Capacitor thermodynamic non sequitur

AI Thread Summary
The discussion addresses the energy storage capabilities of capacitors in series versus parallel configurations, initially suggesting that series capacitors could store more energy. However, upon further analysis, it is clarified that both configurations ultimately store the same amount of energy, represented by the formula CV^2. In series, the equivalent capacitance is halved while the voltage doubles, while in parallel, the capacitance doubles with the voltage remaining constant. This leads to the same energy storage outcome in both cases, emphasizing the importance of performing calculations to avoid misconceptions. The conclusion reinforces that theoretical assumptions must be validated through mathematical analysis.
parsec
Messages
112
Reaction score
1
This has probably been posted/asked here before as it seems quite basic, but I can't seem to find a thread on it using the search function.

According to conventional cap theory (0.5cv^2), two identical caps in series can store twice as much energy as two in parallel (provided the caps in series are charged to twice the voltage as the parallel bank). This seems strange though, is there some subtlety I'm missing here?

A silly corollary of this line of thinking would be that two caps charged in parallel that are then stacked/erected in series can deliver twice as much energy as the parallel network.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Scroll down on this reference and see the equivalent capacitance Ceq:

http://www.physics.sjsu.edu/becker/physics51/capacitors.htm

In theory both configurations could be used to store the same energy. In practice, if the caps are voltage rated for maximum voltage, then stacking two in series let's you double the voltage to double the stored energy.

I haven't done any analysis since you should be able to do it from this reference and my comment.
 
Yes, I should add that I'm treating the capacitor's rated voltage as what sets an upper limit on the amount of energy they can store.

Your reference cites the theory I'm running with here, which leads to the (seemingly absurd) conclusion that capacitors can be used to store more energy when used in series rather than parallel.
 
Last edited:
In practice, if the caps are voltage rated for maximum voltage, then stacking two in series let's you double the voltage to double the stored energy.

I spoke too soon. Let two capacitors have the same capacitance C and maximum voltage rating V. In each configuration let the terminal voltage be Vt.

Series Configuration:

Equivalent capacitance: Cs = C/2.
Terminal voltage: Vt = 2V.

Substutute into (1/2)*Cs*(Vt)^2 = (1/2)*(C/2)*(2V)^2 = (4/4)*C*V^2 = CV^2

Parallel Configuration:

Equivalent capacitance: Cp = 2C.
Terminal voltage: Vt = V.

Substitute into (1/2)*Cp*(Vt)^2 = (1/2)*(2C)*V^2 = (2/2)*C*V^2 = CV^2

So the energy is the same in both configurations, CV^2. This is why you must first do the math.
 
Oh sorry, you're right. I did the math before but for some reason I ended up with twice the energy.
 
It happens to me all the time.
 
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