Solving Charge on Capacitors | C_1, C_2, C_3

  • Thread starter Thread starter huh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Capacitor Charge
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the charge on capacitors in a circuit with given capacitances and an applied voltage. The subject area is electrical circuits, specifically focusing on capacitors in series and parallel configurations.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore different methods to calculate the charge on capacitors, including using the formula Q=CV and analyzing equivalent capacitance. Questions arise regarding the correct configuration of capacitors (series vs. parallel) and the voltages across individual capacitors.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the correct approach to find the equivalent capacitance and the charge on each capacitor. Some participants provide guidance on analyzing the circuit configuration, while others express confusion about the calculations and concepts involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the information they can use or the methods they can apply. There is a noted confusion regarding the arrangement of capacitors and the implications for calculating charge.

huh
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


In the circuit shown in the figure, the applied potential is V_ab = 18.0V . For C_1= 3.15(microFarads) , C_2 = 5.50microF , and C_3 = 6.85microF ,

Find the charge q_1 on the capacitor C_1 (and the same for q2 on c2 and q3 on c3)

Picture is attached...


Homework Equations


For capacitors in series: V_total= V_1+V_2+V_3...
= (Q/C)_1+ (Q/C)_2+(Q/C)_3
C_total= Q/V_total 1/C_total= (1/C)_1+(1/C)_2

In parallel: Q= Q_1+Q_2+Q_3=(CV)_1+(CV)_2+(CV)_3

C_total= C_1+C_2+C_3

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried to use Q=CV and got 5.67E-5 or 56.7(w/o changing from microF)...wrong

Then, I tried using the series equation to calculate capacitance, but it didn't work.

I'm confusing myself on how to calculate the stupid charge...
 

Attachments

  • yf_Figure_24_22.jpg
    yf_Figure_24_22.jpg
    4.8 KB · Views: 483
Physics news on Phys.org
maybe you're jumping the gun, first what are the voltages across the block, (Vad), and C3 (Vdb)?
 
huh said:

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried to use Q=CV and got 5.67E-5 or 56.7(w/o changing from microF)...wrong

It looks like you just multiplied [itex]C_1[/itex] by 18V. But the voltage across [itex]C_1[/itex] is not 18V.

Start by finding the equivalent capacitance. That will allow you to find the total charge on all of the capacitors.
 
Would the equivalent capacitance for the whole thing be 6.85E-6

I calculate C1 and C2 together in parallel and then took that answer and did it again with C3.
 
That's not what I got. Can you show your steps so we can see what you're doing?
 
(1/3.15e-6)+(1/5.5e-6)=4.99278e5

(1/4.99278)= 2.00289e-6

2.00289e-6+ (1/6.85e-6)= 1.45985e5

(1/1.45985e5)= 6.85e-6
 
Your mistake is line 1. [itex]C_1[/itex] and [itex]C_2[/itex] are in parallel, but you treated them as though they were in series.
 
I see what you mean in calculating it as a series. Whoops :)
So would you just add the values for capacitance together?

(3.15e-6)+(5.5e-6)=8.65e-6

8.65e-6+6.85e-6= 1.55e-5
 
huh said:
I see what you mean in calculating it as a series. Whoops :)
So would you just add the values for capacitance together?

(3.15e-6)+(5.5e-6)=8.65e-6

Correct.

8.65e-6+6.85e-6= 1.55e-5

Incorrect. The combination of [itex]C_1[/itex] and [itex]C_2[/itex] is in series with [itex]C_3[/itex]. You had that right the first time (although the number you carried over from line 1 was wrong).
 
  • #10
It's in series? It looks like it is in the same position as the first two are...

OK so how do I get it for each individual charge (and capacitance)?
 
  • #11
Capacitors for the purposes of lumping are exactly opposite to resistors: when in parallel they add numerically, and when in parallel, they add as resistors in series. If you think about the latter, it makes sense as one is adding more surface area while keeping the dialectric thicknes constant, ie just making the plates bigger. Now when adding in series, we can't have charge differences under conditions of equilibrium. But those same charges, Q, will lead to different voltages with different capacitances in series. So voltage division around a closed loop will lead to the capacitors sharing voltage unequally. This help at all?
 
  • #12
umm... I'll try reading this again tomorrow... I understand part of what you are saying, but it's not "sticking" in my head right now.
Thanks though...
 
  • #13
huh said:
It's in series? It looks like it is in the same position as the first two are...

They certainly aren't in the same position. Two circuit elements are in series if they have the same current running through them. They are in parallel if they have the same voltage across them. [itex]C_1[/itex] and [itex]C_2[/itex] are obviously in parallel (use KVL to see that), and the combination [itex]C_1[/itex] and [itex]C_2[/itex] are obviously in series with [itex]C_3[/itex]. All of the current that flows through the parallel combination, also flows through [itex]C_3[/itex].

OK so how do I get it for each individual charge (and capacitance)?

Start by analyzing the circuit in which [itex]C_1[/itex] and [itex]C_2[/itex] have been reduced to an equivalent capacitance (call it [itex]C_{12}[/itex]). Since that equivalent capacitor is in series with [itex]C_3[/itex], the two capacitors have to have the same charge. So you should be able to write down a single equation with one unknown: the charge on [itex]C_3[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K