Objective:

This laboratory was designed to evaluate parallel plate capacitors. By measuring time constants
using an oscilloscope capacitances could be evaluated for two sizes, two types of dielectric, and
five separation sizes.

Equipment:
1. Square-wave generator (1 kHz to 10 MHz)
2. Oscilloscope (10 MHz bandwidth with a 10-to-1 probe)
3. Reference capacitor (roughly 1 nF)
4. Two 3 inch by 6 inch capacitor plates
5. Two 6 inch by 6 inch capacitor plates
6. Five 3 inch and 6 inch by 6 inch sheets of paper
7. Five 3 inch and 6 inch by 6 inch sheets of acetate
8. Connector cables (function generator, oscilloscope, parallel plates)
9. A brick and brick placing card
10. A tape measure
11. A micrometer

Procedure:
1. The Softscope was calibrated using a 10-to-1 probe set to 1-to-1.
2. The numbers on all plates were recorded and can be found in the results section.
3. Dielectric thickness was measured with the micrometer. Five sheets were measured at a
time and the total was divided by five for each individual sheet. The offset was accounted
for and the thicknesses can be found in the results section.
4. The exact size was found using a tape measure and can be found in the results section.
The effective area was then calculated and can also be found in the results.
5. The function generator was connected to the oscilloscope.
6. A square wave at a frequency of 100 kHz was applied.
7. The time constant was measured for the function generator in parallel with the
oscilloscope. Second order effects were ignored by discounting oscillations close to the
signal edges. This value can be found in the results section.
8. The stray capacitance was calculated using a source impedance of 50 ohms. The
calculations and found value is located in the results section.

9. A new time constant was found after placing the reference capacitor in parallel with the
function generator and the oscilloscope. This value, the resulting total capacitance,
measured reference capacitance, and the comparison between measured and known
reference capacitance can be found in the results section.
10. The reference capacitor was replaced with the 3 by 6 parallel plate capacitor first
(according to Figure 2 of the Laboratory Two Manual).
11. The time constants for both plate sizes, each number of sheets, and each type of dielectric
was measured and recorded in the results section. For each measurement the provided
brick was placed diagonally across the plates to maximize contact.
12. For each of these time constants, the overall capacitance, and the resulting capacitance
was calculated. The resulting capacitance, C, was plotted versus plate separation on a loglog scale. Best fit line parameters were calculated according to the linear regression
analysis formulas. From each of these four lines four estimates of the relative
permittivities were found. All values for this section can be found in the results.

Results:
1. No data recorded.
2. Plates Number: 17.
3. 6x6 thicknesses:
a. Acetate: 0.41 mm 0.03 mm (for error) = 0.38 mm, one sheet = 0.076 mm
b. Paper: 0.37 mm 0.03 mm (for error) = 0.34 mm, one sheet = 0.068 mm
3x6 thicknesses:

c. Acetate: 0.41 mm 0.03 mm (for error) = 0.38 mm, one sheet = 0.076 mm
d. Paper: 0.37 mm 0.03 mm (for error) = 0.34 mm, one sheet = 0.068 mm
4. 6x6 measured area: 15.3 cm x 15.3 cm, A = 23.4*10-3 m2
3x6 measured area: 7.7 cm x 15.3 cm, A = 11.8*10-3 m2
Note: Effective area is the measured area.
5. No data recorded.
6. No data recorded.
7. Measurements: 26.2 ns at -2.52 V to -4.8 ns at 0.580 V, = 31.0 ns
8. Cs + Co = / R = 31.0*10-9/50 = 620. pF
9. Measurements: 71.3 ns at -2.52 V to -8.8 ns at 0.58 V, = 80.1 ns
C = / R = 80.1*10-9/50 = 1.60 nF,
Cr = 1.60 0.62 = 0.980 nF
% Difference = |1 0.980| / 1 * 100 = 1.8 % = 2 %
10. No data recorded.
11. Following is the table containing all recorded time constants for part eleven of the
procedure.
Table 1: Time Constants Recorded for Each Case
Numbe
r of
Sheets

3x6
Paper
(ns)

3x6
Acetate
(ns)

6x6
Paper
(ns)

6x6
Acetate
(ns)

