Why Is the Electric Field Not Multiplied by 2 in This Capacitor Calculation?

Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Capacitance and electric fields

Homework Statement


I want to find the capacitance of a parallel-plate capacitor consisting of two metal surfaces og area A held a distance d apart.

First I find the electric field, which I know is \frac{\sigma }{{2\varepsilon }}. Then I use that the potential is the line integral from minus-charge plate to positive-charge plate of electric field, so

V = \frac{\sigma }{{2\varepsilon }}d

But in my book they do not divide by 2. This is because they have used superposition, which is OK - I agree with that.

Next, we consider the following:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capcyl.html#c2

Here they have used the electric field for |one| cylinder, they have not used superposition. This I do not agree with - we are still between the cylinders, so why do we not multiply by 2 here?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Oh, right.. because the charge inside our gaussian surface is the charge coming from the "inside-cylinder"...

I get it now. Thanks
 
Actually the electric field is not between two cylinders, but it is in between a cylinder and a pipe, so it is not the same case as two parallel capacitors.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top