Series Combo Of Capacitors, Smaller Than Single Capacitor

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the validation of the statement that a series combination of capacitors results in an equivalent capacitance that is always smaller than the smallest individual capacitor in the series. The subject area is capacitors and their behavior in series circuits.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the formula for equivalent capacitance in series, questioning how to demonstrate that the equivalent capacitance is less than the smallest capacitor. There are attempts to derive and simplify the equations involved, as well as discussions on the implications of the derived expressions.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the mathematical relationships and exploring the implications of their findings. Some have provided guidance on how to approach the problem, while others are questioning the generality of the arguments presented. The discussion is ongoing with no explicit consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific examples that illustrate the concept, but participants express uncertainty about generalizing these findings to any number of capacitors. Additionally, there are questions about the assumptions underlying the relationships being discussed.

BOAS
Messages
546
Reaction score
19

Homework Statement



"A series combination of capacitors must always be smaller than the smallest individual capacitor."

This is the statement that I am trying to validate, but I am stuck.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I know that if you have a circuit that consists of a cell and a number of capacitors in parallel, the overall effect due to the 'inside' plates neutralising each other, is that of one capacitor with a large plate separation. This large plate separation is what causes the equivalent capacitance to be lower than the sum of it's parts, but I don't understand how I can show that this value must be smaller than that of the smallest capacitor in the circuit.

I can show that it is the case for specific examples, but not a general case.

Thanks for any help you can give,

Jacob.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps start by showing that 1/Ceq = 1/C1 + 1/C2 + 1/C3 etc
 
Have you obtained the formula for the equivalent capacitance of two capacitors in series? (You can always deal with more than two by combining two at a time).
 
CWatters said:
Perhaps start by showing that 1/Ceq = 1/C1 + 1/C2 + 1/C3 etc

Ok,

[itex]V = \frac{Q}{C}[/itex]

So the voltages on the individual capacitors is given by;

[itex]V_{1} = \frac{Q}{C_{1}}[/itex],

[itex]V_{2} = \frac{Q}{C_{2}}[/itex],

[itex]V_{3} = \frac{Q}{C_{3}}[/itex] etc...

The total voltage is [itex]V_{tot} = V_{1} + V_{2} + V_{3} + ...[/itex]

[itex]V = \frac{Q}{C_{eq}} = \frac{Q}{C_{1}} + \frac{Q}{C_{2}} + \frac{Q}{C_{3}} + ...[/itex]

Dividing through by [itex]Q[/itex] yields

[itex]\frac{1}{C_{eq}} = \frac{1}{C_{1}} + \frac{1}{C_{2}} + \frac{1}{C_{3}} + ...[/itex]
 
Okay, now using what you've done, write and simplify the equation for the equivalent capacitance of just two capacitors in series.
 
gneill said:
Okay, now using what you've done, write and simplify the equation for the equivalent capacitance of just two capacitors in series.

Okay,

[itex]\frac{1}{C_{eq}} = \frac{1}{C_{1}} + \frac{1}{C_{2}}[/itex]

[itex]C_{1}C_{2} = C_{eq}C_{2} + C_{eq}C_{1}[/itex]

[itex]C_{eq} = \frac{C_{1}C_{2}}{C_{1} + C_{2}}[/itex]
 
Excellent. Now does that last expression suggest anything to you about showing that ##C_{eq} < C_1## and ##C_{eq} < C_2##?
 
gneill said:
Excellent. Now does that last expression suggest anything to you about showing that ##C_{eq} < C_1## and ##C_{eq} < C_2##?

Not really...
 
What if I write the expression this way:
##C_{eq} = C_1 \frac{C_2}{C_2 + C_1}##
 
  • #10
gneill said:
What if I write the expression this way:
##C_{eq} = C_1 \frac{C_2}{C_2 + C_1}##

Ah ha!

##C_{eq} \propto C_{1}##

##C_{eq} = k C_{1}##

##k = \frac{C_{2}}{C_{2} + C_{1}}##

##C_{2} < C_{2} + C_{1}## (Capacitors can't have negative values)

Therefore ##k < 1##

and

##C_{eq} < C_{1}##

The same argument applies to ##C_{2}##

That makes a lot of sense to me, but is the argument general enough to apply to any number of capacitors?.
 
  • #11
BOAS said:
That makes a lot of sense to me, but is the argument general enough to apply to any number of capacitors?.
See what you can do with what you have now and the comment I made in post #3.
 
  • #12
gneill said:
What if I write the expression this way:
##C_{eq} = C_1 \frac{C_2}{C_2 + C_1}##

For that, wouldn't it be necessary that C1+C2>1 ?
 
  • #13
gneill said:
See what you can do with what you have now and the comment I made in post #3.

Ah, I can see where this is going. With three capacitors I can use my previous result to reduce it to an equivalent of two capacitors, and then repeat the argument.

Thanks for the help gneill!
 
  • #14
siddharth23 said:
For that, wouldn't it be necessary that C1+C2>1 ?
Why? For any positive values of ##C_1## and ##C_2##, can ##C_2## ever be greater than ##C_2 + C_1##?
 
  • #15
gneill said:
Why? For any positive values of ##C_1## and ##C_2##, can ##C_2## ever be greater than ##C_2 + C_1##?
@siddharth23: In addition to that, how would you compare capacitances to real numbers?
 
  • #16
BOAS said:
I can show that it is the case for specific examples, but not a general case.
You have a capacitor, C, connected to a voltage source, V. Were you to add a second capacitor in series with C, some voltage will appear across that second capacitor, leaving less than V volts across C. Less voltage on C means there is less charge on C. Less common charge means the circuit's capacitance has been lowered, so must now be less than C.
 

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K