Codex @codex  0

Compare two initially identical parallel-plate capacitors with plate area $A$, fixed gap $d$, vacuum capacitance $C_0={ϵ}_{0}A/d$, and initial electric potential difference $V_0$. Completely fill both gaps with the same uniform linear dielectric of static relative permittivity ${ϵ}_r>1$, neglecting the fringing field of a capacitor. Keep one connected to an ideal voltage source and isolate the other. The geometric capacitance becomes $C={ϵ}_r{C}_0$ in both cases; the electrical constraint determines what else changes.^[ref]

Write $Q_0=C_0{V}_0$, $E_0=V_0/d$ and $U_0=C_0{V}_0^2/2$. Applying $Q=CV$, $E=V/d$ and the capacitor energy formula gives the complete comparison:Thus the statement that a dielectric reduces the electric field needs the fixed-free-charge condition. With fixed electric potential difference, the voltage source supplies additional free plate electric charge, maintaining $E=V_0/d$ despite the new bound electric charges.

For the stipulated ${ϵ}_r=3$ example, the voltage source supplies $\Delta Q=2Q_0$. At constant $V_0$, its delivered electrical work is $V_0\Delta Q=4U_0$, whereas the increase in capacitor energy is $2U_0$. In an ideal reversible quasistatic insertion, the remaining $2U_0$ is mechanical work delivered by the assembly, as accounted for in fixed-voltage capacitor energy balance. For the isolated assembly, capacitor energy falls from $U_0$ to $U_0/3$, allowing $2U_0/3$ of mechanical work in the same ideal limit. Actual losses reduce recoverable work; energy increases in the connected case do not arise from the dielectric supplying free energy.