Non ideal parallel plates (really quick question)

FrogPad
Messages
801
Reaction score
0
I'm writing a report about using numerical techniques to solve a simple parallel plates capacitor problem.

Would it be proper to say that there is no closed form solution to Lapalces equation when dealing with fringing effects? Isn't this the reason why we use numerical techniques to solve the problem?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
well in an idealized model, you can get closed form solutions for some fringing effects. However, i think it would be fair to say that you can't analytically solve for the fringing effects of any physical capacitor since there would be imperfections in the manufacturing process that would make it impractical, if not impossible, to get an exact solution for the potential even considering only classical electrodynamics.
 
FrogPad said:
I'm writing a report about using numerical techniques to solve a simple parallel plates capacitor problem.

Would it be proper to say that there is no closed form solution to Lapalces equation when dealing with fringing effects? Isn't this the reason why we use numerical techniques to solve the problem?
Conformal mapping can be used. I think that Panofsky and Phillips does it.
 
Meir Achuz said:
Conformal mapping can be used. I think that Panofsky and Phillips does it.


So I really shouldn't say that there is no closed form solution. This is just for an introductory emag engineering class, so I don't want to say things I don't know ;)
 
Sorry, I was too optomistic. I looked at P & P, and they do not do the fringing case. They just treat simpler cases. I donn't think conformal mapping can do the parallel plate frilnging. Get on with your numerical work.
 
Meir Achuz said:
Get on with your numerical work.

hehe, ok man.

Well I got that part done at least. Thanks for checking around.
 
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...
Back
Top