![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| | |||||||
| Electronic Theory Basic principles, ideas, concepts, laws, and formulas behind electronics. |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
| | |
| Experienced Member | Refer - Capacitors |
| | |
| | |
| Experienced Member | Refer - Dielectric |
| | |
| | |
| Experienced Member |
__________________ Eric "Good enough is Perfect" PIC tutorials: Nigel's site: http://www.winpicprog.co.uk/ Gramo's site: http://www.digital-diy.net/ |
| | |
| | |
| Experienced Member | Well the dielectric constant of a vacuum is only 1 in a normalized set of coordinates. Just like we can build a consistant theory on the assumtion that the speed of light is 1. A vacuum still has a permitivity and a capacitor still works in a vacuum. Just because you don't believe it or understand it does not alter the reality. I'm done with this thread -- maybe someone else can satisfy this guy.
__________________ We never have time to do it right; but we always have time to do it over. |
| | |
| | |
| Experienced Member | Google ' define dielectric' Dielectric model applied to vacuum From the definition it might seem strange to apply the dielectric model to a vacuum, however, it is both the simplest and the most accurate example of a dielectric. Recall that the property which defines how a dieletric behaves is the relationship between the applied electric field and the induced dipole moment. For a vacuum the relationship is a real constant number. This constant is called the permitivity of free space, ε0.
__________________ Eric "Good enough is Perfect" PIC tutorials: Nigel's site: http://www.winpicprog.co.uk/ Gramo's site: http://www.digital-diy.net/ |
| | |
| | |
| Experienced Member | Being really poor at math but, able to figure things out pretty well if I have some way to equate them, I have to pretty much beat things down to their most basic form and "start" from there. I was asking an engineer friend a question about modulation and he casually said, "Oh, it's sine omega t". And, that completely satisfied him. Means nothing to me because I think of AM or FM as one signal "tugging" on another with the result being a series of instantaneous results that, over time, create the sidebands. A very mechanical, non-math approach. I can see a concept of X number of electrons flowing onto a capacitor plate and creating a charge across some insulator relative to the other plate and if only the plate area and spacing dictated the capacitance, that would satisfy me. But, there's more. Somehow the amount of charge (number or energy of the electrons) is also determined by the nature of the dielectric material. If the dielectric material is "real" (consists of atoms), it's pretty easy to envision it as a spring, where the electrical stres distorts the atoms more and more as the charge builds up and then releases the energy by returning to an unstressed state when the capacitor discharges. And, I guess that would satisfy me. But, if there are no atoms to be stressed (as in a vacuum), my "mechanical understanding" falters. I suppose if the answer were to be that, with a vacuum as a dielectric, the capacitance is dependent ONLY on plate area and spacing, I could accept that. In that case the electrical stress would only be dependent on the number of electrons that could flow onto a plate of a certain size and interact with the potential of another plate some distance, across the vacuum, away. If the dielectric is a poor insulator (leaky capacitor) there's another problem, when thinking about it as a mechanical analogy. If the dielectric material is leaky, it still has atoms and, while the capacitor wont hold the charge, the stressing of the atoms, at the time the capacitor is charged, should be a different characteristic of the material than the rate the electrons will be allowed to leak through it over time (or, at least it seems like it should be a different charteristic than if there's nothing there at all). If there's a "dynamic" to the matter (or lack thereof, in the case of a vacuum) that allows energy to be dissipated across it by some process besides the flow of electrons through it that could dissipate the charge, that's different for different materials.....well....that's just pure conjecture and I'll stop on this line of thought. So, no I'm not satisfied with it and, maybe there is no answer to be given that doesn't state how it is, mathematically and you just have to work with it in those terms. I hope that's not the case as I would like to "understand" (at some level for which I have a comfortable frame of reference) how it works. But, I certainly don't want to feel like I'm infringing on anyone's patience or time with my ignorance or lack of understanding of this phenomena. |
| | |
| | |
| Experienced Member | The last time I posted this topic I was eventually sort of branded as someone who couldn't be satisfied. It is true that I don't feel that I got THE answer. Let me apologize here for this being rather long but, I want to try to be specific. The question boiled down to, "why does changing the dielectric constant of the insulator in a capacitor change the capacitance". It's certainly easy to "quantify" the effect. To reference formulas and equations that describe how the effect affects the capacitance but, that doesn't really explain HOW it works. One could say that it's as easy as 2+3=5. But, that equation doesn't really explain anything. It merely states that the squiggle, 2 (which by agreement equates to this many of something of which I'll use asterisks, **). Then, the squiggle, 2 is acted on by a mathematical operation (by agreement, to mean aggregation) denoted by a plus sign (+), in conjunction with another squiggle, 3 (which represents this many, ***). The result is that you get an aggregate amount of this many, ***** which, itself is denoted, by agreement, by the squiggle, 5. While the math gives a result it doesn't really describe what's happening. Only if you already know the meanings...how it works AND the nomenclature...can you solve and understand the math. The capacitor formulas are like that. They quantify things. But, to understand how the capacitor works you need to understand that matter consists of atoms and that atoms are comprised of light electrons and much heavier protons and that electrons are orbiting the protons and carry an electrical charge (referred to as negative by convention) and that electrons can be accumulated (which increases the negative electrical charge) and that those elctrons came from atoms which leaves those atoms less negatively charged (by convention referred to as positively charged). We also need to know that like charges attract and unlike charges repel. Related to a capacitor, we can envision a fairly simple action of electrons trying to equalize things via that attractive force. If a battery (one of the devices which can accumulte electrons to create a charge imbalance) across two conductive plates which are separated by an insulating material, it's easy to envistion that some lectrons will flow onto one of the plates and, being attracted to a deficiency of electrons on the opposing plate find themselves attracted to it (unlike charges attracting). But, the insulating material prevents the electrons from actually flowing to the other plate. Fine. We have basic capacitor action grounded in reality. What we don't have is numeric values to quantify it. We need the math for that but, not for underdstanding the action itself. If the insulating material between the plates is a vacuum, that's fine. The electrical attraction is still there and thus, some number of electrons will be pulled onto the negatively charged plate before the circuit stabilizes. If the battery is then removed, the electrons on the plates have no way to go anywhere and thus just stay where they are and the electrical attraction between the plates is still there. By convention that attractive force is called, voltage. If the plate area increases, it's easy to envision that more electrons can flow onto them (creating a larger capacitor value). It's not quite as intuitve that putting the plates closer together will also increase the capacitaance (in fact, it's almost counter-intuitive) but, with a little thought it makes sense. If the plates are closer the strength of the electrical field is greater and so it takes more electrons to balance things out. In fact, charging up a capacitor and then moving the plates will actually vary the voltage on the capacitor (the principle behind the condenser microphone and varactor diode amplifier). Which brings us to the dielectric. Increasing the dielectric constant has the same effect as moving the capacitor's plates closer together. There is something about the properties of the dielectric that makes that happen. Somehow, increasing the dielectric constant increases the electrical interaction of the plates such that it takes more electrons to balance out the charges when a voltage is applied across the c apacitor. THAT is my question! What is the property (are the properties?) of the dielectric that makes it increase the capacitance of a capacitor as the dielectric constant of it increases. One post suggested that electron band gaps were the explanation and maybe it is but...if so, I'm not sure how that works. Or how it relates to a vacuum as the dielectric. Last edited by crashsite : 28th January 2008 at 04:48 PM. |
| | |