Capacitance in a Cylinder: Which Direction is the Voltage Calculated?

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about capacitance in a coaxial cylinder, the voltage calculation is clarified despite the inner cylinder having a negative charge and the outer cylinder a positive charge. The voltage is still calculated from the inner cylinder (a) to the outer cylinder (b) to ensure a positive value, as capacitance must remain positive. The integral for voltage should be adjusted to account for the negative charge, resulting in a formula that includes a negative sign. A common mistake was identified regarding the logarithmic term, where the correct expression should reflect the charge's sign. The conversation emphasizes the importance of careful calculations in determining voltage in capacitive systems.
sebby_man
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone

In most problems I've seen involving capacitance of a coaxial cable, there is an inner cylinder of radius a with +Q charge and and an outer cylinder of radius b with -Q charge. The voltage is calculated from a to b. However, in this problem the inner cylinder is -Q and the outer is +Q. In this case, would I still find the voltage from a to b, or would I find the voltage from b to a? The answer key suggests that the voltage is calculated from a to b, but I'm not sure why.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

You should calculate the voltage in that way that produces a positive voltage. The cause is capacitance always is a positive number. If the inner cylinder has -Q charge, the integral for voltage should be made from b to a.

I apologize for my english. I hope this can be clear for you.
 
Ok, so if I'm finding the voltage from b to a, then I need to calculate the integral of E dr from a to b? The answer of the integral is then [q/(2*pi*height*epsilon_0)]*ln(a/b). This seems right to me (unless I've made some simple mistake inbetween), yet the book says it should be ln(b/a) instead.
 
ln (a/b)=-ln(b/a)

It´s only a matter of sign
 
Turns out I had made a simple mistake in my calculations. Instead of [q/(2*pi*height*epsilon_0)]*ln(a/b) I should have written [-q/(2*pi*height*epsilon_0)]*ln(a/b) because the charge of the inner cylinder is negative. Thanks for helping me realize my careless mistake.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top