Re: [Phys-l] defn of capacitance

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 02/11/2008 01:38 PM, Bob Sciamanda wrote:
> Textbook treatments of this subject include a proof that the Cij's are a 
> function only of geometry.  This is an important part of the usefulness of 
> this model.  Your treatment does not seem to include this point.

Proof???  I think it's an assumption requiring an 
approximation ... not a proof.

It's bad luck to prove things that aren't true.

For example, the assumption does not hold if 
varactors or other lightly-doped semiconductors 
are involved.

Thanks for pointing out this gap in the logic;  I
just now added a paragraph documenting the required
assumption.