Am I doing this correctly? (s domain analysis)

  • Thread starter Thread starter seang
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis Domain
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on analyzing a circuit after a switch is opened at t = 0, specifically transforming it into the s domain to find Isubl(s) and Isubl(t). Participants clarify that the initial current should be calculated assuming the circuit is in steady state, treating the inductor as a short circuit, leading to I_0 = Va/R. It is emphasized that initial conditions should be determined before converting to the s domain, and the impedance of the inductor in this domain is correctly noted as sL. The final steps involve applying Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL) to derive the current equations in the s domain, confirming the approach taken is valid. The conversation concludes with a collaborative effort to ensure the calculations align with circuit analysis principles.
seang
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
The switch in the following circuit has been close for a long time and is opened at t = 0. Transform the circuit into the s doman and solve for Isubl(s) and Isubl(t) in symbolic form.

I've only found Isubl(s) so far, and I want to see how I'm doing before I convert it back to the time domain. I hope my work is clear; I used the t < 0 circuit to find out the inductors initial current, then used superposition to find the final current.

How am I doing? Thanks alot.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-1.jpg
    Untitled-1.jpg
    58.6 KB · Views: 414
Engineering news on Phys.org
I think you found the intial current incorrectly. Since the switched has been closed for a long time, then we can safely assume that the circuit is in steady state. This means that the inductor is acts like a perfect conductor or simply a wire. Then the intial current is actually

I_0 = \frac {V_a}{R}
 
Ok, so is it customary to find hte IC before converting the circuit to the s domain? Because I intuitively knew that an inductor was a short circuit in a DC setting, but regardless, its impedance in the s domain is Ls, right? How does this work?

EDIT: I guess it shouldn't matter, right?

So the formula you presented is in the time domain, right?
its s domain equivalent would be

I_0(s) = \frac {V_a}{sR}

yay?
 
Last edited:
Yes you need to find the intial conditions before transforming the circuit into the s domain. The equation I wrote is in s domain already. No need to modify it. The battery that is introduced in the s domain should be

LI_0 = L \frac {Va}{R}

The impedance of the inductor in the s domain is indeed sL.

After you transform the circuit into the s domain, write a KVL to obtain

\frac {Va}{s} + 2R I(s) + sL I(s) + L \frac {Va}{R} = 0
 
So I factor, move the I(s) term over, then divide, is this correct?\frac{VaR}{sR} + \frac{SLVa}{sR} = -I(s)(2R + sL)I(s) = \frac{-Va}{R} \ast \frac{(R + sL)}{s(2R + sL)}
 
Last edited:
Very basic question. Consider a 3-terminal device with terminals say A,B,C. Kirchhoff Current Law (KCL) and Kirchhoff Voltage Law (KVL) establish two relationships between the 3 currents entering the terminals and the 3 terminal's voltage pairs respectively. So we have 2 equations in 6 unknowns. To proceed further we need two more (independent) equations in order to solve the circuit the 3-terminal device is connected to (basically one treats such a device as an unbalanced two-port...
suppose you have two capacitors with a 0.1 Farad value and 12 VDC rating. label these as A and B. label the terminals of each as 1 and 2. you also have a voltmeter with a 40 volt linear range for DC. you also have a 9 volt DC power supply fed by mains. you charge each capacitor to 9 volts with terminal 1 being - (negative) and terminal 2 being + (positive). you connect the voltmeter to terminal A2 and to terminal B1. does it read any voltage? can - of one capacitor discharge + of the...
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Back
Top