How is integration order determined for the I-V relation of capacitors?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the current-voltage (I-V) relationship for capacitors, specifically addressing the confusion around the expression C = dq/dV. It highlights that capacitance (C) is defined as charge (q) divided by voltage (V), not as a derivative, which is a crucial distinction. The participants clarify that while C can be treated as constant for certain calculations, the differentiation process must respect the relationships between charge, current, and voltage over time. The conversation reveals that integrating incorrectly leads to misunderstandings, particularly when considering the nature of derivatives and the constants involved. Ultimately, the key takeaway is the importance of accurately applying calculus principles to avoid errors in electrical circuit analysis.
iScience
Messages
466
Reaction score
5
I'm having a brain fart so this is just another silly question but...

when deriving the I-V relation for the capacitor:

$$C=\frac{dq}{dV}$$

$$\frac{d}{dt}C=\frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dq}{dV})=\frac{d}{dt}C=\frac{di}{dV}$$

from here, normally we're supposed to do the following

$$\int\frac{dC}{dt}dV=i$$

$$C\frac{d}{dt}V=i$$

$$C\frac{dV}{dt}=i$$

but even before integrating, where i have quantity: $$\frac{dC}{dt}$$ isn't this just zero?
in which case, if we integrate both sides with V i just get 0 on the LHS so i know it's not valid..
but why is it not valid?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your initial equation is wrong. C isn't the derivative of charge with respect to voltage. C is the charge divided by voltage (Q = CV). Big difference.

Remember that current is defined as charge per unit time and you'll get it right.
 
]C isn't the derivative of charge with respect to voltage. C is the charge divided by voltage (Q = CV). Big difference.

the quantity:

$$\frac{q}{V}$$

is a density. but all densities can be expressed in terms of differentials no?

qualitatively, all i have done was reduce "the total amount of charge per the given amount of voltage"
to..
"the unit charge per unit voltage"

why is doing this invalid? we do this in physics all the time! we take bulk quantities and reduce them down to their "fundamental" unts. and because capacitance is a density (a ratio), the value should be the same, why shouldn't it be?
 
C=dq/dV holds if C is constant. Because q(t)=CV(t) hence differentiating wrt time and because C is constant in time we get dq/dt=CdV/dt or dq=CdV. However the mistake is in the 2nd line because using the chain rule of differentiation we get
\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{dq}{dV})=\frac{d^2q}{dV^2}\frac{dV}{dt}=\frac{d^2q}{dV}\frac{1}{dt}

...Well i have to say you ve blocked my mind as well. But somewhere along the 2nd line is the mistake cause we know dC/dt=0 while dI/dV isn't zero

Update:

Well something very strange , if we take the definition of d^2q as second order differential we get two different things:

1) if we consider q(V)=CV then d^2q=q''(V)dV^2=0 since C is constant
2) if we consider I(t)=\frac{dq}{dt} then \frac{dI}{dt}=\frac{d^2q}{dt^2}, d^2q=I'(t)dt^2 which obviously isn't identical zero...
 
Last edited:
aha! got it

indeed it was silly..

order of integration:

$$C=\frac{dq}{dV}$$

$$\int CdV=\int dq$$

$$\frac{d}{dt}CV=\frac{dq}{dt}$$
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top