Coaxial cable and Potential between

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around calculating the electric potential in a coaxial cable with two dielectrics between the inner and outer conductors. The user has derived the electric fields E_1 and E_2 for the dielectrics and seeks clarification on how to express the potential V between them. A participant suggests that the potential should be calculated as the sum of the potentials across each dielectric, represented by two integrals: V = V_1 + V_2. The conversation also touches on the need for clarity regarding the nature of the dielectrics and the presence of a surface charge density between them. Ultimately, the user finds the proposed method of summing the potentials to be physically sensible.
Bugge
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
Hello. I have DC going through a coaxial cable, and I have calculated the E fields of the two dielectrics in between to be E_1 and E_2 with help of their D-vectors. The dielectrics are cylindrically shaped like the conductors. As in, one is in contact with the inner conductor, and one is in contact with the outer.

Both fields vary by the distance r through the D-fields,

a < r < c
c < r < b
Where a is the inner conductor radius and b is the outer conductor radius, and c is inbetween the dielectrics.

Now I am not sure how to determine the potential. between them. Considering the different E-fields, how is,
V(r) = \int_b^a E d \mathcal{l}
expressed in my case? Would it be similar to
\int_a^b (E_2 - E_1) dr = \int_a^b E_2 dr - \int_a^b E_1 drI know the E_n-fields, and J_n- and D_n-vectors of the dielectrics. I also know the \sigma_n of each of the dielectrics and the surface charge density of the inner (\rho_si) conductor and there is also a \rho_sc between the dielectrics at distance c.

I'd appreciate any help, thank you very much!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bugge said:
Hello. I have DC going through a coaxial cable, and I have calculated the E fields of the two dielectrics in between to be E 1 E_1 and E 2 E_2 with help of their D D-vectors. The dielectrics are cylindrically shaped like the conductors. As in, one is in contact with the inner conductor, and one is in contact with the outer.

Hi there
Im really tying to make sense of your cable makeup ?
I don't get your 2 dielectrics ... are both dielectrics between the inner and outer conductors ?
are these 2 dielectrics the same material ?
what separates the dielectrics ?
whatever it is must by definition be considered another (3rd) dielectric

draw a detailed diagram

Dave
 
I could imagine it is not very descriptive, sorry. I found a link with a similar setup. The only difference is that there is a surface charge density \rho_{s,c} in between the dielectrics at radius c (Nothing else is known of the boundary at radius c),
http://www-h.eng.cam.ac.uk/help/mjg17/teach/1AElectromag/coax.html

And I think the above link also answered my question (How is the potential found when there are two dielectrics in a coaxial cable).
The potential V between the conductors are, as I can see, a sum of the potentials from the start to end of each dielectric boundary,

V = V_1 + V_2 = \int_a^c E_1 dl + \int_c^b E_2 dlSo you will have two integrals to sum up. I originally thought it would be the difference between the potentials, but summing them up do make sense to me physically.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes davenn
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Back
Top