Getting weird formula for Capacitance

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the formula for capacitance, C=Q/ΔV, and the confusion regarding the relationship between voltage and distance in a capacitor. The participants debate the application of electric fields from point charges versus the constant electric field in a parallel plate capacitor. It is clarified that the voltage in a capacitor can be determined using V=EΔd, where the electric field is constant. The conversation concludes with the understanding that to change the voltage in a capacitor, one must increase the charge, and the method for calculating voltage in a parallel plate capacitor is valid. The complexities of using point charge equations in this context are acknowledged as inappropriate.
lluke9
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Okay, so I know
C=Q/ΔV

And ΔV is the sum of the electric fields multiplied by the distance between the charges, so if the first charge has a charge of Q and the other has -Q with R distance between, the electric potential/voltage is:
ΔV = [(kQ/r^2) + (kQ/r^2)]R
so
ΔV = 2kQ/R.

And C = Q/ΔV
so...
C = Q/(kQ/R)
and...
C = R/2k
and...
C = R/2[1/(4Πε_0)]
and
C = 2ΠRε_0

What...?
It would make some semblance of sense if R were inversely proportional to capacitance, but it isnt...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
lluke9 said:
Okay, so I know
C=Q/ΔV
Where ΔV is the voltage between two conductors.

And ΔV is the sum of the electric fields multiplied by the distance between the charges,
That's only true if the field is constant.

so if the first charge has a charge of Q and the other has -Q with R distance between, the electric potential/voltage is:
ΔV = [(kQ/r^2) + (kQ/r^2)]R
Not sure what you're doing here with two point charges.

In any case: In the expression for the field from a point charge, r is the distance from the charge. So r for one charge is different than the r for the other. Also, the field isn't constant, so you can't just multiply by the distance R.
 
Doc Al said:
Where ΔV is the voltage between two conductors.That's only true if the field is constant.Not sure what you're doing here with two point charges.

In any case: In the expression for the field from a point charge, r is the distance from the charge. So r for one charge is different than the r for the other. Also, the field isn't constant, so you can't just multiply by the distance R.

Well, I was just adding up the electric fields and doing V = EΔd...

But I'm guessing that's not possible because the electric field isn't constant...?

Okay, please forget about everything I typed up there, I guess it was a complete waste of time.So how DO you change the voltage in a capacitor? Wouldn't it be to just increase the charge?
Actually, how do you FIND the voltage in a capacitor? Is it V = EΔd, because the electric field is constant in a capacitor?
 
lluke9 said:
So how DO you change the voltage in a capacitor? Wouldn't it be to just increase the charge?
You charge a capacitor by hooking it up to voltage source (a battery, perhaps). The higher the voltage, the greater the charge stored on each conductor.
Actually, how do you FIND the voltage in a capacitor? Is it V = EΔd, because the electric field is constant in a capacitor?
For a parallel plate capacitor, the field is constant. So you could use that method.
 
Doc Al said:
For a parallel plate capacitor, the field is constant. So you could use that method.

So could you substitute for voltage in the capacitance equation?

C = q/EΔd

Then E_T would be:
E_T = kq/r^2 + kq/r^2
because
E = kq/r^2
and both electric fields are going the same direction.

And then I'd arrive at the same thing I did in my original post...

E_T = net electric field
 
lluke9 said:
because
E = kq/r^2
That's the field for a point charge. Nothing to do with the constant field found between the plates of a parallel plate capacitor.
 
I was using the Smith chart to determine the input impedance of a transmission line that has a reflection from the load. One can do this if one knows the characteristic impedance Zo, the degree of mismatch of the load ZL and the length of the transmission line in wavelengths. However, my question is: Consider the input impedance of a wave which appears back at the source after reflection from the load and has traveled for some fraction of a wavelength. The impedance of this wave as it...

Similar threads

Back
Top