Codex @codex  0

An applied potential difference that sets a device operating condition or shifts reservoir electrochemical potentials. In a multi-terminal device the grounded lead, biased lead and gate reference must be stated; they determine the relation between measured slopes and capacitances.

The diagrams solve an explicitly bounded Dirichlet problem in a uniform charge-free medium of constant permittivity. Take a width scale $W=1$ and terminal electric potential difference $V=1$. Two zero-thickness ideal plate segments occupy $|x|\le W/2$ at $y=\pm d/2$, with electric potentials $\pm V/2$. Fix $\varphi =0$ on the entire rectangle $x=\pm 2W$, $y=\pm 1.5W$. This boundary is an additional enclosing equipotential, rather than a condition at infinity. The model is invariant along the omitted third direction. The connection between the electric potential, its gradient, and the charge-free Laplace equation follows from electrostatics.^[ref]

On a square mesh of spacing $h=W/160$, the finite difference method imposesat free nodes, while plate and outer nodes retain their prescribed electric potentials. There are $641\times 481$ nodes. Each plotted gap aligns exactly with the mesh; the smallest gap has 16 mesh intervals. The generators solve the resulting linear system by the conjugate gradient method, stopping when the maximum dimensionless five-point residual is below $2\times 10^{-10}$, and use central finite differences to approximate $\mathbf{E}=-\nabla \varphi$ away from plate nodes.

The discrete maximum principle keeps the computed electric potential between $-V/2$ and $+V/2$. Reflection checks require evenness in $x$ and oddness in $y$; halving $h$ tests discretization effects, while enlarging the outer rectangle tests sensitivity to its artificial boundary conditions. These are different checks: a small residual only establishes that the discrete equations were solved. Differentiating near zero-thickness endpoints is especially sensitive to the mesh, so the plots do not report a converged edge peak. No total electric charge, exact open-domain three-dimensional capacitance, or measured material property is extracted from this model.

For a bounded numerical check, compare $h=W/80$ with the plotted $h=W/160$ at midplane positions $x/W=0,0.25,0.40,0.50,0.60,0.80$. At $d/W=0.10$, the largest change in $-E_{y}d/V$ is approximately $0.0265$, at $x/W=0.50$; the other five sampled changes are below $0.00472$. At $d/W=0.25$, moving the outer rectangle from $\pm 2W\times \pm 1.5W$ to $\pm 3W\times \pm 2W$ while retaining $h=W/80$ changes these samples by at most approximately $0.00622$. These calculated sensitivities support the qualitative comparison and expose its limits; they are not experimental uncertainties or evidence that the artificial boundary has converged to infinity.

In his 1909 lecture, Karl Ferdinand Braun recalled two experimental stations on Strasbourg forts in summer 1902. Known capacitances and calculated inductances set the transmitter tuning; the receiver searched for its two coupled oscillations. Its receiving coil fed a second coil in a tuned indicator circuit. Separating these coils increased both the sharpness of resonance and excitation intensity, until further separation reduced the response. The varied coil spacing was the control; transmitter coupling need not be loose for this receiver effect. For intensity measurements, Braun described an air-thermometer readout in the related resonant measuring apparatus.^[ref]

The comparison tests receiver coupling, not an unrestricted law that looser coupling always helps. The paragraph does not identify the particular indicator used in the coil-spacing test or give a response curve from which to reconstruct its optimum. The plotted curves below are an original linear model with stated losses, rather than invented historical measurements.

For an isolated smooth conducting sphere of radius $a$, Gauss's law gives surface electric field $E_s=V/a$. Combining its capacitance $4\pi {ϵ}_{0}a$ with capacitor energy $C{V}^2/2$ gives the displayed bound when the surrounding medium has dielectric strength $E_{\mathrm{bd}}$ and approximately vacuum permittivity. Nearby conductors, surface roughness and discharge geometry can lower the practical limit.

