Voltage vs Potential Energy Formulas

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
5 replies · 9K views
[V]
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
I am having a hard time figuring out the signs for some of these formulas:

First of all, U=Potential Energy
[tex]V=\frac{U}{q}[/tex]
[tex]\int F dr = \int Eq dr = - Work[/tex]
Since,
[tex]Work=K=-U[/tex]
Therefore
[tex]\int Eq dr=+U[/tex]
[tex]U=\frac{QqK}{r}[/tex]

Therefore,
[tex]V=\frac{KQ}{r}[/tex]

BOTH U & V have a positive slope of 1/r.

So far, everything checks out. But when I want to find the ΔV across a distance of a parallel plate capacitor, something seems to break down...

[tex]\int E dr = V[/tex]
Since E is constant here:
[tex]E\int dr = V[/tex]
I take the derivative WRT to 'r'
[tex]E=\frac{dv}{dr}[/tex]
[tex]dV=E * dr[/tex]

What is the potential difference between 20cm and 40cm in the uniform 3000 (V/m) electric field?

The answer is -600V. I don't fully understand why it is negative!

The equation I just drived, ΔV=EΔr gives me a positive value!
How do you justify this negative number in the end? Please explain with calculus terminology if possible.

Are all my assumptions up until this point correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ahh! Cant be!
[tex]\int_i^f F dr = (-\frac{KQq}{r_{f}})-(-\frac{KQq}{r_{fi}})[/tex]

[tex]W=-(\frac{KQq}{r_{f}}-\frac{KQq}{r_{fi}})[/tex]

[tex]\Delta U=-W[/tex]

[tex]\Delta U=\frac{KQq}{r_{f}}-\frac{KQq}{r_{fi}}[/tex]

[tex]U=\frac{KQq}{r}[/tex]

Correct?
 
Hi [V]! :smile:

Sorry, you're right, I was getting confused with gravitational potential. :redface:

The error was in your equation …
[V];3199483 said:
[tex]\int E dr = V[/tex]

… potential energy = minus work done by a conservative force

electric potential = minus work done per charge

so V = -∫ E dr :wink:
 
Thank you! :)

Soo
[tex]V = -\int E dr[/tex]

If I derive both sides, I get

[tex]\frac{dV}{dr}=-E[/tex]

[tex]E=\frac{-\Delta V}{\Delta r}[/tex]

With this equation, my other problem seems to work.
However, now this presents another problem!

Using this relation, I want to find the Capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor.

Given that

[tex]E=\frac{Q}{\epsilon_0A}[/tex]

And

[tex]C=\frac{Q}{\Delta V}[/tex]

Therefore, using the relation I just proved in the previous stepped:

[tex]\frac{-\Delta V}{\Delta r} = \frac{Q}{\epsilon_0A}[/tex]

Solve for Q

[tex]Q=-\frac{\epsilon_0A\Delta V}{\Delta r}[/tex]

[tex]C=\frac{Q}{\Delta V}=-\frac{\epsilon_0A}{\Delta r}[/tex]

then just replace variables to match my literature...

[tex]C=-\frac{\epsilon_0A}{d}[/tex]

But Waiit!

My textbook says it is positive!
They seem to be using this relationship to derive this equation:

[tex]E=\frac{\Delta V}{d}[/tex]

They use different variables, but why is it positive? I thought I just proved earlier that it should be :

[tex]E=-\frac{\Delta V}{d}[/tex]
 
hi [V]! :smile:
[V];3200429 said:
Using this relation, I want to find the Capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor …

let's measure all displacements from the -ve to the +ve plate …

then D and E are negative, D = -Q/A, E = -Q/ε0A …

the potential difference from the -ve to the +ve plate is V = -∫ E.dx = ∫ Q/ε0A dx = xQ/ε0A

(to put it in more general terms, E goes from +ve to -ve, so the work done from the -ve to the +ve plate must be negative, and the potential difference must be positive)