Building a capacitor to find the dielectric constant

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on measuring the dielectric constant of printer paper using two methods: varying the distance between capacitor plates and altering the size of the capacitors. The first method yielded a dielectric constant (k) of 0.897, while the second method produced a k of 1.8, raising questions about measurement consistency. Key issues identified include the need for linear relationships in plots and the importance of accurately converting measurements to area versus capacitance. The dielectric constant is affirmed as a material constant, independent of the number of sheets used.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of capacitance and the formula C = kAeo / d
  • Familiarity with linear regression and trend line analysis
  • Knowledge of dielectric materials and their properties
  • Experience with experimental measurement techniques in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the effects of varying plate distance on capacitance measurements
  • Learn about the significance of linear relationships in experimental data
  • Explore the properties of dielectric materials, focusing on paper
  • Investigate common sources of error in capacitance measurement techniques
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in physics, particularly those involved in experimental design and analysis, as well as researchers studying dielectric materials and their applications in capacitors.

xSpartanCx
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I have a lab where I have to use two methods to find the capacitance of printer paper.

Homework Equations


C = kAeo / d

The Attempt at a Solution


upload_2015-10-2_17-49-22.png

From these slopes, I got k = .897 for the first type (using changing distance between the plates of the capacitor)
for the second method, altering the size of the capacitors, I got k = 1.8. Is there something I'm doing wrong or did we just get inconsistent data?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Capacitance should rise with area, not area1/2.
Did you expect the two k's to be the same? Not sure why they should be ...
The computed capacitances are all within reason.
What is the area for the 1st plot? How many sheets for the second plot?
 
rude man said:
Capacitance should rise with area, not area1/2.
Did you expect the two k's to be the same? Not sure why they should be ...
The computed capacitances are all within reason.
What is the area for the 1st plot? How many sheets for the second plot?

I expect the two k's to be the same since it's still got paper in between. the first plot has an area of .252m by .2m, the second plot has 4 sheets. If I do A vs C, then I get k to be 3.7. Why are they so different?

EDIT: Oh, I see! is the 3.7 the dielectric constant for 4 sheets, and therefore I should divide it by 4 to get the constant for one?
 
The slopes should not be the same, as you compare different things (fixed area and variable 1/d versus fixed 1/d and variable area). Converted to the parameter in the general formula for the capacitance, you should get the same result.

The first plot should show a linear relationship, so the trend line should go through the origin. It does not, so something went wrong there.
For the second one it's hard to tell because you plotted the square root, but I think there is an offset issue as well.

The dielectric constant does not depend on the number of sheets. It is a material constant.
 
mfb said:
The slopes should not be the same, as you compare different things (fixed area and variable 1/d versus fixed 1/d and variable area). Converted to the parameter in the general formula for the capacitance, you should get the same result.

The first plot should show a linear relationship, so the trend line should go through the origin. It does not, so something went wrong there.
For the second one it's hard to tell because you plotted the square root, but I think there is an offset issue as well.

The dielectric constant does not depend on the number of sheets. It is a material constant.
mfb said:
The slopes should not be the same, as you compare different things (fixed area and variable 1/d versus fixed 1/d and variable area). Converted to the parameter in the general formula for the capacitance, you should get the same result.

The first plot should show a linear relationship, so the trend line should go through the origin. It does not, so something went wrong there.
For the second one it's hard to tell because you plotted the square root, but I think there is an offset issue as well.

The dielectric constant does not depend on the number of sheets. It is a material constant.
So then why do I get .89 for one calculation and 3.7 for the other? The slope I get for C vs A is 8x10^-8
 
Something is wrong with the measurements if the trend lines don't go through the origin.
I don't know what, and I guess it would be necessary to analyze the measurement procedure in detail.
 
mfb said:
Something is wrong with the measurements if the trend lines don't go through the origin.
I don't know what, and I guess it would be necessary to analyze the measurement procedure in detail.
On page 53 of this paper (http://users.df.uba.ar/sgil/physics_paper_doc/papers_phys/e&m/dielectr_const_2k4.pdf), they show a graph of inverse thickness vs the capacitance. In that paper, they show that based on the amount of pressure, the y intercept varies, and none of their lines ever go through the origin, so is that really an issue?
 
The variation with area data is wrong/erroneous. After looking at your table, I conclude your measurements were probably of the side of a square vs. capacitance, and you need to convert that to area vs. capacitance before plotting.

You deserve praise for the neat presentation of your data and graphs here.
 
NascentOxygen said:
The variation with area data is wrong/erroneous. After looking at your table, I conclude your measurements were probably of the side of a square vs. capacitance, and you need to convert that to area vs. capacitance before plotting.

You deserve praise for the neat presentation of your data and graphs here.
Unfortunately those are the dimensions of the area; we kept the x dimension stable at .252m, whereas the y would decrease -- {.2, .19, .183, .173, .16)m
 
  • #10
Have you compared your results with what might be expected? With the relative permittivity of paper being in the range 2-4.5, what capacitance might you expect with a 0.0002m thickness sandwiched between metal plates 0.25m x 0.2m?

How to account for any discrepancy?
 
  • #11
How did you measure capacitance?
Could something else in the circuit increase capacitance?
 

Similar threads

Calculations involving different Dielectrics and Capacitors
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Why can we model spherical capacitor with two dielectrics as two capacitors in series?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Capacitors: find the dielectric constant
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Electric field between capacitor plates when a dielectric slab is inserted
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Two-layer dielectric, four-capacitor model vs three-capacitor model
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
673
What is the breakdown voltage for this two dielectric capacitor (BaTiO3,LPDE)?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Find the charge on the plates of a parallel-plate capacitor w/ dielectric
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Changes in capacitor after dielectric inserted
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
What Is the Direction of Force on a Dielectric Slab in a Capacitor?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Find Dielectric Constant from Parallel Plate Capacitor Problem
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K