Confused about Kirchhoff's Laws for RC Circuits - Discharging

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the application of Kirchhoff's laws to derive the voltage across a discharging capacitor in series with a resistor in an RC circuit. Participants explore the correct formulation of the equations involved and the implications of sign conventions in the context of charge and current.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the application of Kirchhoff's laws, specifically questioning why the voltage drop across the resistor is treated as a gain in the equation.
  • Another participant suggests that the confusion arises from a missing negative sign, indicating that the current from the discharging capacitor should depend on the negative of the charge.
  • A later reply acknowledges the initial confusion and provides reassurance, indicating that the misunderstanding is common among students.
  • Additional commentary highlights that many resources do not adequately explain the context of charge and current, which can lead to misunderstandings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the confusion stems from the treatment of signs in the equations, but there is no consensus on the best way to clarify this for learners. The discussion remains somewhat unresolved regarding the clarity of educational resources on this topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the context of charge and current may not be adequately addressed in many educational materials, leading to potential misunderstandings about the application of Kirchhoff's laws in RC circuits.

spoonerism
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi. When trying to derive the equation for voltage across a discharging capacitor in series with a resistor using Kirchhoff's laws, I got stuck. My attempt was that the voltage gain across the capacitor should equal the voltage drop across the resistor, therefore q(t)/C = i(t)*R, or q(t) - RC*q'(t) = 0. Solving this yields an equation similar to the actual equation, but it yields v(t) = V*e^(t/RC) when it should be V*e^(-t/RC). I have scoured the internet, and every other proof uses the KVL equation as q(t)/C + i(t)*R = 0, seemingly treating i(t)*R as a voltage rise instead of a drop. I am simply confused as to the logistics of this equation, and why it is + i(t)*R instead of - i(t)*R. Thank you for your help, in advance!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Checking against he physics - the current from the discharging capacitor should depend on the negative of the charge. So you've probably missed out a minus sign.

The loop law gives you: $$\frac{q(t)}{C}-i(t)R=0$$ ... where q(t) is the remaining charge on the capacitor plates. The physics for the capacitor tells you the ##i(t)=-\dot q## which you substitute into the loop equation.
 
Alright, that clears it up. Thanks a lot!
 
You can be forgiven for not realizing: the q here has a different context to how you usually think of it in connection with a current.

I had a look around and it seems that every single website kinda "glides" over that bit. i.e. "you only get a positive current when the charge on the cap is decreasing".

The only ones to include the step seem to be for more junior students and, even then, they don't exactly go out of their way to point it out. I think most students would just memorize the argument without questioning it so you are to be commended.

Generally:
Normally when you see something odd like that it means that the author has skipped a step ;)
Funny stuff with minus signs means you probably need to look closer at what any arrows mean.
Have fun.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K