The capacitance of a linear two-terminal capacitor is the constant relating its separated electric charge to its terminal electric potential difference:Here $Q$ is the electric charge on one electrical conductor, the other carries $-Q$, and $V$ is their electric potential difference with the same ordering. Reversing the terminal ordering reverses both $Q$ and $V$ and leaves capacitance unchanged. An ideal passive capacitor has $C\ge 0$; an ordinary pair of separated electrical conductors with positive permittivity has $C>0$. At $V=0$, use $Q=CV$ rather than the undefined ratio $0/0$.

For example, electric charge magnitude $Q=0.8854\mathrm{nC}$ at terminal electric potential difference $V=10\mathrm{V}$ gives capacitance $C=88.54\mathrm{pF}$. At $20\mathrm{V}$, the same linear capacitor has $Q=1.7708\mathrm{nC}$ and the same capacitance. The plots in capacitor energy show that capacitance is the slope of the electric charge versus terminal electric potential difference graph.

For fixed geometry and linear material response, capacitance depends on dimensions and permittivity, rather than the source's terminal electric potential difference. This is why capacitance is a useful property of a component: once it is known, $Q=CV$ predicts the separated electric charge for each operating terminal electric potential difference. The SI unit is the farad, $1\mathrm{F}=1C/V$. ^[ref].

For combinations of capacitors, the same terminal definition gives an equivalent capacitance. Two identical capacitors of capacitance $C$ connected in parallel share the same terminal electric potential difference, and their electric charges add, giving $C_{\mathrm{eq}}=2C$. Connected in series with an initially neutral isolated junction, they carry equal plate electric charge magnitudes and their terminal electric potential differences add, giving $C_{\mathrm{eq}}=C/2$. ^[ref].

A capacitance diaphragm gauge senses pressure through deflection of a diaphragm that changes a capacitor's capacitance. Its head can have a different temperature from the vessel being measured, allowing thermal transpiration in the connecting tube to change the head pressure. ^[ref]

Characterize the instrument and fixture before inferring permittivity: use the prescribed open and short measurements to compensate residual parallel response and series electrical impedance, and check a known reference capacitor or the required load standard. Keep cables and electrode geometry reproducible. An open fixture measurement is distinct from the empty-gap reference capacitor; blindly subtracting its entire capacitance would remove the desired reference signal. Compensation cannot determine an incorrectly measured specimen thickness or eliminate all specimen-dependent fringing field of a capacitor errors. ^[ref].

An isolated conducting sphere of radius $R$ in a medium of permittivity $ϵ$ has surface electrostatic potential $V=Q/(4\pi ϵR)$ relative to infinity. Thus its capacitance is $C=Q/V=4\pi ϵR$.

A capacitor stores electrostatic energy by separating electric charge between two electrical conductors. In the ideal two-terminal model their electric charges are $+Q$ and $-Q$, with a vacuum or insulating gap preventing direct transfer between them. Write $V={\varphi }_{+}-{\varphi }_{-}$ for the terminal electric potential difference, where ${\varphi }_{+}$ and ${\varphi }_{-}$ are the electric potentials of the two electrical conductors. A linear capacitor obeyswhere its capacitance $C$ depends on the geometry and permittivity, and is independent of the applied electric potential difference while these stay fixed. ^[ref].

For example, the parallel-plate capacitor below has capacitance $C=88.54\mathrm{pF}$. At terminal electric potential difference $V=10\mathrm{V}$, the electric charge magnitude on either plate isThe total electric charge of the device is $Q+(-Q)=0$: charge neutrality does not imply zero capacitor energy. This capacitor stores $4.427\mathrm{nJ}$ in its electric field. The schematic in parallel-plate capacitor shows the separation of electric charge; the plots in capacitor energy show how storage grows with terminal electric potential difference.

The useful distinction is between storing net electric charge and storing separated electric charge. A capacitor can release electrostatic energy into an electrical circuit; in an ideal RLC circuit, energy moves between the capacitor's electric field and the magnetic field associated with inductance. An ideal disconnected capacitor retains its separated electric charges and capacitor energy because there is no path for discharge.

For an ideal linear capacitor, the electric charge on the plate at positive electric potential difference is $Q=CV$, where $C$ is its capacitance. The opposite plate carries $-Q$. An initial charge supplies the integration constant in an op amp integrator.

