Wires and potential difference

AI Thread Summary
Equipotential surfaces are conductors in electrostatic equilibrium with no moving charges, while a wire carrying current is not an equipotential surface due to the potential difference required to maintain current flow. Current in a wire necessitates differing potentials at both ends, meaning the wire cannot be considered equipotential when current is present. In practical circuit analysis, it is common to approximate the ends of a wire as equipotential for simplicity, despite minor voltage differences. This approximation is useful in circuits classes to streamline calculations. Understanding the distinction between static and dynamic conditions is crucial in grasping these concepts.
maccha
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Recently in physics I've learned that equipotential surfaces are always conductors in electrostatic equilibrium.. so no moving charges. I'm a little confused, then, of how a wire carrying current is considered an equipotential? If charges are moving how can the potential be constant?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand your question because a wire with current moving through it is NOT an equipotential surface- for one thing, in order to have current there must be a potential difference between the two ends. Of course, in order to have a current in it, differing potential must be applied to both ends of the wire. A wire without an imposed potential difference is an "equipotential"- and has no current in it.

(Since this is a question and NOT "learning material" I am moving it to "general physics".)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy is correct, however if you are in a circuits class then you will often make the useful approximation that the ends of a wire are equipotential because it is simply too tedious to keep track of a couple of nanovolts here and there.
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top