Capacitance matrix and integral equation method

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the capacitance matrix for two infinitely long parallel strips using the integral equation method. The user outlines the process of deriving the capacitance from the potential of a line charge and applying boundary conditions to form a set of linear equations. They express confusion about how to extract the overall capacitance from the resulting matrix, which is expected to yield a single value rather than an NxN matrix. The user also notes a discrepancy between their findings and the textbook, particularly in how to compute the total capacitance from the individual matrix elements. Clarification on these points is sought, indicating a need for further mathematical elaboration.
Jack the Stri
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Dear all,

I'm having some trouble calculating the capacitance matrix, as outlined below.

So first of all, the lecture notes I'm using use an integral equation method (method of moments) to determine the capacitance of two infinitely long and thin parallel strips in vacuum, at a distance d of each other. The z-axis is taken along one of both strips, and image theory teaches us that this problem is equivalent to one strip at a distance d/2 of a PEC plane.

The notes start from the potential of a line charge, and use the superposition principle to express the potential of the surface charge density, yielding

\phi(\rho) = \int^{}_{c}\rho_{l}(\rho')G(\rho,\rho')dc'

With the position vectors in bold (rho and rho' being each other's image), \rho_{l} the surface charge density, c the strip width and G the Green's function for a two-dimensional Laplace equation in a homogeneous half-space on top of a PEC plane.

The next step is to impose the boundary condition that the strip surface is equipotential, e.g. at 1. Hence

lim_{\rho\rightarrow c} \phi(\rho) = lim_{\rho\rightarrow c} \int^{}_{c}\rho_{l}(\rho')G(\rho,\rho')dc'=1

This is solved by subdividing the strip into N segments of length \Delta, allowing the above expression to be rewritten as
lim_{\rho\rightarrow c}\sum^{N}_{i=1}\rho_{li}\int^{}_{c_{i}}G(\rho,\rho')dc'_{i}=1

The text then goes on to explain that, when one chooses the centres \rho_{j} as the limit c to approach, the sum forms a set of N linear equations with N unknown coefficients. In matrix form this is written:

I_{N}=C^{-1}Q

With IN an Nx1 column matrix with elements 1, Q the Nx1 column matrix with the elementary line charge densities (or at least, the average of the segment, the way I see it), and C-1 the inverted capacitance matrix.

The values of Cij are then approximated to fill in the matrix.

However.

I understand the steps leading up to this, but in this particular case, the only output for the capacitance is one number, not an NxN matrix (which makes sense otherwise the matrix size would be dependent upon the accuracy of your calculation). The question then is, how do you get the capacitance C from this matrix, and, in the more general case of a capacitance matrix, how do you extract each individual Cij (since these are not the same as the Cij mentioned above)?

I can post some more elaboration on the maths followed if necessary.

Edit: LaTeX doesn't seem to be co-operating with me as far as formatting certain formula parts in bold, sorry...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Bumpity bump. From what I can make out of it each element i,j of the matrix represents the capacitance between two segments \Delta_{i} and \Delta_{j}, or the self-capacitance. The capacitance value would then be the sum of the capacitances for each individual segment, i.e. C = \sum C_{i} = \sum (C_{ii} - \sum_{j(j \neq i)} |C_{ij}|), or the diagonal minus the absolute values of the rest.

This doesn't match the textbook though. Any expertise around here?
 
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