How do coefficients of capacitance relate to charging by induction?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of coefficients of capacitance in relation to charging by induction, as presented in Purcell's book on electromagnetism. It highlights a scenario with three conductors at zero potential and questions how charges can be induced on conductors two and three when they are grounded. The key point is that while the potentials of conductors two and three remain zero, they can still experience induced charges due to the charge on conductor one, facilitated by the grounding connection. The coefficients of capacitance (C_ij) are determined solely by the geometry of the system and are not influenced by the charges on the conductors. Ultimately, the process of charge transfer is essential for understanding how induction operates in this context.
psholtz
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
I have a question about coefficients of capacitance..

Specifically I'm reviewing the treatment on the subject in Chap 3.6 in Purcell's classic book on E&M. He starts out by considering a system of four conductors (actually 3 main conductors, and an "infinte" boundary condition surrounding the other three at potential zero).

We have three conductors, C1, C2 and C3 at potentials V1, V2 and V3 respectively. He goes on to consider a State I, where:

V1 = V
V2 = 0
V3 = 0

He then states that by holding the potentials V2 and V3 at zero, all charges in the system will be determined by the voltage (i.e., charge) on conductor 1, and goes on to define a linear relation for State I:

Q1 = C11 * V1
Q2 = C21 * V1
Q3 = C31 * V1

My question is: how can we produce/create a charge on conductors 2 or 3, when they are still being held at potential zero? Certainly I can see how adding charge (i.e., raising potential) of conductor 1 could *induce* a charge on part of conductors 2 or 3, but that induced charge (on the "close" side of the conductor, the side closest to C1) would have to be counterbalanced by an equal and opposite charge on the far side of the conductor, no?

I don't see how the expressions Q2 or Q3 could be anything other than zero, if we are to take Q2 and Q3 to be the "net" total charge on these conductors.

If, on the other hand, Q2 and Q3 are supposed to represent the amount of charge "induced" on those conductors by the charge/potential on C1, then I can understand that, but (a) I question what the usefulness of that information is, since it must be balanced by an equal and opposite charge on that same conductor that cancels it out; and (b) this interpretation doesn't seem totally consistent w/ the gist of the treatment Purcell seems to be trying to give in this section..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"My question is: how can we produce/create a charge on conductors 2 or 3, when they are still being held at potential zero?"

To keep 2 and 3 at zero potential, they have to be connected the ground of an electrical circuit. The circuit adds or removes the charge needed to keep the electrode at V=0.
 
clem said:
"My question is: how can we produce/create a charge on conductors 2 or 3, when they are still being held at potential zero?"

To keep 2 and 3 at zero potential, they have to be connected the ground of an electrical circuit. The circuit adds or removes the charge needed to keep the electrode at V=0.
Well yes, sure.

But then why won't C21 and C31 in the above equation be equal to zero?

How is it that by adding charge to Conductor1, you can induce/create charge on nearby conductors? Surely there's not a "net" increase in charge on Conductors 2 and 3, just b/c charge was added to Conductor 1?
 
psholtz said:
Well yes, sure.

But then why won't C21 and C31 in the above equation be equal to zero?

How is it that by adding charge to Conductor1, you can induce/create charge on nearby conductors? Surely there's not a "net" increase in charge on Conductors 2 and 3, just b/c charge was added to Conductor 1?

The C_ij are determined only by the geometry.
They are not affected by the charges on the electrodes.

This is called charging by induction.
The electrical source connected to electrodes 2 and 3 produces the charge necessary to keep tham at zero potential.
Surely there IS a "net" increase in charge on Conductors 2 and 3, just b/c charge was added to Conductor 1.

Read that chapter in Purcell again, carefully.
 
Meir Achuz said:
The C_ij are determined only by the geometry.
They are not affected by the charges on the electrodes.

This is called charging by induction.
The electrical source connected to electrodes 2 and 3 produces the charge necessary to keep tham at zero potential.
Surely there IS a "net" increase in charge on Conductors 2 and 3, just b/c charge was added to Conductor 1.

Read that chapter in Purcell again, carefully.
Ah yes... that "outer" conducting shell in Purcell's treatment serves the role of "ground"; as the source of the charges which are moved to the other conductors (C2 and C2, in the case of State I (following Purcell's diagram)) in order to effect the "charging by induction."

Purcell even explains this in book: "we have kept it in the picture because it makes the process of charge transfer easier to follow".. Indeed, there is charge transfer.

Thanks also for the tip about "charging by induction".. Google has much more to say about this search term than it does under "coefficients of capacitance"..
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top