Difference Between Thin and Conductive charge configurations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rawrzz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charge Difference
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the computational differences between thin spherical insulating and conductive shells, particularly in the context of capacitors. It emphasizes that while textbooks state capacitors must be conductors, insulating shells can theoretically have capacitance, although they are impractical for actual capacitor functionality. The conversation highlights that charge distribution on insulating surfaces remains static, limiting their effectiveness compared to conductive materials that allow charge movement. Additionally, it notes that capacitive sensors can exhibit capacitance without functioning as traditional capacitors due to the necessary voltage/current relationship. Ultimately, the practicality of charging and the nature of charge movement are critical in defining effective capacitors.
Rawrzz
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Difference Between "Thin" and "Conductive" charge configurations

Is there any difference computationally between say a thin spherical insulating shell and a thin conductive shell ?

Can you create a capacitor with two thin insulating shells, one smaller than the other ?

I see most textbooks explicitly say that capacitors must be conductors. Is this so ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The charge enters the capacitor from outside - with an insulator the incoming charge is stuck in one spot, so it would make a lousy capacitor. With conducting surfaces source charges can flow so that the entire surface is charged (both plates/spheres).

The region between the conductors is the insulator; the charges on the plates induce small movements in the molecules of the conductor - they "polarize" the material, but no charge moves more than a few nanometers.
 
Say a charge is already uniformly distributed on the thin spheres. Can you talk about capacitance then ? I realize that it is the practicality of charging that is the problem, but textbooks talk about uniform charge on insulators all the time.
 
Susskind (in The Theoretical Minimum, volume 1, pages 203-205) writes the Lagrangian for the magnetic field as ##L=\frac m 2(\dot x^2+\dot y^2 + \dot z^2)+ \frac e c (\dot x A_x +\dot y A_y +\dot z A_z)## and then calculates ##\dot p_x =ma_x + \frac e c \frac d {dt} A_x=ma_x + \frac e c(\frac {\partial A_x} {\partial x}\dot x + \frac {\partial A_x} {\partial y}\dot y + \frac {\partial A_x} {\partial z}\dot z)##. I have problems with the last step. I might have written ##\frac {dA_x} {dt}...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (Second part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8. I want to understand some issues more correctly. It's a little bit difficult to understand now. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. In the page 196, in the first paragraph, the author argues as follows ...
Back
Top