Distribution of charge in two charged capacitors joined in a circuit

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the behavior of two capacitors, a 2.2 µF charged to 15V and a 3.3 µF charged to 30V, when connected in parallel. It is established that the final voltage across both capacitors must be the same due to their parallel configuration, which connects both ends to the same two points. Additionally, the energy stored in the capacitors after redistribution is less than the sum of their individual energies because work is done during the charge redistribution process, leading to energy loss due to resistance in the circuit.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of capacitor behavior in parallel circuits
  • Knowledge of charge redistribution in electrical components
  • Familiarity with energy conservation in electrical systems
  • Basic concepts of resistance and energy loss in circuits
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of charge redistribution in parallel capacitors
  • Learn about energy loss mechanisms in electrical circuits, including resistance and inductance
  • Explore the concept of equilibrium voltage in capacitor networks
  • Investigate the effects of internal resistance on capacitor performance
USEFUL FOR

Electrical engineers, physics students, and anyone interested in understanding capacitor behavior and energy dynamics in electrical circuits.

thisischris
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
Hello!

I'm having a bit of a struggle understanding the logic behind these two questions.

A 2.2 uF capacitor is charged to a potential of 15V, and a 3.3uF capacitor is charged to a potential of 30V.
The capacitors are then joined together as in the circuit diagram. When the switch s is closed, the charge re-distributes between the capacitors. Explain why the final voltage across each capacitor is the same.

Answer: Capacitors are in parallel.

I sort of agree that the voltage would be the same otherwise charge would 'flow' from one point to another. I don't understand how them being in parallel explains this however.

Suggest why the calculated value of energy stored by the capacitors (1.6 x10-3J) is less than the total energy that would be stored by the capacitors individually.

Answer: Work is done redistributing charge.

Is this due to resistance/internal resistance(?). However we haven't accounted for it (I think?) so I don't see why it should be lower, unless the question refers to a actual experiment that may take place?


Thank you :smile:
 

Attachments

  • stat0istics.png
    stat0istics.png
    13.2 KB · Views: 617
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
After connecting both capacitors, you have a voltage between the lower and the upper wire (where I do not care about its value here). Both capacitors are connected to them (in parallel), therefore they both have this voltage.
Is this due to resistance/internal resistance(?)
It is. With ideal components, you get unphysical results. However, in reality you usually have some resistance somewhere (wires, switch, capacitors). If you carefully avoid all of them, the small inductance of the system can give you a resonator and it takes a while to reach equilibrium.[/size] Anyway, you can calculate the equilibrium voltage and the corresponding energy, and you know that some energy has to leave the system in order to reach this state.
 
When capacitors are charged or discharged energy is lost in the process. Energy is lost in the connecting wires and any resistance in the circuit. Energy lost in the wires can be heating due to the resistance of the wires and electro magnetic radiation from the wires due to the changing current during charging/discharging.
 
Chris,

I sort of agree that the voltage would be the same otherwise charge would 'flow' from one point to another. I don't understand how them being in parallel explains this however.

When they are in parallel, both ends of the two capacitors are connected to the same two points. Therefore, they have to be at the same voltage. That is not true for series connected caps.

Is this due to resistance/internal resistance(?). However we haven't accounted for it (I think?) so I don't see why it should be lower, unless the question refers to a actual experiment that may take place?

If you assume no circuit resistance, then no energy will be lost. But then you also have to assume the the equalization current will be infinite. That can never happen in a practical circuit, so the final energy will always be less the initial value.

Ratch
 
Thank you for everyone's help. Much appreciated. :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
14K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K