More semantics - capacitors this time

Thread Starter

Ratch

Joined Mar 20, 2007
1,068
StephenDJ,

There used to be a formula I knew of for RC circuits where you could plug in the starting voltage or current, the ending voltage or current, and the amount of time in between, and project exactly what the voltage or current will be after exactly x amount time has passed. I know it rises/drops to 63% within the first time constant. But where's the formula for the other times? Also would like to have the vise versa: i.e. plug in the voltage or current and find the time.

I doubt that one formula could cover current/voltage and energize/de-energize. It is easy to figure out by differential equations or Laplace transforms by setting initial conditions.

mik3,

For an RC network with initial voltage on the capacitor Vo its voltage with respect to time is given by:

Vc(t)=V(1-exp(-t/RC)+Vo*exp(-t/RC)

where

V=the steady state voltage across the capacitor when fully charged
Vo=initial voltage (if exists)
Does the above formula cover energizing or de-energizing? What defines a fully energized capacitor? Its dielectric breakdown, maybe?

Ratch
 

Ron H

Joined Apr 14, 2005
7,012
StephenDJ,

There used to be a formula I knew of for RC circuits where you could plug in the starting voltage or current, the ending voltage or current, and the amount of time in between, and project exactly what the voltage or current will be after exactly x amount time has passed. I know it rises/drops to 63% within the first time constant. But where's the formula for the other times? Also would like to have the vise versa: i.e. plug in the voltage or current and find the time.

I doubt that one formula could cover current/voltage and energize/de-energize. It is easy to figure out by differential equations or Laplace transforms by setting initial conditions.

mik3,



Does the above formula cover energizing or de-energizing? What defines a fully energized capacitor? Its dielectric breakdown, maybe?

Ratch
One formula covers both charging and discharging:

V=Vf+(Vi-Vf)*e^(-t/(R*C))
Where
V=instantaneous voltage
Vi=initial voltage
Vf=final voltage
 

Thread Starter

Ratch

Joined Mar 20, 2007
1,068
Ron H,

One formula covers both charging and discharging:

V=Vf+(Vi-Vf)*e^(-t/(R*C))
Where
V=instantaneous voltage
Vi=initial voltage
Vf=final voltage
After I saw your post, I worked it out for myself, and I agree with what you posted. My result is V = Va +(Vi-Va)*exp(-t/RC) where Vi is the initial voltage and Va is the applied step DC voltage. The instantaneous voltage will utlimately reach the applied step voltage whether the capacitor is being more energized or less energized. The subtraction of Vi and Va automatically takes care of the sign.

By the way, does this discussion appear to be "off topic" to you?

Ratch
 

Ron H

Joined Apr 14, 2005
7,012
Ron H,



After I saw your post, I worked it out for myself, and I agree with what you posted. My result is V = Va +(Vi-Va)*exp(-t/RC) where Vi is the initial voltage and Va is the applied step DC voltage. The instantaneous voltage will utlimately reach the applied step voltage whether the capacitor is being more energized or less energized. The subtraction of Vi and Va automatically takes care of the sign.

By the way, does this discussion appear to be "off topic" to you?

Ratch
I'm baffled as to why it was moved to Off-Topic. I doubled posted, here and in the original thread. I wonder if mine will be moved also.:rolleyes:
 

thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,073
The following have nothing to do with the original thread:
I doubt that one formula could cover current/voltage and energize/de-energize.
and:
What defines a fully energized capacitor? Its dielectric breakdown, maybe?
The first first statement is a personal opinion, not a formula or explanation. The second statement is a semantics discussion. If either can be argued to fit one of the other boards, or to fit into the original thread, feel free to present case for such. If one of the moderators agree with said argument, they will no doubt make the appropriate adjustment. If not, then not.
 

Thread Starter

Ratch

Joined Mar 20, 2007
1,068
thingmaker3,

The first first statement is a personal opinion, not a formula or explanation. The second statement is a semantics discussion. If either can be argued to fit one of the other boards, or to fit into the original thread, feel free to present case for such. If one of the moderators agree with said argument, they will no doubt make the appropriate adjustment. If not, then not.
OK, I will take you up on that. The first statement was a personal opinion, but an informed opinion. And it was identified as a personal opinion. I am sure I can find may personal opinions in these threads, some of which are not identified as opinions, which did not get moved. Ron H showed that one formula did exist for the instantaneous voltage of a capacitor after adding or removing energy from it. I verified his equation as correct, which proved my original opinion wrong. However, right or wrong, it still was "on topic".

