottom}^{Top} \frac{V_0}{d}dz = -V_0 (Voltz)

thanks,Jeff
 
Last edited:
I may see the source of confusion. Sometimes physicists will express energy in terms of electron volts, eV. One electron volt is the work done on an electron subject to a changing of one volt in potential. It has units [Q][V].

In some discussion one might simply say "volts" used in place of "electron volts." It saves 3 syllables out of 4 in short-hand discourse.
 
Last edited:
Phrak said:
I may see the source of confusion. Sometimes physicists will express energy in terms of electron volts, eV. One electron volt is the work done on an electron subject to a changing of one volt in potential. It has units [Q][V].

In some discussion one might simply say "volts" used in place of "electron volts." It saves 3 syllables out of 4 in short-hand discourse.

Very cool to know. Thanks a lot.

JL
 
jeff1evesque said:
Then the following statement (from my notes) is not correct?

Work

= \int_{bottom}^{Top} \frac{\hat{F}}{Q} \bullet \hat{dl} \equiv potential-difference = \int_{bottom}^{Top} \hat{E} \bullet \hat{dl} = \int_{bottom}^{Top} - \frac{V_{0}}{d}(\hat{z} \bullet \hat{dl}) = -\int_{bottom}^{Top} \frac{V_0}{d}dz = -V_0 (Voltz)
No, it's not correct. Everything you wrote out in LaTeX code (from \int \hat{F}/Q\cdot\mathrm{d}\hat{l} onward) is right, but it's equal to voltage, not work.
 
  • #10
I can't speak about your notes, but maybe a conceptual explanation would help? For example, if a particle with charge 1 Coulomb, initially at rest, was released to move through a potential difference of 1 Volt, after that time the particle would have 1 Joule of kinetic energy. The volt is energy per charge. In the same way, if you had to perform 1 Joule of mechanical work to move that 1-Coulomb particle slowly through an electric field, you would have moved it through a potential difference of 1 Volt.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Voltage is equivalent to work done per unit charge. This is not the same thing as work.

In SI units, Volts are equivalent to Joules/Coulomb.
 
  • #12
Phrak said:
I may see the source of confusion. Sometimes physicists will express energy in terms of electron volts, eV. One electron volt is the work done on an electron subject to a changing of one volt in potential. It has units [Q][V].

In some discussion one might simply say "volts" used in place of "electron volts." It saves 3 syllables out of 4 in short-hand discourse.

You were right, I talked to my teacher today, and he said it's basically what he meant, Quolomb*meters.

Thanks,


Jeff
 
  • #13
jeff1evesque said:
You were right, I talked to my teacher today, and he said it's basically what he meant, Quolomb*meters.

Odd. He left the charge out of Coulomb-meters?
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
987
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
892
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K