# Error in capacitors section

#### jut

Joined Aug 25, 2007
224

The formula for series capacitance has been substituted with a formula for permittivity.

Since an admin type person will likely respond to this, I'd like to ask another question about the capacitors chapter. Why doesn't the chapter talk about voltage division for capacitors in series, or current division for capacitors in parallel?

This introduction to capacitors is good explanation. It's interesting to contrast it to an actual textbook.

Thanks to you guys for an awesome online book.

#### Dave

Joined Nov 17, 2003
6,970

The formula for series capacitance has been substituted with a formula for permittivity.
You are indeed correct, not sure why that has happened.

Since an admin type person will likely respond to this, I'd like to ask another question about the capacitors chapter. Why doesn't the chapter talk about voltage division for capacitors in series, or current division for capacitors in parallel?
This is covered in a more appropriate section in Volume II: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_4/index.html

This introduction to capacitors is good explanation. It's interesting to contrast it to an actual textbook.

Thanks to you guys for an awesome online book.

Dave

#### exscape

Joined Jan 19, 2012
28
Uh... Bump? Over four years later, and I just ran in to this.
Also, the picture for calculating the sum of parallel capacitance is a table of the dielectric constants for various materials.

Edit: There's another incorrect picture over here: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_14/3.html
The first picture should be (and is, in the PDF) a table of the different units used for various magnetic quantities in the CGS/SI/English measuring systems.

Last edited:

#### exscape

Joined Jan 19, 2012
28
There's yet another misplaced picture here (the second one): http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_15/4.html

Since these errors appear to be quite frequent, is there something in particular wrong with the layout setup?
The PDF is yet again unaffected.

Edit: The last image there (the second formula) is also incorrect.