The second statement you refer to is an alternate and more correct way of expressing what happens to a capacitor. After all, it takes energy to imbalance the charge of a capacitor. The energy changes, not the net charge. Any objection to that concept is a objection to the messenger, not the message. And again, whether agreement or disagreement is present, it is still "on topic". Whether the moderators restore this posting is not important. They have to justify to themselves and perhaps to the others in this forum whether they were correct.

Ratch
 

Ron H

Joined Apr 14, 2005
7,012
thingmaker3,



OK, I will take you up on that. The first statement was a personal opinion, but an informed opinion. And it was identified as a personal opinion. I am sure I can find may personal opinions in these threads, some of which are not identified as opinions, which did not get moved. Ron H showed that one formula did exist for the instantaneous voltage of a capacitor after adding or removing energy from it. I verified his equation as correct, which proved my original opinion wrong. However, right or wrong, it still was "on topic".
I agree.
The second statement you refer to is an alternate and more correct way of expressing what happens to a capacitor. After all, it takes energy to imbalance the charge of a capacitor. The energy changes, not the net charge. Any objection to that concept is a objection to the messenger, not the message. And again, whether agreement or disagreement is present, it is still "on topic". Whether the moderators restore this posting is not important. They have to justify to themselves and perhaps to the others in this forum whether they were correct.

Ratch
Ratch, I think your question "What defines a fully energized capacitor?" was a little strange. I have difficulty believing you didn't actually know what mik3 meant by "V=the steady state voltage across the capacitor when fully charged". I suspect you were using it as an excuse to get on your charge vs energy soapbox. If Thingmaker3 had the same opinion, it may explain the move.
 

Thread Starter

Ratch

Joined Mar 20, 2007
1,068
Ron H,

Ratch, I think your question "What defines a fully energized capacitor?" was a little strange. I have difficulty believing you didn't actually know what mik3 meant by "V=the steady state voltage across the capacitor when fully charged". I suspect you were using it as an excuse to get on your charge vs energy soapbox. If Thingmaker3 had the same opinion, it may explain the move.
OK, let me explain it better. Mik stated "V=the steady state voltage across the capacitor when fully charged." So what is "fully charged". Surely not when the capacitor reaches the step voltage. If the step voltage is 10 volts, and the dielectric breakdown is 100 volts, then the capacitor has not been "fully charged" by the step voltage, has it? But regardless of the ambiguous description, it is still "on topic".

Ratch
 

Ron H

Joined Apr 14, 2005
7,012
Ron H,



OK, let me explain it better. Mik stated "V=the steady state voltage across the capacitor when fully charged." So what is "fully charged". Surely not when the capacitor reaches the step voltage. If the step voltage is 10 volts, and the dielectric breakdown is 100 volts, then the capacitor has not been "fully charged" by the step voltage, has it? But regardless of the ambiguous description, it is still "on topic".

Ratch
Well, Thingmaker3 gave this thread a good title. You are talking semantics.
Surely not when the capacitor reaches the step voltage.
Of course it's when the capacitor reaches the step voltage! IMHO, almost anyone reading this thread (except you?) would understand this, in light of the topic at hand. What could dielectric breakdown voltage possibly have to do with the voltage vs time RC charge/discharge curve?
 

Thread Starter

Ratch

Joined Mar 20, 2007
1,068
Ron H,

What could dielectric breakdown voltage possibly have to do with the voltage vs time RC charge/discharge curve?
As I stated before, the dielectric breakdown determines the "fully charged" state of the capacitor. So why was "fully charged" mentioned in mik3's description of his formula in post #2 of this thread? You should be asking mik3 that question. It is a matter of definition, not semantics.

Ratch
 

beenthere

Joined Apr 20, 2004
15,808
As I stated before, the dielectric breakdown determines the "fully charged" state of the capacitor.
If you charge a capacitor to the point where the dielectric breaks down, you then have a fully destroyed capacitor.
 

Thread Starter

Ratch

Joined Mar 20, 2007
1,068
beenthere,

If you charge a capacitor to the point where the dielectric breaks down, you then have a fully destroyed capacitor.
That's good. I like it. I guess I should have said rated working voltage.

