Voltage vs Potential Energy Formulas

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formulas for voltage and potential energy in the context of electric fields, particularly focusing on the signs of these quantities and their implications in calculations involving parallel plate capacitors. Participants explore the relationships between work, electric field, potential energy, and voltage, while addressing specific calculations and assumptions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the formulas for potential energy (U) and voltage (V), expressing confusion over the signs when calculating potential difference across a parallel plate capacitor.
  • Another participant suggests that a sign error has occurred in the initial equations, specifically regarding the relationship between potential energy and work done.
  • A different participant attempts to clarify the relationship between work and potential energy, indicating that the change in potential energy is equal to the negative work done.
  • Further clarification is provided regarding the definition of electric potential, emphasizing that it is related to the work done per charge, which introduces a negative sign in the integral of the electric field.
  • One participant derives a relationship between electric field and potential difference, leading to confusion about the sign of capacitance derived from the equations, as it appears to contradict textbook definitions.
  • Another participant suggests measuring displacements from the negative to the positive plate, which leads to a positive potential difference despite the negative electric field direction.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the signs associated with voltage, electric field, and potential energy. There is no consensus on the correct interpretation of these signs, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications for capacitance calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential confusion arising from the definitions and signs of electric field and potential energy, as well as the assumptions made in deriving relationships between these quantities. The discussion reflects a reliance on specific mathematical steps that may not be universally accepted.

[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
Hi [V]! :smile:

You've lost a minus …

U = -Qqk/r (= ∫-∞r Qqk/x2 dx) :wink:
 
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)
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K