Why Is Potential Higher at the Positive End of a Conducting Rod?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on why the positive end of a conducting rod has higher potential when an induced emf is created. It clarifies that while electrons accumulate at the negative end, this does not indicate higher potential; rather, the positive end is considered higher potential due to the conventional definition of charge. The accumulation of negative charge at one end corresponds to a relative increase in positive charge at the other end. Additionally, the magnetic field inducing the emf exerts a force that moves electrons contrary to the electric field's direction. This understanding resolves the confusion regarding potential and charge distribution in the context of induced emf.
HAL10000
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
When an induced emf is created in a conducting rod why is the resulting potential higher at the positive end of the rod?

Since the electrons accumulate at the negative end of the rod then wouldn't this be the higher potential instead?

Don't negative charges flow from lower to higher potential?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The potential is usually talked about in conventional way. What you say is correct. But conventionally, positive charge is spied upon. The region having low negative charge is nothing but a region with high positive charge(w.r.t. conductor in this case). The end having high positive charge is considered to be havin the highest potential. If you follow the electrons, vice versa.
 
HAL10000 said:
Don't negative charges flow from lower to higher potential?

The magnetic field which is inducing the emf exerts another force and moves the electrons against the will of the electric field. After all

F=q(E+v\times B)
 
Thanks, I understand now
 
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