With current entering the positive-voltage terminal, differentiating the capacitor charge relation at fixed capacitance gives $I=CdV/dt$. A changing voltage drives current through the external circuit while a changing electric field supplies displacement current across an ideal vacuum gap.

The capacitor energy is the electrostatic energy stored when electric charge is separated. For a linear capacitor of fixed positive capacitance $C$, plate electric charge magnitude $Q$, and terminal electric potential difference $V=Q/C$, it isThe zero is the uncharged state. Thus the capacitor energy is positive for nonzero $Q$, even though the total electric charge of the two plates is zero. ^[ref].

For the parallel-plate capacitor example, capacitance $C=8.854\times 10^{-11}\mathrm{F}$ and terminal electric potential difference $V=10\mathrm{V}$ giveThe plate electric charge magnitude is $Q=0.8854\mathrm{nC}$. Doubling terminal electric potential difference with capacitance unchanged doubles the plate electric charge magnitude and quadruples the capacitor energy.

The electric charge is a linear function of terminal electric potential difference, while capacitor energy is a quadratic function. The second curve in each plot uses twice the capacitance: at a given terminal electric potential difference, both plate electric charge magnitude and capacitor energy double. These relations let us calculate how much energy an electrical circuit can receive when a capacitor discharges.

A brief charging argument explains the factor $1/2$. If the plate electric charge magnitude has reached $q$, the terminal electric potential difference is $q/C$. Transferring a further amount $dq$ of electric charge quasistatically requires work $dW=(q/C)dq$. With the geometry and permittivity fixed, the integral isUsing $Q=CV$ gives the other two forms. This integral accounts for the gradually rising terminal electric potential difference; it is the work stored in the capacitor's electric field, rather than a claim that all energy drawn from a fixed-voltage battery during charging ends up stored.

The field picture gives the same result. In the vacuum gap of a parallel-plate capacitor, the electric field has energy density $u={ϵ}_0{E}^2/2$. Multiplying by the gap volume $Ad$ gives the electrostatic energyFor the worked example, $u=4.427\times 10^{-4}J/{\mathrm{m}}^3$ and $Ad=10^{-5}{\mathrm{m}}^3$ reproduce $U=4.427\mathrm{nJ}$. The electrostatic energy resides in the electric field throughout the gap, despite overall charge neutrality.

When capacitance changes, specify the constraint. At fixed plate electric charge magnitude $Q$, increasing capacitance decreases capacitor energy $Q^2/(2C)$; doubling capacitance halves it. At fixed terminal electric potential difference $V$, increasing capacitance increases capacitor energy $C{V}^2/2$; doubling capacitance doubles it. In the latter case a connected battery supplies additional electric charge and energy, and there may also be mechanical work. Use the fixed-voltage capacitor energy balance to account for all transfers before inferring a force from changing capacitor energy.

The capacitor gap aspect ratio compares the gap $d$ with a lateral plate width $W$. For rectangular plates of widths $W_x,W_z$, require both $d/W_x\ll 1$ and $d/W_z\ll 1$ for the leading parallel-plate capacitor approximation. Large area alone is insufficient: a long narrow strip can have large area and still have $d$ comparable with its smaller width. In addition, the observation point must be many gap widths from an edge. Reducing $d/W$ improves the interior approximation without making the edge itself disappear.

In a two-dimensional straight gap, write the electric potential as the infinite-plate solution plus a perturbation:The perturbation satisfies the Laplace equation and vanishes on the two ideal plates. Separation of variables in a semi-infinite strip, with $s$ the distance inward from its entrance, gives transverse modesThus edge disturbances have a natural penetration scale set by $d$. Modes forbidden by a particular symmetry have zero coefficients; this expression is an explanation of localization in an ideal strip, not a universal numerical correction to finite-plate capacitance. The outside boundary conditions determine the coefficients.

There is no single aspect-ratio cutoff guaranteeing an assigned accuracy: the requested observable, plate shape and thickness, surroundings, dielectric distribution, and guard geometry all matter. The small-gap approximation is local and is not uniform across an edge. It also does not justify extrapolating $C\simeq ϵA/d$ to arbitrarily large $d$, where finite electrical conductors and their external electric field dominate. At fixed $V$, formally shrinking an ideal gap makes the interior electric field grow like $1/d$; real electric currents across an imperfectly insulating gap, surface roughness and contact eventually invalidate that ideal limit.

