Capacitor thermodynamic non sequitur

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the energy storage capabilities of capacitors in different configurations, specifically comparing series and parallel arrangements. It explores theoretical implications, practical considerations, and the mathematics behind energy storage in capacitors.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the conventional theory that two identical capacitors in series can store more energy than two in parallel when charged to different voltages.
  • Another participant references a source to support the idea that both configurations could theoretically store the same energy, but notes practical limitations related to voltage ratings.
  • A participant clarifies that the rated voltage of capacitors sets an upper limit on energy storage, leading to the conclusion that series configurations can seem to store more energy.
  • Mathematical analysis is presented showing that both series and parallel configurations can yield the same energy storage (CV²), depending on the conditions set for terminal voltage and equivalent capacitance.
  • One participant acknowledges a previous misunderstanding regarding energy calculations, admitting to an error in their initial assessment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of capacitor configurations for energy storage, with some supporting the conventional theory and others questioning its validity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the perceived paradox of energy storage in series versus parallel configurations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of considering voltage ratings and equivalent capacitance in their analyses, indicating that assumptions about these factors can lead to different interpretations of energy storage capabilities.

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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K