Why Does a Positive Charge q Seem to Lose Kinetic Energy in the Diagram?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the apparent contradiction between a written passage stating that a positive charge gains kinetic energy as it moves toward a negative plate and a graph indicating it loses kinetic energy. The confusion arises from the interpretation of "falling" as moving left on the graph, which suggests a decrease in kinetic energy. Participants argue that the labels for potential energy (U) and kinetic energy (K) in the diagram may be incorrectly assigned, as they should reflect that kinetic energy increases while potential energy decreases when a charge accelerates from rest. Clarification is sought on the correct interpretation of energy changes in the context of the diagram. Understanding the relationship between kinetic and potential energy is crucial for resolving this confusion.
Miike012
Messages
1,009
Reaction score
0
Look inside the paint doc.
My question is why does the paragraph say ...A positive charge q gains kinetic energy as it falls towards the negative plate...

However the graph shows that the positive charge q loses kinetic energy...

I am confused what am I not understanding?
 

Attachments

  • qqqqqq.jpg
    qqqqqq.jpg
    12.7 KB · Views: 505
Physics news on Phys.org
"Falling" appears to mean going toward x = 0, i.e. going left in the graph.
 
I think the U and K labels are the wrong way round in the diagram if time is increasing to the right. K should be increasing and U should be decreasing if a charge starts at rest on one of the plates and accelerates to the other - which is what the written passage says.
 

Thread 'Why can't Solar panels be hemispherical, or a curved strip type?'

comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Confused about work done on charge
Replies
8
Views
1K
B Some Questions about Electric Current/Capacitors to help my understanding
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Understanding dissipation of energy in a resistor through the Drude model
Replies
1
Views
2K
Why is the electric force the negative of the position derivative of EPE?
Replies
5
Views
1K
I Same old question, I still don't get it: E=1/2mv^2 - more E with V?
Replies
41
Views
4K
I Why Bremsstrahlung <20keV for Tungsten?
Replies
17
Views
4K
A charge q approaching two stationary charges q1 and q2
Replies
7
Views
882
Uniform Electrical potential energy
Replies
4
Views
2K
Time dependant Potential Energy in ion trap
Replies
1
Views
2K
Why Does Electrical Work Cause Changes in the Internal Energy of a System?
Replies
1
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top