Parallel-plate capacitor question

  • Thread starter Thread starter conniechiwa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Capacitor
Click For Summary
A parallel-plate capacitor made from aluminum foil sheets measuring 5 cm by 5.1 cm, separated by 0.02 mm, is analyzed for charge under a 3-volt potential difference. The capacitance was initially calculated incorrectly as 1.28E-9 F, but the correct value is 1.128E-9 F. The charge on the plates was miscalculated due to confusion over units, specifically using microvolts instead of volts. The correct calculation for charge should use the capacitance in farads and the voltage in volts. The discussion highlights the importance of unit consistency in electrical calculations.
conniechiwa
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
A parallel-plate capacitor is made from two aluminum foil sheets, each 5 cm long and 5.1 cm wide. The two sheets are separated by a distance of 0.02 mm. If a potential difference of 3 volts is applied across the two plates of this capacitor, what is the absolute value of the charge on the plate with the higher voltage? What is the absolute value of the charge on the plate with the lower voltage?

I have already found the capacitance by using C = E0A/d. I got an answer of C = 1.28E-9 F. I tried using the equation Q=CV in order to find the value of the charge on the plates, but I still can't get the right answer. Help please!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


What's the right answer?
 


Hi conniechiwa,

conniechiwa said:
A parallel-plate capacitor is made from two aluminum foil sheets, each 5 cm long and 5.1 cm wide. The two sheets are separated by a distance of 0.02 mm. If a potential difference of 3 volts is applied across the two plates of this capacitor, what is the absolute value of the charge on the plate with the higher voltage? What is the absolute value of the charge on the plate with the lower voltage?

I have already found the capacitance by using C = E0A/d. I got an answer of C = 1.28E-9 F. I tried using the equation Q=CV in order to find the value of the charge on the plates, but I still can't get the right answer. Help please!

It's difficult to tell what you did without any details. However, I don't believe the capacitance you calculated is correct. (Perhaps you misread the result on your calculator?) Try it again, and if you don't get the right answer, please post some more details of the numbers you used.
 


The answer I submitted for capacitance was accepted. This is what I did:
Area = (50000 micrometers)(51000 micrometers)
= 2.55E9 micrometers
C=(E0A)/d
=(8.85E-12)(2.55E9 micrometers)/20 micrometers
=1.128E-3 microFarads

To find charge, I did:
q=cv
=(1.128E-3 microFarads)(3E-6 microvolts)
= 3.84E-9 microcoulombs
 
Last edited:


conniechiwa said:
The answer I submitted for capacitance was accepted. This is what I did:
Area = (50000 micrometers)(51000 micrometers)
= 2.55E9 micrometers
C=(E0A)/d
=(8.85E-12)(2.55E9 micrometers)/20 micrometers
=1.128E-3 microFarads


Right; that's what I got for the capacitance. (In your original post you said you got 1.28\times 10^{-9} F, instead of the correct 1.128\times 10^{-9} F, but maybe that was just a typo in your post?)

To find charge, I did:
q=cv
=(1.128E-3 microFarads)(3E-6 microvolts)
= 3.84E-9 microcoulombs

These numbers don't look right for the voltage. The 3\times 10^{-6} microvolts is equal to 3\times 10^{-12} volts, which is not right.

Also, for the units, microFarads times microvolts does not give microcoulombs; it would give something like micromicrocoulombs (since there are two "micro"s in the product), which you would definitely have to adjust.

In other words, the units would act like:

(1 microfarad) (1 microvolt) = (1e-6 microcoulomb) = (1e-12 coulomb)
 


Oh okay I figured out what my problem was. Thanks. =)
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
610
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K