Work Done in an Electric Field

AI Thread Summary
In a uniform electric field between two parallel plates, an electron moving from a lower potential plate (B) to a higher potential plate (A) converts its electric potential energy (EPE) into kinetic energy (KE), with positive work done by the electric field. Conversely, when the electron moves from plate A to plate B, the work done on it is negative, indicating energy is supplied by an external force. The discussion highlights that when analyzing energy changes, one should avoid redundancy by not discussing the work done by the electric field alongside potential and kinetic energy. The confusion often stems from not clearly defining the system and surroundings, which can be approached from two perspectives: treating the electron alone or considering the electron and the electric field together. Ultimately, the total mechanical energy remains constant, with changes in EPE and KE reflecting the work done by the electric field.
Ivore
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Suppose we have an electron in a uniform electric field by two parallel plates A and B. (Plate A is higher in potential than B), and we have an electron on plate B moving to A, am I right to say that the electron is losing its own EPE to convert it to KE and there is no work done by electric field on it as it is only moving there with its own energy?
Then if its moving from A to B, work is done on the electron by an external force?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The change in the electron's potential energy, ΔPE, is just another way of talking about the work WE done by the electric field on the electron (with a minus sign thrown in). So if you're talking about the situation in terms of PE and KE, you don't also talk about the WE done by the field, because that would be at least redundant, and at worst, counting the energy involved twice. You talk only about the W done by whatever other (non-conservative) forces are involved in the situation.
 
In both cases there is work done by the electric force on the electron. The signs of this work will be different.
 
jtbell said:
The change in the electron's potential energy, ΔPE, is just another way of talking about the work WE done by the electric field on the electron (with a minus sign thrown in). So if you're talking about the situation in terms of PE and KE, you don't also talk about the WE done by the field, because that would be at least redundant, and at worst, counting the energy involved twice. You talk only about the W done by whatever other (non-conservative) forces are involved in the situation.
nasu said:
In both cases there is work done by the electric force on the electron. The signs of this work will be different.

So if work is done by electric for on the electron ( aka electron moving from a lower to a higher potential plate ) it is positive while the other way round ( electron moving from higher to lower potential plate ) will have a negative work. Am I right ? Then what about it's EPE and KE , is the EPE/KE the work done ?
 
Ivore said:
Suppose we have an electron in a uniform electric field by two parallel plates A and B. (Plate A is higher in potential than B), and we have an electron on plate B moving to A, am I right to say that the electron is losing its own EPE to convert it to KE and there is no work done by electric field on it as it is only moving there with its own energy?
Then if its moving from A to B, work is done on the electron by an external force?
This confusion arises because the "system" and the "surroundings are not clearly identified. There are two ways of looking at it the problem
1. If the electron is the system, then:
(a) it has kinetic energy
(b) the surroundings do work on it, positive or negative. This is the work done by the electric field
(c) the kinetic energy of the electron changes by an amount equal to the work.
(d) There is no other potential energy in this description.
2. If the system is the electron + the field of the capacitor, then:
(a) there is kinetic energy of the electron
(b) there is potential energy of interaction between the electron and the field, which depends on the position of the electron
(c) the total mechanical energy, the sum of item (a) and item (b), is constant
(d) so as the electron moves, the potential energy changes, and the kinetic energy changes in a way that keeps the total energy constant.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
It may be shown from the equations of electromagnetism, by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860’s, that the speed of light in the vacuum of free space is related to electric permittivity (ϵ) and magnetic permeability (μ) by the equation: c=1/√( μ ϵ ) . This value is a constant for the vacuum of free space and is independent of the motion of the observer. It was this fact, in part, that led Albert Einstein to Special Relativity.
Back
Top