- #51

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter johann1301h
- Start date

- #51

- #52

- 71

- 1

- #53

- 71

- 1

They call it pioneering, I call it a mistake.

- #54

- 71

- 1

l_{2}(t) = V_{s}R_{1}/(R_{1} + R_{2})(1 - e^{-t/τ}) + V_{s}/R_{2}e^{-t/τ}

- #55

- 71

- 1

I

I just find the derivative of V

- #56

gneill

Mentor

- 20,925

- 2,866

I took part in a similar initiative when I was in university (back when dinosaurs ruled the earth!). The program was for a Bachelor of Computer Science, Electronic Systems. It combined computer science core courses, electrical engineering core courses, and control systems core courses. Nearly no electives at all, so lots of brain-sweat and no time to party. As it turned out, I was the only student to graduate on-time in that first class (*blush*).

To give the school credit, they did go into all the gory details and didn't leave anything out along the way. Lot's of work, but all the groundwork was laid in a smooth progression. So they obviously planned the initiative very well, even if was perhaps a tad "aggressive" given the on-time graduating rate for the first pass at it.

- #57

gneill

Mentor

- 20,925

- 2,866

Something's gone amiss. The units in the first term do not work out to current (amps). And I'd expect a constant offset for the second term, not a decaying exponential. But it's really close to what I'd expect.l_{2}(t) = V_{s}R_{1}/(R_{1}+ R_{2})(1 - e^{-t/τ}) + V_{s}/R_{2}e^{-t/τ}

Can you show some details of how you arrived at your result?

- #58

- 71

- 1

l2(t) = V

But this is also not right given that;

And I'd expect a constant offset for the second term, not a decaying exponential.

I can always rewrite it though;

l2(t) = V

l2(t) = V

- #59

gneill

Mentor

- 20,925

- 2,866

Yes, that looks good.

- #60

- 71

- 1

V

and therefore

I

I

I

I

I

- #61

gneill

Mentor

- 20,925

- 2,866

Yup. Looks good.

- #62

- 71

- 1

But you mentioned in post #13

That is the "starting from the basics" approach, yes.

The thing is this, in the next task I'm asked to verify the result using a numerical method; ie. using a differential equation! (forward Euler for instance)

But I/we have solved it, by simply assuming the "form" of the function; I guess Im puzzled by the "starting from the basics" approach" you mentioned...

How does one go about finding the differential equation?

- #63

gneill

Mentor

- 20,925

- 2,866

One writes the circuit equations using the differential or integral forms for the capacitor voltage or current, then solve the resulting differential equation. So for example, for the simple case of a charged capacitor discharging through a resistor, writing KCL:How does one go about finding the differential equation?

##C \frac{dV}{dt} +\frac{V}{R} = 0##

##\frac{dV}{dt} = -\frac{V}{R C}##

##\frac{dV}{V} = -\frac{dt}{R C} ##

and so on

Share:

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 9K