Understanding Charge Distribution in Capacitors: One Plate or Both?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chopnhack
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Area Capacitor
AI Thread Summary
In capacitors, the charge is distributed across both plates, but calculations often focus on the area of one plate when determining capacitance. The charge density is defined as the charge on one plate divided by its area, which is why only one plate's area is used in calculations. When calculating total charge using the formula Q = C*V, the result represents the charge on each plate, not half. The confusion arises from the misconception that both plates contribute equally to the total charge, while in reality, they are equal and opposite. Understanding this distinction is crucial for accurate capacitor analysis in studies.
chopnhack
Messages
53
Reaction score
3
Hello all,

I have a simple question about capacitors. We are learning about them in class and in some questions, I seem to come up with different answers than the solution sets, always by 2. I apparently am using the area of each plate in a capacitor to derive my results.

My question is when working with capacitors, does one use the area of one electrode or both?

I expected to use both as I believe there would be charge density on both electrodes.

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
chopnhack said:
My question is when working with capacitors, does one use the area of one electrode or both?

Area of one plate .
 
  • Like
Likes chopnhack
Vibhor said:
Area of one plate .
Can anyone explain why? Is it possibly because charge migrates to one side with the other side simply being polarized, but not conducting? I seem to recall that there is no flow through the capacitor, rather a push and pull if you will, on either side.
 
Area of a parallel plate capacitor comes in picture while deriving its capacitance . Charge density is given by Charge on one plate divided by area of that plate .
 
  • Like
Likes chopnhack
Vibhor said:
Area of a parallel plate capacitor comes in picture while deriving its capacitance . Charge density is given by Charge on one plate divided by area of that plate .
It's a bit tricky. So when calculating capacitance, if we are offered the total area of both plates, we would need to divide by 2?

Here are two sample questions that I have answered correctly according to the answer guide:

A 15-pF capacitor has a potential difference of 1.50 V between its plates. What is the magnitude of charge on each plate?
A: 2.25x10-11C

But the question asks for the charge of each plate, the above was calculated using Q=C*V - is this not the total charge of the capacitor? Shouldn't the answer then be half of this? or does this go back to what you were saying, use one plate?

An electric field of 2.8 × 105 V.m-1 exists between two parallel plates each of area 21.0 cm2 and separated by 0.25 cm of air. What is the charge on each plate?
A: 5x10-9C

In this case I used σ = E ⋅ εo and took the surface charge density and multiplied it by the air gap to get the total charge.

Sorry, if I am being thick, I just want to be clear on this before proceeding in my studies.
Thanks!
 
chopnhack said:
But the question asks for the charge of each plate, the above was calculated using Q=C*V - is this not the total charge of the capacitor? Shouldn't the answer then be half of this? or does this go back to what you were saying, use one plate?

Charge means magnitude of charge on one plate .

In a parallel plate capacitor the sum of charges on inside faces sums up to zero .
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman and chopnhack
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...
Back
Top