Confusing circuit analysis question

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of Kirchhoff's Current Law (KCL) in circuit analysis, specifically regarding the use of state variables for energy storage elements. The participant questions whether it is valid to express the inductor current (iL) in terms of other currents (ig and is) at a node, despite being taught that each energy storage element should have its own state variable. The response clarifies that while each energy storage element has its own state variable, these variables can be interdependent due to the interactions within the circuit. This understanding resolves the initial confusion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Kirchhoff's Current Law (KCL)
  • Familiarity with state variables in circuit analysis
  • Knowledge of energy storage elements (capacitors and inductors)
  • Basic circuit analysis techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the interdependence of state variables in circuit systems
  • Learn about the role of energy storage elements in dynamic circuits
  • Explore advanced circuit analysis techniques, such as Laplace transforms
  • Investigate the implications of KCL in complex circuit configurations
USEFUL FOR

Electrical engineering students, circuit designers, and anyone involved in circuit analysis who seeks to deepen their understanding of state variables and their interactions in electrical circuits.

anon6912
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
Thread moved from the technical forums, so no Homework Template is shown
Hi

I have the following situation:
(Please see attached pic)
undefined.jpg


I want to know if equation (4) i have written is correct.

What is confusing me is that, I remember being told in circuit analysis that each energy storage element should have its own state variable.

But in this situation when I apply KCL at node 1 and using that relationship I am seemingly able to write iL in terms of the other two variables.

I can apply KCL there can't I?
and if I can apply KCL at that node then I can get il = ig + is?
then I can substitute this result in eq1 to get eq4?

But this seems to violate what I have learned in class of each energy storage element needing its own state variable.

Any help is much appreciated.

Thank you
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20180716_102122818_HDR.jpg
    IMG_20180716_102122818_HDR.jpg
    26.2 KB · Views: 542
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
if we consider the current through each energy storing element as its state variable then I don't see what it is that bothers you.

Each element having its own state variable, doesn't necessarily mean that the state variables of various elements are independent from each other, the elements interact with each other with various ways when they are connected in a circuit in various ways, so their states become dependent from each other, so the state variables become dependent from each other as well.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: anon6912
Thank you. That clarified my doubt
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K