Finding Potential and Charge across a Capacitor in a Multi-Loop Circuit

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the voltage and charge across capacitors in a multi-loop circuit connected to a 20.0 V battery. The user successfully determined the equivalent capacitance and charge but struggled with finding the potential across specific capacitors. They noted that the charge on capacitors in series is the same, while the voltage across capacitors in parallel is identical. Confusion arose from misinterpreting the relationships between the capacitors' values, particularly with C2 and C4. The user plans to re-evaluate their calculations based on this clarification.
Adm_Thrawn
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A 20.0 V battery is connected across capacitors of capacitances C1 = C6 = 2.9 μF and C3 = C5 = 2.00C2 = 2.00C4 = 4.7 μF.

http://imgur.com/ssxTC

What are
(c) V1 and (d) q1 of capacitor 1,


(e) V2 and (f) q2 of capacitor 2,


(g) V3 and (h) q3 of capacitor 3,



Homework Equations



Ceq = c+c+c+c in parallel, 1/Ceq = 1/c+1/c+1/c in series

C=q/V


The Attempt at a Solution



I solved A and B for this problem, namely, the equivalent capacitance, and the charge.

C4 = 2.35, C2 = 2.35, C3 = 4.7, C5 = 4.7, C1 = 2.9, C6 = 2.9

1/C5 + 1/C3 = 2.35 + C2 + C4 = 7.05

C1 + C6 = 5.8

1/7.05 + 1/5.8 = 3.18e-6, which is the correct value for the C equivalence

Thus, 3.18e-6 = q/V(20) = q = 63.6e-6F

After this, I formed a small loop with the battery, C4 and C6.

Their C = 2.35 + 2.9 = 5.25e-6 = q/V(20), such that q = 1.05e-4

V = q/C4 = 44.68, but I know this can't be right because the potential can't be greater than the original potential, 20

I'm not certain where to go from here, in terms of finding the potential across or charge across these 3 resistors.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The 1/7.05 is wrong and should be closer to 1/7.7 ? See,
 

Attachments

  • C043.jpg
    C043.jpg
    20.4 KB · Views: 2,312
Yeah, I got that at first too, but if you notice from the 'trick question', it's 2.00C4 = 4.7, and with algebra is 2.35. Then 2.00C2 = 2.00C4 = 2.35 as well.

I got the equivalent capacitance of the circuits correct, and the charge is also correct. It's just the potential over the resistors that I don't understand how to get.

Thanks for replying though.
 
I read it wrong, thanks for pointing that out. Will try again.
 
I got your numbers, minus some rounding errors. See,

The thing to remember is the charge on two capacitors in series is the same and the voltage on capacitors in parallel is the same.

Good luck!
 

Attachments

  • C044.jpg
    C044.jpg
    31.2 KB · Views: 2,386
  • C2045.jpg
    C2045.jpg
    7.6 KB · Views: 1,875
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 '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