1
2
3
4
5

40.8
40.4
40
39.6
38.4

40.8
40
38.4
37.6
36.8

158
114
98
82
78

168
134
112
98
84

12. The capacitance values for each case were placed in tables for ease of view.
Table 2: Total Capacitance Values from TCs
Numbe
r of
Sheets
1

3x6
3x6
6x6
6x6
Paper Acetate Paper Acetate
CT (nF) CT (nF) CT (nF) CT (nF)
0.816

0.816

3.16

3.36

2
3
4
5

0.808
0.8
0.792
0.768

0.8
0.768
0.752
0.736

2.28
1.96
1.64
1.56

2.68
2.24
1.96
1.68

These values were calculated by dividing the time constant for that case by the source
resistance as follows:
CT = / RS = 40.8 ns / 50 = 0.816 nF

Table 3: Resulting Capacitances, C, for Paper Dielectric

Separation
d (mm)

3x6
Paper
C (nF)

6x6
Paper
C (nF)

0.076
0.152
0.228
0.304
0.38

0.196
0.188
0.18
0.172
0.148

2.54
1.66
1.34
1.02
0.94

Table 4: Resulting Capacitances, C, for Acetate Dielectric

3x6
6x6
Separation
Acetate Acetate
d (mm)
C (nF) C (nF)
0.068
0.136
0.204
0.272
0.34

0.196
0.18
0.148
0.132
0.116

2.74
2.06
1.62
1.34
1.06

These values were found by subtracting the Cs + Co capacitance found in step eight of the
procedure.
C = CT (Cs + Co) = 0.816 nF 0.62 nF = 0.196 nF
The plot of the parallel plate capacitance against distance between the plates can be seen in
Appendix A. Figure 1 is the data plotted on a log-log scale and Figure 2 is the log of the data
plotted on a linear scale.

To calculate the line of best fit for each of the four sets of data the linear regression formulas
were implemented in MATLAB (the code for which can be found in Appendix B). The following
values were returned in the MATLAB command window:
Table 5: Best Fit Line Parameters
Case
3x6 Paper
3x6 Acetate
6x6 Paper
6x6 Acetate

m
-0.149
-0.327
-0.63
-0.572

b
-10.3
-11.1
-11.2
-10.9

Using the equation below values for the relative permittivity were calculated for each line.
r = 10b / (oA)
3x6 Paper: r = 10-10.3 / (8.854*10-12*11.8*10-3) = 480.
3x6 Acetate: r = 10-11.1 / (8.854*10-12*11.8*10-3) = 76.0
6x6 Paper: r = 10-11.2 / (8.854*10-12*23.4*10-3) = 30.5
6x6 Acetate: r = 10-10.9 / (8.854*10-12*23.4*10-3) = 60.8

Given that the relative permittivity for paper is 1.5 to 3 and for cellulose acetate is 2.9 to 4.5
(found in Appendix C) then the percent differences found were:
% Difference: |2.25 480| / 2.25 * 100 = 21200 %
% Difference: |3.7 76| / 3.7 * 100 = 1950 %
% Difference: |2.25 30.5| / 2.25 * 100 = 1260 %
% Difference: |3.7 60.8| / 3.7 * 100 = 1540 %

Conclusion:
This laboratory was successful in many ways but the reference permittivities were horrendously
skewed. From the time constant and capacitance tables above (tables 1, 2, and 3) it can be seen
that as the distance between parallel plates increases the time constant decreases and the
capacitance increases. This was to be expected.
Using the MATLAB best fit functionality to fit a linear function to each data gave the same
values for the parameters m and b as found using the linear regression equations inside a
MATLAB script file. This seems to suggest that the calculations were correct.
The percent differences calculated for the relative permittivities are too large to be caused by
anything except an error in the equations used. To plot the data on a linear scale the log of both
capacitance and separation was taken. This data resembled a straight line but nonetheless gave yintercept values that did not give good percent differences. I believe that the issue arises from the
equation used to calculate the relative permittivity. A slight variation in the value of b with this
equation changes the resulting relative permittivity drastically.
Overall I think this was a successful laboratory except for some misunderstanding with the
relative permittivity equations.

Appendix C