I think I found an algebraic mistake at around 10:02. Constant B is wrong by a factor of a. Should be -V0 *a / (b - a). I like using Laplacian to solve the parallel plate capacitor problem. I had never seen it done that way before.
Thank you soooo much for posting this. As an EE student, I can't express to you how simply, getting somebody to slow down and properly explain the material, without a think accent, is a huge deal. Thanks again.
at 1:10, the electric field strength should be defined as negative gradient of potential, not positve gradient. But anyhow, by the derivative of the Poisson's equation, it is negative again.😀
I always assumed the potential to be a linear equation in a parallel plate capacitor. Now I know the reason for that, thanks to this Video. It comes from the fact that we try to solve the Laplace equation. Awesome.
It looks good for this case. But for real case it need numerical methods... It might become complicated to make it happen. That could be fine to see how the photon field operate here also.
Does anyone know what changes if we have a dielectric inbetween the plates? Do we consider Poisson's equation with rho being the bound volume charge density?
The dielectric gets polarized between the plates so rho inside the dielectric is not zero (when an external Electric field is present). So i guess what you said is correct.
I have an home-exam right now because of covid-19 , so it would be helpful if any1 could answer quickly. at 10:00 when you substitute for A in the expression for B, you seem to have forgotten the a that was already in the expression... or am i mistaken?
I think I found an algebraic mistake at around 10:02. Constant B is wrong by a factor of a. Should be -V0 *a / (b - a).
I like using Laplacian to solve the parallel plate capacitor problem. I had never seen it done that way before.
Thank you soooo much for posting this. As an EE student, I can't express to you how simply, getting somebody to slow down and properly explain the material, without a think accent, is a huge deal. Thanks again.
at 1:10, the electric field strength should be defined as negative gradient of potential, not positve gradient. But anyhow, by the derivative of the Poisson's equation, it is negative again.😀
I always assumed the potential to be a linear equation in a parallel plate capacitor. Now I know the reason for that, thanks to this Video. It comes from the fact that we try to solve the Laplace equation. Awesome.
perfect explanation, this will save my midterms . Thank you sir
The equation on the screen in the first slide is obviusly wrong. E ≠ grad V. The correct formula is : E = −grad V
thank you professor
from Iraq
At 10:51 I was basically thinking about the formula of a uniform distribution and then you wrote “b-a” :)
It looks good for this case. But for real case it need numerical methods... It might become complicated to make it happen. That could be fine to see how the photon field operate here also.
Does anyone know what changes if we have a dielectric inbetween the plates? Do we consider Poisson's equation with rho being the bound volume charge density?
The dielectric gets polarized between the plates so rho inside the dielectric is not zero (when an external Electric field is present). So i guess what you said is correct.
I have an home-exam right now because of covid-19 , so it would be helpful if any1 could answer quickly. at 10:00 when you substitute for A in the expression for B, you seem to have forgotten the a that was already in the expression... or am i mistaken?
Yes, there should be 'a' there in the B expression.
Thank you sir.. You helped me alot with this😊😇.. May god bless you.. Keep uploading🙏🙏
excellent, very clear thank you
Pls do more video :))
Amazing
Watt the different bitween the symboles 🔺and🔻
The first is the laplace operator, where you use the second one (the nabla operator) twice in a row
Better 2years late than never
Sir do some more videos😊😊
nice
best
Hi
E = - grad V not grad V!!!
The word is ‘homogeneous’ , not ‘homogenous’. The two words are spelled differently and pronounced differently and have different meanings.
It's homogeneous; not homogenous.
Exactly what I was looking for...How I wish you did the entire module🥲