The voltage across an ideal linear capacitor of constant capacitance C is its signed plate charge divided by C. With the passive current convention, $I=C{\dot{V}}_C$.

An amplifier that converts input charge to voltage through a feedback capacitance; used to read a piezoelectric stress sensor while controlling electrical loading.

For externally tangent conducting spheres of radii $a,b$, centre separation $D=a+b$, and common electric potential $V$, the method of images givesAlternating spherical image reflections cancel the nonconstant boundary electric potential. Pairing terms makes each series convergent. The ratio is generally not $a:b$: that rule uses isolated capacitances and applies to widely separated conducting spheres connected by a wire. For $b=2a$, the smaller sphere carries the fraction $1/2-\pi /(6\sqrt{3}\ln 3)\simeq 0.22483$ of the total electric charge.

The electrostatic scale for placing one elementary charge on a capacitance $C_{\Sigma }$, conventionally $E_C=e^2/(2C_{\Sigma })$. The discrete second difference of the quadratic island energy is $e^2/C_{\Sigma }=2E_C$, which is the charging contribution to successive-electron addition energies. State the convention when comparing numerical values.

Define a stage as one storage increment of $2V_p$, with $V_p$ the alternating input's peak electric potential difference relative to its reference, not its peak-to-peak value. Assume ideal rectifiers, no load, no leakage or stray capacitance, a stiff alternating source and enough cycles to reach equilibrium. For $N$ such stages,The factor two follows from adding the input's next opposite excursion to an already stored peak. The subsequent series increments add. This ideal argument concerns equilibrium voltage; it supplies neither the charge-up time nor the useful load electric current.

To isolate the effect of drawing charge, consider the following original reservoir model. Each storage stage has equal capacitance $C$; a constant output electric current $I$ removes $\Delta q=I/f$ between replenishment events of frequency $f$. Every series reservoir loses this charge, hence its voltage falls by $a=I/(fC)$ per interval. Suppose replenishment removes a fixed fraction $1-\lambda$ of each reservoir's accumulated deficit, with $0\le \lambda <1$. This is an explicit phenomenological pump rule, not a solution of a particular multiplier's rectifier network. If $d_j$ is the deficit immediately after event $j$, thenHere $d_{+}$ and $d_{-}$ are the equilibrium deficits just after and just before replenishment. Linear discharge between events gives the average output and peak-to-peak variationFor chosen dimensionless settings $N=3$, $a/V_p=0.020$ and $\lambda =1/2$, the output varies between $5.88V_p$ and $5.94V_p$, averaging $5.91V_p$, instead of the unloaded $6V_p$. Starting with zero deficit, the recurrence approaches equilibrium geometrically with factor $\lambda$. Taking $I\to 0$ recovers the ideal ladder; increasing $C$ or $f$ reduces droop in this model. As $\lambda \to 1$, effective replenishment fails and the small-deficit assumption fails too.

Real multiplier stages have unequal charge-transfer burdens; their mean deficits need not be equal and depend on topology, input impedance and parasitic capacitance. Thus this reservoir model explains droop and voltage variation without claiming their exact dependence on stage count for a real Cockcroft-Walton generator. In particular, adding more stages cannot be judged solely by the unloaded $2N{V}_p$. For a beam sampling a slowly varying output, the electrostatic acceleration energy gain follows that instantaneous potential drop, so voltage variation also produces a spread of beam kinetic energies.

A conductor in electrostatic equilibrium is an electrical conductor at rest whose mobile charge carriers have finished redistributing, with no maintained bulk electric current. In the ideal macroscopic model,A residual bulk electric field would drive further electric charge redistribution. The electric potential difference between any two points joined through the metal is $-\int \mathbf{E}\cdot d\mathbf{l}=0$, so each connected piece is an equipotential. Gauss's law then gives zero net bulk charge density. This is a statement about net macroscopic electric charge, not the absence of positive atomic nuclei and negative electrons. Excess electric charge is represented by surface charge density; atomic surface structure is outside this continuum model. ^[ref].

