Concept: Question on formation of parallel capacitors

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the concept of parallel capacitors, emphasizing that geometry is not important; rather, it's the connectivity that defines their arrangement. Capacitors C3 and C4 are considered parallel because their contacts are connected, allowing electrons to flow through either one. The distinction between series and parallel is highlighted, with series requiring electrons to pass through both components. A suggestion is made to visualize the connection by repositioning C4 to better understand its parallel relationship. This explanation resolves the initial confusion regarding the formation of the capacitors.
physicslearner
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
1. So my teacher gave us examples of how to solve capacitor problems. I know how to solve the problem but I don't this problem's particular "formation" of parallel capacitors. In this problem, my teacher says C3 and C4 are parallel but when I did the problem, I assumed it was series. Can anyone explain how C3 and C4 are parallel? I assumed there needed to be another capacitor directly across from them to become parallel, rather than in a 90 degree formation like C3 and C4.
IMG_1631.JPG

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
In electrical circuits, the geometry is not relevant, only the connectivity. If you have two components with two contacts each, parallel means each contact on one is connected to a contact on the other, i.e. they are side by side as far as the network is concerned. Electrons in the circuit can pass through either. Series means electrons have to pass through both.
 
haruspex said:
In electrical circuits, the geometry is not relevant, only the connectivity. If you have two components with two contacts each, parallel means each contact on one is connected to a contact on the other, i.e. they are side by side as far as the network is concerned. Electrons in the circuit can pass through either. Series means electrons have to pass through both.

OH! When you put it that way, it makes sense now. Thanks Haruspex.
 
Try "sliding" C4 to the right and around the corner into the vertical wire.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top