What is the explanation for the discrepancy in energy stored in a capacitor?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Per Oni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Capacitor Energy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the discrepancy in the energy stored in a capacitor, particularly focusing on the calculations and assumptions involved in deriving the energy expression. Participants explore the implications of constant velocity in the movement of capacitor plates and the integration necessary to arrive at the correct energy formula.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a calculation for energy stored in a capacitor based on the approach of charged plates, leading to an initial result of W=qU, which contradicts the expected result of 1/2qU.
  • Another participant suggests that the discrepancy arises from the assumption of constant velocity, indicating that energy is being added to the system during the plate movement.
  • A third participant compares the situation to falling raindrops, arguing that they reach a constant velocity without adding energy, questioning the analogy used in the capacitor scenario.
  • One participant attempts to recalculate the energy without maintaining constant velocity, expressing uncertainty about their mathematical ability to do so.
  • A lecturer's perspective is shared, stating that the average electric field experienced by the charge is 1/2 E max, which is one way to understand the energy stored in the capacitor.
  • Another viewpoint is presented, emphasizing that the positive charge is only attracted by the negative plate, suggesting that the effective field is only 1/2 E max.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the calculations and assumptions regarding energy storage in capacitors. There is no consensus on the correct approach or interpretation of the results, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for integration in calculations and the implications of maintaining constant velocity, but do not resolve these mathematical steps or assumptions.

Per Oni
Messages
261
Reaction score
1
In the thread about permanent magnets it is stated that power per unit volume is E.J As you perhaps saw it is quite a job to prove that fact in the case of magnets. I thought it should be a lot easier to prove that in the electrical equivalent case of 2 opposite charged plates.

My back of envelope calculation went as follows: Let one plate approach the other with a constant (low) velocity and collide. Now, according to Gauss’ law E between the plates is q/Aε. E remains constant until the gap is nearly closed, I will ignore the last micro meter of distance where E vanishes. Next: J=q/At. Put together: (E is parallel to J) P=E.J x vol=E x q/At x Vol so that energy W=E x q x d , where Vol=A x d. But here E x d = U, then W=qU.

So at first sight not a bad result except that the result should be 1/2qU. Where’s the rub? I think I know but what do you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Per Oni said:
In the thread about permanent magnets it is stated that power per unit volume is E.J As you perhaps saw it is quite a job to prove that fact in the case of magnets. I thought it should be a lot easier to prove that in the electrical equivalent case of 2 opposite charged plates.

My back of envelope calculation went as follows: Let one plate approach the other with a constant (low) velocity and collide. Now, according to Gauss’ law E between the plates is q/Aε. E remains constant until the gap is nearly closed, I will ignore the last micro meter of distance where E vanishes. Next: J=q/At. Put together: (E is parallel to J) P=E.J x vol=E x q/At x Vol so that energy W=E x q x d , where Vol=A x d. But here E x d = U, then W=qU.

So at first sight not a bad result except that the result should be 1/2qU. Where’s the rub? I think I know but what do you think?

The problem is, you are putting energy in the system unknowingly, when you are making the plate to move at constant velocity !

Otherwise you would have to integrate to get the result, which would have put 1/2, that your calculation is missing.
 
universal_101 said:
The problem is, you are putting energy in the system unknowingly, when you are making the plate to move at constant velocity !

Otherwise you would have to integrate to get the result, which would have put 1/2, that your calculation is missing.

That was one of my thoughts as well. But consider the fall of raindrops. They are falling after a short while with a constant velocity without putting energy in the system!

However, I should of course have done this calculation properly and used integration. Perhaps I will do in the weekend. In the meantime I’m convinced that the answer lays elsewhere.
 
I had a go doing the calculation without keeping v constant, but my maths is not up to it. With v constant we have: (say the +ve plate is travelling, E parallel with J, ignore edge fields)

P/Vol = E.J
dP = E I dl = E dq/dt dl = E dq v
dF = E dq
Since q remains constant, so does F therefore:
F = E q
W = int F dl = q int E dl = qU

I hope somebody will do this calculation with v as a function of time or distance, perhaps it will give the correct answer after all.
 

For the explanation.

The lecturer states that the charge is emerged in an E field which goes from E max to zero and therefore the average value is ½ E, which is one way of looking at it. I prefer the view that the +ve charge can only be attracted by the –ve plate and the field of the –ve plate is only ½ E max.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K