The word inside must distinguish metal from a cavity in a conductor. A completely enclosed, charge-free cavity in a conductor has constant boundary electric potential $V_c$. The constant solution of Laplace's equation and Uniqueness of the Dirichlet problem give $\Phi =V_c$ and $\mathbf{E}=0$ throughout the cavity in a conductor, regardless of its shape or external electric charges. Grounding is unnecessary for this inward electrostatic shielding; an isolated enclosure can change its overall electric potential without producing an internal electric field. Zero enclosed net electric charge alone would only give zero electric flux. A positive and negative pair inside a cavity in a conductor can have zero total electric charge and a nonzero electric field. ^[ref].

If fixed electric charges inside a cavity in a conductor sum to $q$, a Gaussian surface lying entirely in the metal and enclosing that cavity in a conductor has zero electric flux. Thus the total induced inner-wall electric charge is $-q$. For one such cavity in a conductor and an isolated enclosure with total metal electric charge $Q_c$, the outer-wall electric charge is $Q_c+q$. In particular, an initially neutral isolated enclosure generally has an exterior electric field when $q\ne 0$. For fixed internal sources, external changes only shift the constant electric potential inside an isolated enclosure, leaving the internal electric field unchanged. ^[ref].

A grounded enclosure fixes $V_c=0$ and can acquire metal electric charge $-q$; with no exterior sources and $\Phi \to 0$ at infinity, Uniqueness of the Dirichlet problem gives zero exterior electric field. With external sources present, the exterior electric field need not vanish, but it is independent of the internal sources at fixed grounded boundary electric potential. ^[ref].

Faraday's ice pail experiment makes the distinction between redistribution and transfer visible. In his letter of 4 February 1843, Faraday described an insulated pewter pail connected by wire to a gold-leaf electrometer, and a brass ball suspended on a long dry silk thread to reduce the hand's influence. He discharged the pail and charged the ball away from it. Lowering the ball without contact produced leaf divergence, which grew during entry and became approximately independent of further depth; withdrawing it collapsed the leaves. Contact with the bottom transferred electric charge, and the withdrawn ball was discharged. The readout was leaf divergence, not a direct map of the internal electric field. These observations distinguish electrostatic induction from contact transfer of electric charge. ^[ref].

For a modern version of Faraday's ice pail experiment, connect an insulated inner metal pail to the signal input of a high-input-impedance electrometer, with its reference lead and an outer shield grounded. Zero and momentarily ground the pail, then isolate the signal side. Lower a charged paddle deeply without touching and record the electric potential difference; withdraw it and check return to zero. Repeat with contact, then withdrawal: a residual reading indicates transferred electric charge. Reverse the paddle's sign and repeat. The electrometer reads volts; inferring electric charge requires the effective capacitance of pail, cable and input, so a stable reading at fixed geometry is a relative measure, not automatically a value in coulombs. Keep supports clean, nearby charged objects distant, and the operator grounded; humidity can cause leakage. ^[ref].

A complementary electrostatic shielding demonstration uses a charged hollow metal enclosure, a small metal sampling ball on an insulating handle, and an electrometer. Discharge the sampling ball between trials; touch it to the exterior, withdraw it, and transfer its collected electric charge to the electrometer. Repeat by touching the inner wall without touching the exterior during withdrawal. The exterior sample produces a response, whereas the inner sample gives a null within instrument sensitivity. This compares accessible surface responses rather than assuming a perfectly spherical enclosure. ^[ref]. Useful additional controls are an uncharged enclosure baseline, a repeat exterior sample to verify sensitivity, and repeated trials at different depths. An access hole, charged handle, leakage or disturbed surface charge density limits the inference; a null bounds detectable transfer, rather than proving an exactly zero electric field. An open pail's depth plateau tests good enclosure empirically. Neither demonstration establishes shielding of arbitrary time-dependent electromagnetic fields.

Suppression of tunnelling because adding or removing a discrete island charge costs more energy than the accessible transport and thermal energy window. Weak junction coupling and small island capacitance make it observable.