Is it specific capacitance (Csp) is proportional to current density?

N.F. Zain
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I've run the experiment. By varying the current and fix the mass of the electrode, I found out that the specific capacitance (Csp) is increased when applied current (I) is increased.

By using this formula,

Csp = 4I / [M*(dV/dt)],

where I is the applied current, M is the mass of both electrodes, and dV/dt is the discharging slope after the IR drop, respectively.

Current density = I/M,
where I is the applied current, M is the mass of both electrodes.

Logically speaking, we can see from the formula above that Csp is proportional to I, M is fixed for all samples, but most of the published journals have reported that Csp is decreased when current density (I/M) is increased.

How could this happen? Please somebody help me with the brief explanation. TQVM. :(

Here I attached the related journals to this problem,
1) http://iopscience.iop.org/0957-4484...&spage=13574&stitle=Proc.+Natl+Acad.+Sci.+USA
2)http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013468606010851
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The reason that the specific capacitance (Csp) is decreased when current density (I/M) is increased is because of the effect of the IR drop caused by the applied current. The IR drop is a voltage drop across the electrodes due to the resistance of the electrolyte, and it causes a decrease in the voltage between the two electrodes. As a result, the discharging slope of the capacitor (dV/dt) is decreased, leading to a decrease in the specific capacitance (Csp).
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top