Ratch
 

thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,073
I guess I should have said rated working voltage
It is possible to energize a capacitor beyond the rated working voltage without destroying it. Just how far will vary from situation to situation.

If you read a few practical electronics texts, you'll find that "fully charged" means exactly what Ron H says it does.

Language is an evolving thing, you see. It is not static, and it flatly refuses to conform to formal definitions in dusty old tomes. (A perusal of very old dictionaries will confirm this.) I know this can be frustrating - I find it annoying myself at time - but I suggest you learn to live with it.

One example of the evolution of language: use of the word "charge" to mean "energize" in this context.
 

Thread Starter

Ratch

Joined Mar 20, 2007
1,068
thingmaker3,

It is possible to energize a capacitor beyond the rated working voltage without destroying it. Just how far will vary from situation to situation.
Yes, I am aware of that.

If you read a few practical electronics texts, you'll find that "fully charged" means exactly what Ron H says it does.
I would think that they do not even define "fully charged". They might mention it, but not define it.

Language is an evolving thing, you see. It is not static, and it flatly refuses to conform to formal definitions in dusty old tomes. (A perusal of very old dictionaries will confirm this.) I know this can be frustrating - I find it annoying myself at time - but I suggest you learn to live with it.

One example of the evolution of language: use of the word "charge" to mean "energize" in this context.
You mean like the astronauts "walking" in space when they used to go EVA at the beginning of the space age? And do they walk away if they lose their supporting grip? Does that make sense? Is that the way you would describe it? Sometimes you have to stand up and fight against bad jargon. Otherwise descriptive words will eventually lose their meaning.

Ratch
 

thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,073
You mean like the astronauts "walking" in space when they used to go EVA at the beginning of the space age?
That is indeed another good example.
And do they walk away if they lose their supporting grip?
I think that one would be called "the long walk home.":eek:
Does that make sense?
Yes. Although not to you, perhaps.
Sometimes you have to stand up and fight against bad jargon.
And sometimes you have to realize you're just being overly critical.
Otherwise descriptive words will eventually lose their meaning.
Congratulations, Ratch! You've just stumbled across another of those logical fallacies you seem to enjoy indulging in! We call this one "Slipery Slope." Cultural ephasia will certainly not follow from linguistic evolution. We might admittedly end up with "peace-keeper missles" or a "permanant press" setting on our irons, but communication will by and large continue with effecacy.

Believe me, I empathise with your position even if I disagree with the merit of your quest. I myself continually fight a loosing battle against vocalisation of the L in "palm," or "calm," or "golf." I throw fits when I hear someone pronounce "coupon" with a wye sound after the hard c. My stomach sours when I hear an R in the second syllable of "sherbet." And I want to scream when the politicians say "nukular.":rolleyes:

I've given up trying to get people to say "Fora" instead of "Forums." I can't stop evolution. Niether can you, my good fellow. Try if you must, but don't expect any followers.

I feel your pain.

But I do not, can not, and will not condone such battles when they distract from the honest quest for knowledge. The Feedback Forum is the appropriate place to challenge the language of the AAC text, not the Homework Forum. The Off Topic Forum is the appropriate place to debate semantics, not the Electronics Forums. (Yes, I call the Fora "Forums" now myself. Unlike some folk who post here, I know when to admit defeat and move on.)
 

Ron H

Joined Apr 14, 2005
7,012
Super Moderators, I'm really glad you picked this up. I was quickly morphing from supporting Ratch to going into attack mode, which really is bad form, especially on these fora :cool:. His signature is really well chosen.
 

Thread Starter

Ratch

Joined Mar 20, 2007
1,068
thingmaker3,

Sorry to drag this up after all this time, but my preparations for my vacation back then did not allow me to devote the time your response back then that I should have done.

I've given up trying to get people to say "Fora" instead of "Forums." I can't stop evolution. Niether can you, my good fellow. Try if you must, but don't expect any followers.

(Yes, I call the Fora "Forums" now myself. Unlike some folk who post here, I know when to admit defeat and move on.)
I think you will be happy to know that Webster's Unabridged Dictionary lists both "fora" and "forums" as the plural of "forum".

Ratch
 

thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,073
Sorry to drag this up after all this time, but my preparations for my vacation back then did not allow me to devote the time your response back then that I should have done.
I do hope your vacation was enjoyable! I'm taking a three day weekend myself in just a few days.
 
Top