Experiment 3

Capacitance and Dielectrics

By

Monty N. J. Attzs
PHY 2092-10
Experiment Performer: 5th Sept 2014
Report Submitted: 12th Sept 2014

Lab Partner:

Silas Tetens

Instructor:

Corinne Fletcher

Introduction
This experiment consisted of three parts, all to investigate capacitance. Its purpose was to allow
for the understanding of capacitance. That is, how capacitance varies with the distance between
two charged plates, as well as, how capacitors work both in series and parallel configurations.

Data

Data Analysis
Sample Calculations
Part 1
The largest and most consistent value for Ve was found to be 1.5V. Ce was then
found experimentally using the equation:
V0C0 = (C0+Ce)Ve
Ce = [(V0C0)/Ve] C0 = [(8 * 1.55*10-10)/1.5] - 1.55*10-10
Ce = 6.466 * 10-10 F
The nominal capacitance (theoretical) was then calculated for the cable:
Cn = (101 * 10-12) F/m * 0.875m
Cn = 8.838*10-11 F

This value was then compared to Ce and a percent difference, %d, was found:
%d = [|Ce Cn| / Cn] *100
%d = [ |(6.466 *10-10) (8.838*10-11)| / (8.838*10-11) ] *100
%d = 631.73 %

Part 2
The capacitance of the plates was measured, experimentally, with a 0.002 m
spacing. The capacitance of the wires with nothing connected was subtracted from
this value:
Cex0.002 = 0.229*10-6 1.15*10-10 = 2.289*10-7 F

The capacitance was then calculated theoretically using the formula:

C

= airA/d

Cth0.002 = [(8.85*10-12 * 1.00059) * (0.176/2)2] / 0.002

= 1.078 * 10-10 F
A percent difference was then found between the theoretical and experimental
value:
%d = |Cth0.002- Cex0.002| / Cth0.002
= [|1.078 * 10-10 - 2.289*10-7| / (1.078 * 10-10)]*100
= 212286%

Data pairs were then collected for Vi and di.

Ratios of adjacent pairs of Vi were then calculated. For example using first pair:
Vi+1/Vi

= 2/1
=2

Inverse ratios of adjacent pairs of ds were also calculated. Example using first
pair:
di/di+1 = 0.08/0.075
= 1.067

A graph of Vi+1/Vi VS di/di+1 was then plotted and the slope was compared to 1, a
percent difference being found:
%dslope = [ |1- 1.95| / 1]*100
= 95%

Part 4
The random error in each measured capacitance was found by multiplying said
capacitance by 0.03, for example:
Random error for black capacitor = 0.03*4.76*10-6 = 1.428*10-7 F
Capacitors were then placed in series, the p.d. across was measured and the sum of
the p.d.s was found:
Vt = V1 + V2 + V3
= 6.8+1.12+2.44
= 9.56 V
The charge stored on each capacitor was then calculated. Example using first:
Q = CV
= 4.76*10-6 * 6.8
= 3.237*10-5 A
Equivalent capacitance of the series circuit was then found using the capacitances
measured in procedure (4):
Ct = [(1/C1) + (1/C2) + (1/C3)]-1
= [(1/4.76*10-6) + (1/6.69*10-6) + (1/1.15*10-5)]-1
= 2.239*10-6 F

Capacitors were then placed in parallel, the p.d. across each was found to be the
same as was expected.
The charge stored on each capacitor was then calculated. Example using first:
Q = CV
= 4.76*10-6 * 10
= 4.76*10-5 A
Equivalent capacitance of the parallel circuit was then found using the capacitances
measured in procedure (4):
Ct = C1 + C2 + C3
= 4.76*10-5 + 2.007*10-6 + 1.15*10-4
= 2.295*10-5 F

Discussion
This experiment was riddled with errors and inconsistencies due to a lack of understanding of the
required procedure. Corrections were attempted during the write up of the lab, however, it was
impossible to cover all inconsistencies.

Part 1
Best Ce = 6.466*10-10 F

%d = 631.7%

Nominal capacitance, Cn = 8.84*10-11 F

In this part of the lab, the combined capacitance of the electrometer and coaxial cable, Ce, was
found. Sources of error in this part included systematic intrinsic error as the capacitor would
slowly discharge as measurements were about to be and were being taken. There was also
random intrinsic error in that the capacitor may have discharged a little when touched prior to the
measurements being taken. These errors caused readings to be lower than they should have been.
However, these error do not explain the large difference between the experimental Ce and
theoretical Cn, the experimental being much larger than the theoretically calculated value.

Part 2

Cex0.002 = 2.289*10-7 F

%dC= 212285.7 %

Cth0.002 = 1.078 * 10-10 F

Slope of Vi+1/Vi VS di/di+1 graph = 1.95

%dslope = 95%

This section of the lab gave the largest error. There was random intrinsic error in that the plates
may not have been perfectly clean and/or may have been slightly scratched or damaged,
preventing them from functioning optimally. Also, random errors in measurements may have
occurred been when positioning the plates at fixed distances from each other. These error would
have negatively affected the results of the experiment, however, no so much as to have a percent
difference in the range of the twenty thousands for the difference between the experimental and
theoretical capacitances. This result is must have been caused by carelessness, a lack of
understanding and following of the procedure and/or very bad equipment.
Obtaining the equation Vi+1/Vi = di/di+1:
C = Q/V

C = 0A/d

d/V = 0A/Q = K

, where K = constant

Therefore, dividing the equations:

[di/ Vi = 0A/Q ] / [di+1/ Vi+1 = 0A/Q]
[di/ Vi ] / [di+1/ Vi+1] = 1
di/ Vi = di+1/ Vi+1
di/ di+1 = Vi/ Vi+1

For the plotted graph of Vi+1/Vi VS di/di+1 the gradient was found the be 1.95. This value was 95%
different from the expected gradient of 1, however, comparing to other results, it was relatively
good. This suggested that a large problem lay in unpreparedness of the students for this
experiment.

Part 4
Series: Ct = 2.24*10-6
Parallel: Ct = 2.30*10-5
The sources of error in the experiment included random intrinsic error, in that the charges on the
capacitors dissipated as measurements were being made. This caused readings to generally be
lower than they should have been and sometimes be randomly skewed. As such, though
theoretically the sum of potential differences should have been equal to the total potential
difference being supplied across the circuit, it was found to be a little less; 9.56V as opposed to
10V. When placed in parallel though the expected value of 10V was found across all capacitors.
It was found that the circuit had a higher overall capacitance, by approximately a power of 10,
when the capacitors were placed in parallel as opposed to being placed in series. Also, the
voltages measurements were found to be much lower after leaving the leads connected for a
prolonged time versus momentarily probing. This was the case because the capacitors where
slowly discharging.

Conclusion
It was observed that the capacitance of parallel plate capacitors depend on the distance between
the plates and that capacitors are more efficient in parallel than in a series arrangement.
Overall, however, the experiment cannot be seen as a success as they was too much error
involved within the results. Whether this was due to misunderstanding the procedure, faulty
equipment, a combination of the two or some other reason remains uncertain.