I like this answer best.
But, as Ratch says, it's the transfer of charge from one plate to the other.
I know you know that, but the wording was misleading.
However, unlike Ratch, I have no problem with using the word "charged" to describe what happens to a capacitor. We should all know what the word means. Charging, after all, always involves moving charge from one place to another, in some sense.
Try saying "energized" ... and no matter how "correct" that might be, you are more likely to confuse people.
There are many ways to energize something, including heating it,
throwing it, or attaching it to a sling shot prior to launching it at a house to cause some mischief.
SteveB said:However, unlike Ratch, I have no problem with using the word "charged" to describe what happens to a capacitor. We should all know what the word means. Charging, after all, always involves moving charge from one place to another, in some sense.
Does it? If you send electrons along a wire, is the wire charging, or conducting?
The verb charge has no place in describing the unbalancing of electron quantities on capacitor plates.
Ratch
He said as much, in my view. But he also shows a deeper understanding.Even if it is wrong? The voltage of the capacitor will approach the source voltage asymptotically.
Ok, you dont say that, but it does have a place even if you dont say it. People have been saying it for centuries and we all know what it means. Each plate gets charge is the underlying understanding.No, I don't say that. The verb charge has no place in describing the unbalancing of electron quantities on capacitor plates.
Yes, i think so. Otherwise he would not have revealed the most important concept needed to answer the OP's question.Does he?
I didnt say moving charge is charging, I said charging involves moving charge. The order of the statement is important. However, in fact, a wire that conducts does develop a charge distribution on it. But that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.Does it? If you send electrons along a wire, is the wire charging, or conducting?
Because there are many situations where it could happen. If they didn't have the wrong conception then the word charging will not be misinterpreted.Why should that be? Unless they had the wrong conception in the first place.
Depends on the situation, but it would be an unusual situation. So what. You choose a more general term in place of an accepted specific term. You choose loss of information in place or your own personal view of correctness and disregard the history and everyone else's acceptance of language that works well.Surely nobody is going to assume the capacitor is being thermally energized.
Surely nobody is going to assume the capacitor is being mechanically energized.
Not everyone, particularly someone who does not know much about electricity, and particularly someone doing an unusual experiment that involves other types of energy transfer (or energizing). Am I promoting the idea too much? Yes, surely I am, but you are promoting your idea too much too.Surely everyone is going to assume the capacitor is being electrically energized because it is an electrical storage device. It is being charged with electrical energy, or in other words, energized.
He said as much, in my view. But he also shows a deeper understanding.
Ok, you dont say that, but it does have a place even if you dont say it. People have been saying it for centuries and we all know what it means. Each plate gets charge is the underlying understanding.
Yes, i think so. Otherwise he would not have revealed the most important concept needed to answer the OP's question.
I didnt say moving charge is charging, I said charging involves moving charge. The order of the statement is important. However, in fact, a wire that conducts does develop a charge distribution on it. But that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Because there are many situations where it could happen. If they didn't have the wrong conception then the word charging will not be misinterpreted.
Depends on the situation, but it would be an unusual situation. So what. You choose a more general term in place of an accepted specific term. You choose loss of information in place or your own personal view of correctness and disregard the history and everyone else's acceptance of language that works well.
Not everyone, particularly someone who does not know much about electricity, and particularly someone doing an unusual experiment that involves other types of energy transfer (or energizing). Am I promoting the idea too much? Yes, surely I am, but you are promoting your idea too much too.
Im sorry and i am not trying to be rude but you sometimes seem to miss the point.Mr.Al,
When you charge a energy storage device, you have to ask what are you charging it with. Electrical energy of course. So you might as well say energizing. It makes no sense to say you are charging a resistor because it is a dissipative device and cannot hold an electrical charge. To say you are moving a charge to energize a capacitor describes how you are doing something to a capacitor. It does not tell what you are doing, specifically energizing it.
I agree with you there totally, you don't see itWith respect to charging, I sure don't see its description being more clear or convenient.
Ratch
What is the definition of the expression " déja vu " ??
It is knowing as soon as you see the title of this tread, it will soon degenerate into another willy waving contest over the meaning of the word "charge" and what happens to a capacitor when a voltage is impressed across its terminals.
JimB
Mr.Al,
When you charge a energy storage device, you have to ask what are you charging it with. Electrical energy of course. So you might as well say energizing. It makes no sense to say you are charging a resistor because it is a dissipative device and cannot hold an electrical charge. To say you are moving a charge to energize a capacitor describes how you are doing something to a capacitor. It does not tell what you are doing, specifically energizing it.
With respect to charging, I sure don't see its description being more clear or convenient.
Ratch
so the cap would never actually reach full charge? or would it eventually reach its max?
charge of real capacitor consists of electrons and you can't have charge less than one electron's charge. So when the "last" electron will go to cap, if next electron will try to move to cap, voltage on cap will be bigger than supply voltage, so it won't do that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?