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.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top