Is the Capacitance of a Twin Lead TV Antenna Cable Within Specifications?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tnutty
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Capacitance Work
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around determining if the capacitance of a twin lead TV antenna cable meets the specification of not exceeding 1000 pF. The cable consists of two 0.50mm diameter wires spaced 12mm apart and is 30m long. Calculations using the formula for capacitance yield a result of approximately 34.7 pF, which is significantly below the specified limit. The user expresses uncertainty about their calculations and seeks confirmation on their approach. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the cable's capacitance is within specifications, contrary to the user's initial belief.
tnutty
Messages
324
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Your home video studio will use a TV antenna cable often known as "twin lead." Two 0.50mm--diameter wires are spaced 12mm apart. Your equipment requires that the total capacitance of the cable not exceed 1000 pF. The cable is 30m long. A technical paper on the cable gives the potential difference between the two conductors as

V = lamda / (pi*epsilon_0 ) * ln ( (b-a) / a )

where a is the radius of the wire and b is the separation.

Is your cable within the specifications? ____ (my answer is NO), see below

Attempt :

C = epsilon_0 * A / D

A = 2piRL
A = 2 * pi * ( 0.5/2 * 10^-3 ) * (30 m)
D = 12mm * 10 ^ -3

C = epsilon_0 * 2 * pi * (0.25 * 10^-3) * (30) / (12 * 10^-3)

= 3.47 * 10 ^ -11

which is greater than 1000pF = 10^-9, thus it should be NO, I think. Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Any one have any Ideas ,

I also tried this :

C = Q/V

V is given , and Q is lamda * L, but I don't think its right
 
Use the general definition for capacitance, C=Q/V.
 
I did that as well.

C = Q/V

V is given, and I use Q = q*Lamda

But I think its not correct though.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top