Can the Capacitor QT Equation Help Reduce Noise in Amplifiers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JackDixon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Capacitor
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the Capacitor QT equation and its application in reducing noise in amplifiers. A missing minus sign in the equation is noted, but the model is deemed effective for up to nine orders of magnitude, beyond which discharging voltage is lost in electromagnetic noise. Noise is highlighted as a significant issue in amplifying weak signals, as amplifiers can amplify both the desired signal and inherent noise. The conversation also references "Instrumentation and noise" as a relevant topic in electronics engineering education. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for improving amplifier performance in noisy environments.
JackDixon
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Good evening. I have just done a course in physics about exponential decay, and had a (very) pedantic question about the equation for the discharge of a capacitor. My logic goes like this: the exponential equation for working out how much charge remains in a capacitor is asymptotic of Q=0 by the model I have been shown no matter what value of t has elapsed since the beginning of discharge. I understand that this is a very good model for predicting out comes, but I cannot think of a mechanism by which there will always be a small charge left in the capacitor- especially when t is sufficiently large enough so that Q<1.6E-19C, which is the charge of an electron. Can anyone provide an updated mathematical model, or possibly explain why my logic is wrong?
Thanks!
Relevant Equations
Equation in solution attempt.
QT=Q0et/τ
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello Jack, ##\quad## :welcome: ##\quad## !

First thing that comes to mind is to note a minus sign is missing :rolleyes: .

And then I'd say nothing's wrong with the model down to nine or so orders of magnitude. By then the discharging voltage disappears in the noise due to other effects (electromagnetic noise). That's generally considered pretty good for a model...
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE and JackDixon
BvU said:
Hello Jack, ##\quad## :welcome: ##\quad## !

First thing that comes to mind is to note a minus sign is missing :rolleyes: .

And then I'd say nothing's wrong with the model down to nine or so orders of magnitude. By then the discharging voltage disappears in the noise due to other effects (electromagnetic noise). That's generally considered pretty good for a model...
Ok, so it is fact a model. I didn't know EM noise was a thing. Thank you :)
 
Noise can be quite a problem in many circuits, for example when you are trying to amplify very weak radio signals. Amplifiers not only magnify the wanted signal but they also magnify any noise that comes with the signal and they add some noise themselves. "Instrumentation and noise" is a common university module for undergraduate electronics engineers.
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top