2
$\begingroup$

I am not sure I completely understand the definition of mutual capacitance. Let's say we have two conductors, $A$ and $B$, so that the following holds:

  1. Both conductors are isolated.
  2. $A$ is isolated and $B$ is kept at fixed potential.
  3. Both conductors are kept at fixed potential.

What is the correct definition (and meaning) of (mutual) capacitance in these three cases? For example, in the first case, we could have arbitrary charges $Q_A$ and $Q_B (\neq - Q_A)$ on the conductors. These charges would result in the potentials $V_A$ and $V_B$. Now, do we define capacitance as $$C = \frac{\Delta Q}{\Delta V},$$ where $\Delta V = V_A - V_B$ and $\Delta Q$ is the charge which would be transferred from $A$ to $B$ if we connected the conductors by a thin wire? If this is correct, the definition still makes sense in the second example but completely fails in the third one. Does it even makes sense to define the capacitance for the system in the third example?

Also, is there a easy way to determine the mutual capacitance from capacitance matrix?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Suppose you set the zero of potential so both conductors have zero charge at zero potential. If you then set them to potentials $V_A$ and $V_B$, you can prove that they will acquire charges \begin{align} Q_A=C_A V_A+C_{AB}V_B,\\ Q_B=C_{BA}V_A+C_B V_B, \end{align} respectively. This is the real definition of capacitance, and particularly of mutual capacitance: the coefficients in the linear multi-variable relations between the charges on the conductors and the corresponding potentials; the mutual capacitances are the off-diagonal elements of this capacitance matrix.

Whether the charges and potentials are achieved by, say,

  • grounding the potentials,

  • connecting them to ground via a potential source like a battery, or

  • isolating them and injecting a specific amount of charge,

does not really change anything - it simply tells you which terms you hold constant and which ones are variables that are determined by the geometry of the situation. In particular, note that if I am allowed to set $A$ and $B$ to fixed (but arbitrary) potentials, then I am really in your case 3. Here $C_{AB}$ is easily seen to be the increase in $Q_A$ per unit increase in $V_B$ while $V_A$ is kept fixed - nothing mysterious about it, and no hint of undefiniteness around. The definition of the mutual capacitance does not depend on the situation - only on the geometry.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ That's what I thought. But the example of a concentric capacitor confuses me again and again. The capacitance seems to depend on whether the inner or outer shell is earthed. But the geometry is the same in both cases. $\endgroup$
    – user17116
    Commented May 4, 2015 at 16:39
  • $\begingroup$ That is almost certainly an error in the calculation or a misinterpretation of the conditions you're calculating. Set up two spherical shell conductors at $V_A$ and $V_B$, and impose regularity of the potential at the origin and zero potential at infinity, and then solve for the resulting charges on both spheres. The mutual capacitances are the off-diagonal elements of the capacitance matrix and should both equal $4\pi\epsilon_0 r_Ar_B/(r_B-r_A)$. $\endgroup$ Commented May 4, 2015 at 17:38
  • $\begingroup$ This is the value of $Q_A$ (resp. $Q_B$) as $A$ (resp. $B$) is kept grounded at $V_A=0$ (resp. $V_B=0$), and the potential in $B$ (resp. $A$) is increased from zero to $V_B$ (resp. $V_A$). $\endgroup$ Commented May 4, 2015 at 17:38
  • $\begingroup$ So, what would you make of the following calculations: physicsforums.com/threads/… $\endgroup$
    – user17116
    Commented May 4, 2015 at 19:00
  • $\begingroup$ I can't see any calculations - there are just statements, with little indication of what they actually calculated. As you've shown, being too loose with the word 'capacitance' can lead you astray. Self and mutual capacitances do not change depending on the voltages of the different conductors in the problem, so the post you link to is ill-phrased to say the least. $\endgroup$ Commented May 4, 2015 at 23:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.