Conservation of energy gone for a six?

AI Thread Summary
Charging a capacitor and then reducing the distance between its plates raises questions about energy conservation. The energy stored in the capacitor changes as the distance is halved, calculated using the formulas square(Q)/2C and square(Q)/4C. The energy dissipates through the work done by an external force to bring the plates closer together, similar to how potential energy decreases when lowering a suspended object. The discussion emphasizes that an external agent is required to maintain the separation of the capacitor plates, just as a rope is needed to hold a rock in place. Ultimately, the energy is conserved; it simply transforms as the physical constraints change.
manjuvenamma
Messages
102
Reaction score
0
Let us charge a capacitor and disconnect it from the battery. Let the capacitance, charge and voltage of the capacitor be C, Q and V respectively. Now do some work and reduce the distance of the plates of the capacitor and make it half of the original distance. What are the energies stored in the capacitor before and after the reduction of distance? The energies can be calculated as square(Q)/2C and square(Q)/4C respectively. Where has the energy gone from the capacitor?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The energy was dissipated by whatever brought the plates together. Note that the plates are oppositely charged, thus one must do negative work to bring the plates together.

A similar situation can be had with gravity by lowering an object. The energy decreases. Where did it go?
 
You must be right. But I think I am missing a point.
Whien a stone is raised to a point, it has potential energy. If leave it there, it comes down.
If charge a capacitor, leave the plates as they are, they don't come closer on their own. Does the system do any work to bring the plates closer, or an external agency shoud do work?
Sorry, for the basic nature of my question. But I can't help asking, to convince myself.
 
manjuvenamma said:
If charge a capacitor, leave the plates as they are, they don't come closer on their own.
Think about this more carefully in the context of your question. What does Coulomb's law suggest about the force between the plates?
 
manjuvenamma said:
You must be right. But I think I am missing a point.
Whien a stone is raised to a point, it has potential energy. If leave it there, it comes down.
If charge a capacitor, leave the plates as they are, they don't come closer on their own.
The plates don't come closer on their own because something (nonconducting spacers or some other physical constraint) is preventing that from happening. The exact same situation applies to the rock. Tie a rock to a rope, suspend the rock via a pulley, and tie the free end of the rope to some anchor. Voila, the rock is suspended above the ground with some energy proportional to the height of the rock. Now untie the rope from the anchor, lower the rock halfway to the ground, and retie the rope to the anchor. Has conservation of energy taken a six here? Of course not. You let the rock do work.

Back to the original problem. Just as the rope is needed to keep the rock from falling to the ground, some agent is needed to keep the plates of the capacitor apart. Suppose that agent is a number of nonconducting Hookean springs. Removing half of the springs will half the distance between the plates. Where did the energy go? You took it away by removing the springs.
 
Great, thanks, my mind is clear now. I understand it now.
 
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...
Back
Top