Capacitance - combining multiple capacitors for equivalent C

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of capacitance, specifically focusing on the calculation of equivalent capacitance when combining multiple capacitors. The original poster presents a formula for equivalent capacitance and questions its validity based on specific values of capacitors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the formula for equivalent capacitance and question its correctness. There are attempts to relate voltage and charge to the equivalent capacitance, and some participants express confusion regarding dimensional consistency.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various participants providing insights and questioning the original formula. Some guidance has been offered regarding the relationships between voltage, charge, and capacitance, but no consensus has been reached on the validity of the original formula.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working with large capacitance values as examples, and there is a noted concern about the dimensional analysis of the formulas being discussed. The context includes a mix of series and parallel configurations of capacitors.

MathewsMD
Messages
430
Reaction score
7
Capacitance -- combining multiple capacitors for equivalent C

In the given problem, Ceq = C1C2C3C4/(C1 + C2 + C3 + C4)

The answer says the equivalent capacitance is always less than C1 but I can't come up with thy. When I do this, I can't seem to prove that equivalent capacitance is always less than C1. For example, if I let:

C1 = 998 F, C2 = 999 F, C3 = 1000 F and C4 = 10001 F, then I get an answer (767119326 F) and this is much larger than C1. Any suggestions?

(I realize the capacitances used here are very large, but they are just used to make a point.)
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-02-12 at 9.22.09 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-02-12 at 9.22.09 PM.png
    10.2 KB · Views: 561
Physics news on Phys.org
Use Q=CV and discover that now four capacitors have to share the voltage that C1 would have had all on its own if C2,3,4 were absent!
 
Perhaps your formula is questionable ?
When I do
$$ {1\over C_{eq}} = {1\over C_1} + {1\over C_2} + {1\over C_3} + {1\over C_4} $$
I get something completely different ! Which has the right dimension. Your ##C_{eq}## does not have the dimension of Farads ...

Hint: The ##C_1 C_2 C_3 C_4## in the numerator is correct.
 
BvU said:
Use Q=CV and discover that now four capacitors have to share the voltage that C1 would have had all on its own if C2,3,4 were absent!

Hmmm...
Well I know:

Ceq = Q(V1 + V2 + V3 + V4)/(V1V2V3V4)

I just don't quite see how this shows Ceq < C1...do you mind explaining further?
 
You know this for two capacitors, because then it comes out right.
What you wrote here has the dimension Coulombs * Volts / Volts4 and that is not Farads ...
So: from where did you get this ?
 
You mean you know that
$$ {1\over C_{eq}} = {V\over Q} = {V_1\over Q}+{V_2\over Q}+{V_3\over Q}+{V_4\over Q} $$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
BvU said:
You mean you know that
$$ {1\over C_{eq}} = {V\over Q} = {V_1\over Q}+{V_2\over Q}+{V_3\over Q}+{V_4\over Q} $$

Sorry, yes.

Ceq = Q/(V1 + V2 + V3 + V4)

Also, Veq = V1 + V2 + V3 + V4

So since C1 = Q/V1 then Ceq must be smaller (i.e. it is divided by more positive numbers).

Thank you!
 
Just in case you ever need to calculate the ##C_{eq}## for 4 capacitors in series: do you know how to work out
$$ {1\over C_{eq}} = {1\over C_1} + {1\over C_2} + {1\over C_3} + {1\over C_4} $$
to ## { C_{eq}} = {C_1 C_2 C_3 C_4 \over ?} ## ? And: can you guess why anyone would ever use capacitors in series in a circuit ?
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
14K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K