Capacitance after changing plate distances

  • Thread starter Thread starter exitwound
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Capacitance Plate
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating capacitance changes after altering the distance between capacitor plates. The user correctly combines two capacitors in parallel to find an initial capacitance of 14x10^-6 F and a charge of 3.36x10^-4 C. After reducing the plate distance, the capacitance increases to 21x10^-6 F, resulting in a charge of 5.04x10^-4 C. Confusion arises regarding the problem's wording, leading to uncertainty about whether the questions are identical. The consensus is that the calculations are accurate, with the key takeaway being that halving the separation between plates doubles the capacitance.
exitwound
Messages
291
Reaction score
1
1. Homework Statement , from my crappy textbook

problem.jpg


2. Homework Equations barely explained in my crappy textbook

Q=CV
C=\epsilon A/d

3. The Attempt at a Solution that should be easy but the textbook is crap

Before squeezing:
Simplify the circuit by combining the two capacitors in parallel:

C_{12}=C_1 + C_2
C_{12}=7x10^-6 + 7x10^-6 = 14x10^-6 F

Q=CV
Q=C_{12}V
Q=(14x10^-6)(24)=3.36x10^-4 C

After Squeezing:
C=\epsilon A/d
2C=\epsilon A/(d/2)
C=(7x10^-6)(2)=14x10^-6 F

C_{12}=14x10^-6 + 7x10^-6 = 21x10^-6 F
Q=(21x10^-6)(24)=5.04x10^-4 C

Am I even close?

At this point, I have absolutely no idea what the problem is asking. Did I mention this book is terrible? Aren't both questions asking the exact same thing?? This is ridiculous.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The way it is worded it appears as if a.) and b.) are the same question.
Your work looks right. Remember its asking for an increase so subtract before squeezing value from after squeezing value.
 
That's what I did, but the answer was wrong.
 
Anyone? Still no go on this one.
 
Ah Hmmm... b.) could be a trick question... total charge (+ plus -) is of course zero.
But your calculations are correct for what they find. Parallel capacitances add. Halving the separation doubles the capacitance. That's it.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
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