Equivalent Capacitance of a Circuit: Solving a Difficult Capacitance Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter shrabastee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Capacitance
shrabastee
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Finding the equivalent capacitance of the supplied circuit.


Homework Equations


For parallel capacitors, C EQ.=C1+C2+C3+..
For serial capacitors, 1/C EQ.=1/C1+1/C2+...


The Attempt at a Solution



The circuit simplification is difficult!
 

Attachments

  • gview.png
    gview.png
    12.1 KB · Views: 424
Physics news on Phys.org
Here, Look at this diagram I drew for you.

It is actually the same circuit.

What can you say about the various potential differences?

Also, take note that the C=Q/V. Over here, C is specified, V and Q are unspecified. How can you make this property useful?
 

Attachments

  • Ceff.png
    Ceff.png
    3 KB · Views: 432
Thanks! Just tell me one thing, can C3 be ignored because it carries no charge?
 
That would be the case if all the capacitors except C3 have an equal capacitance. The potential difference between b and e in the diagram will be 0 and so no current will flow through C3.

The circuit will then be simpler.

And yes, C3 is ignored provided whatever is above is true.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top