Voltage of Capacitors in Series, a widely held assumption

AI Thread Summary
In a circuit with capacitors in series, the total voltage across the capacitors must equal the battery voltage, which can be understood through electrostatics rather than Kirchhoff's Laws. The relationship is rooted in the concept that the work done by electric forces depends only on the starting and ending points in a closed loop, leading to the conclusion that the sum of potential differences must equal zero. This can be derived from the integral form of Maxwell's equations, specifically the Maxwell-Faraday equation. The discussion emphasizes the need for a clearer proof of this relationship, as existing physics texts often provide insufficient explanations. Understanding this concept is crucial for grasping the principles of series capacitance in circuits.
Hirams_bro
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Say we have a simple circuit with just a battery and two capacitors. Why must the voltage of each capacitor in series add up to the total voltage of the battery? It seems intuitively plausible, I admit. But can someone show how to go about proving this using the laws of electrostatics ( please, not Kirchoff's Laws )?
I've already consulted 3 physics texts and none of them shed any light on this question. In one book, it says "clearly the voltage Vac = Vab + Vbc." That's it. Just because they wrote it in the form of an equation and said its clear, I guess they think they proved it. But that doesn't really prove much.
In Jewett's Physics for Scientists, their attempt at explaining this is to simply refer to a diagram and say "as can be seen, the diagram shows that these voltages add up..." Well drawing a diagram and labeling it doesn't it make it so. And this fact is used to prove the Law of Series Capacitance.

It seems to be a widely held assumption that individual voltages add up to the circuit voltage for series capacitors, but how can we assume this? I'm not aware of any conservation of voltage. Can someone please explain it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thank you. I'm sure after this semester, when I finish Calc 3, I'll be able to make sense of Maxwell's Equations, gradient and curl, etc., and derive it from those. Until then is there any other way of showing this relationship, one that might be more familiar for a Physics 2 student?
 
OK, maybe try this. In electrostatics, we can use an electric potential instead of an electric field. Work done by a force usually depends on the path taken, but if the force can be represented by a potential, the work done only depends on the start and end points of the path. In a circuit, the charge starts out and ends up at the same place, so the total work done (charge times potential difference) in a loop is zero.
 
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