Parallel plate capacitor's charge

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of charge in a parallel plate capacitor using the electric field formula. It highlights that the electric field between the plates is derived from the surface charge density of both electrodes, leading to a total electric field of surface charge density divided by epsilon naught. The question arises regarding whether the charge (Q) in the formula represents the charge on one electrode or both, suggesting that it should be divided by two if considering the charge on a single plate. Clarification is provided that the electric field from one plate is indeed surface charge density divided by (2 * epsilon naught), while the total field accounts for both plates. Ultimately, the charge Q in the formula corresponds to the charge on one electrode, not the combined charge of both.
livewire5
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/4392/ppcapqs2.png

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/5059/ppcapqs1.png
In this question the charge is calculated by isolating Q in E=surface charge density/absalon not
My question is, the electric field of an infinite charged plane is E=surface charge density/(2*absalon naught)because the electric field in center of parallel plate capacitor are parallel we add

surface charge density/(2*absalon naught)+surface charge density/(2*absalon naught)

to give us E between the electrodes to be surface charge density/absalon notbut when that question uses that formula to find the charge, shouldn't the charge found be divided by 2 to get the charge on each electrode since that formula we initially created by adding the E of both electrodes n this question asks to find charge on each electrode...so what i am really saying is that why isn't the Q in that formula (in that link) charge of both electrodes (their magnitude ofcourse) why is that Q the charge on one electrode?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
As you said, the electric field due to one plate is surface charge density/(2*absalon naught) So this is equal to Q/(2A*epsilon naught) (where A is area, and Q is charge on one plate). And the total electric field is twice this (since there are two oppositely charged plates), so it is Q/(A*epsilon naught)
 
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...
It may be shown from the equations of electromagnetism, by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860’s, that the speed of light in the vacuum of free space is related to electric permittivity (ϵ) and magnetic permeability (μ) by the equation: c=1/√( μ ϵ ) . This value is a constant for the vacuum of free space and is independent of the motion of the observer. It was this fact, in part, that led Albert Einstein to Special Relativity.
Back
Top