Why Does Polythene Show Different Permittivity Values in Experiments?

  • Thread starter Thread starter QuantumCrash
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Permittivity
AI Thread Summary
The experiment to measure the relative permittivity of polythene yielded a value of 1.57, which differs significantly from the expected value of 2.35. Potential causes for this discrepancy include non-uniform thickness or surface area of the polythene sheet, imperfections in the flatness of the metal plates, and the presence of air gaps between the plates and the polythene. These factors can all significantly impact capacitance measurements, leading to inaccurate results. Additionally, fluctuations in current and increased resistance in the wiring due to heating were considered but deemed insufficient to explain the large difference. Accurate measurements require careful attention to the uniformity and integrity of the materials used in the experiment.
QuantumCrash
Messages
135
Reaction score
0
Hi, recently my class did an experiment to find the relative permittivity of polythene. I did some calculations by comparing the capacitance of 2 metal plates with air between them and the same capacitor with a sheet of polythene. It turned oout to be 1.57. However, I googled and it seemed to be 2.35 instead.

Can you suggest what might actually have caused this error? There seems to be many possible reasons like slight fluctuations in the current or even increase of resistance in the wire due to heating but none seems to explain such a large difference.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There could be several reasons for the difference in your results. First, it is possible that the sheet of polythene you used was not uniform in thickness or surface area. If this was the case, then the capacitance would be affected and could lead to an inaccurate result. Secondly, if the metal plates were not perfectly flat, then the capacitance could also be affected and lead to inaccurate results. Finally, any air gaps between the metal plates and the polythene could also affect the capacitance and lead to an inaccurate result.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top