Engineering Current Through a Capacitor in a RC Circuit

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the current through a capacitor in an RC circuit using Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL) and Kirchhoff's Current Law (KCL). The initial calculations yielded incorrect results, prompting a reevaluation of the KVL equations, particularly regarding sign conventions and current directions. A successful KCL approach was later presented, leading to a correct current value of 6.75 mA. Participants highlighted the challenges of using KVL due to potential sign errors and emphasized the importance of consistent sign conventions. The thread concludes with a suggestion to seek further clarification from an instructor to resolve the discrepancies in the calculations.
Drakkith
Mentor
Messages
23,199
Reaction score
7,681

Homework Statement


Find ##i(0^+) ## and ##i(t), t≥0^+##

pr_7-51.jpg

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I'm having trouble finding the current through this capacitor. I tried using a KVL loop for ##t=0^+##, but I'm doing it incorrectly or something.

Earlier in the problem I found: ##v_c(0^+) = -120 V##
Sign convention for resistors: Positive on the top for the 150k resistor, positive on the right side for the other 2.

KVL1: Starting at node ##b## and moving clockwise with current ##i_1## :
##-2.5ki_1+150k(i_1-i_2)-v_c=0##
##-2.5ki_1+150ki_1-150ki_2-(-120)=0##
##147.5ki_1-150ki_2=-120##

KVL2: Starting just to the left of the 50k resistor and moving clockwise:
##-50ki_2+200-150k(i_2-i_1)=0##
##-50ki_2-150ki_2+150ki_1=-200##
##150ki_1-200ki_2=-200##

Solving, I get:
##i_1=0.85 mA##
##i_2=1.6mA##

##i=-i_1=-0.85 mA##

However, this is appears to be incorrect.
 

Attachments

  • pr_7-51.jpg
    pr_7-51.jpg
    5.7 KB · Views: 865
Physics news on Phys.org
Drakkith said:
Earlier in the problem I found: vc(0+)=−120V
Looks correct.
Drakkith said:
I tried using a KVL loop
For me, the KVL equations are generally less intuitive and move complicated. Not to make extra work for you, but can you write the KCL equation for the main node in the circuit for t>0 and see if that makes it easier to solve?
 
berkeman said:
For me, the KVL equations are generally less intuitive and move complicated. Not to make extra work for you, but can you write the KCL equation for the main node in the circuit for t>0 and see if that makes it easier to solve?

Sure. From the main node, ##i## goes left, ##i_1## goes down, and ##i_2## goes right.
##i+i_1+i_2=0##
##\frac{v-v_c}{2.5}+\frac{v}{150k}+\frac{v-200}{50k}=0##
Multiplying both sides by 150k:
##60v-60v_c+v+3v-600=0##
##64v-60(-120)=600##
##64v+7200=600##
##64v=-6600##
##v=-103.125 V##

##i=\frac{v-v_c}{2500}=6.75 mA##
Which is correct...

##i(t)## is then: ##i(t)=6.75e^{(1000t)} mA##

Why in the world did one method work but not the other?
 
Drakkith said:
Which is correct...
Yahoo! :smile:
Drakkith said:
Why in the world did one method work but not the other?
Both methods should work, but at least for me, the KVL equations are much less intuitive and therefore much easier to make a mistake when using them. I'll leave it to other (smarter) members (EDIT -- like vela) to find the small typo in your work with the KVL equations... :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes cnh1995 and Drakkith
Looks like the signs aren't consistent in your KVL equations. If you're going clockwise around the left loop, for example, you should get
$$-2500i_1 + 150000(i_2-i_1) + v_c = 0.$$ In the second KVL equation, the sign on 200 should be negative since you're moving from higher potential to lower potential as you go clockwise around the loop.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
vela said:
Looks like the signs aren't consistent in your KVL equations. If you're going clockwise around the left loop, for example, you should get
$$-2500i_1 + 150000(i_2-i_1) + v_c = 0.$$ In the second KVL equation, the sign on 200 should be negative since you're moving from higher potential to lower potential as you go clockwise around the loop.

Isn't that already consistent though? Moving from positive to negative voltage across a resistor (moving from higher to lower potential), the sign is +, whereas it's - when moving from negative to positive (as in the ##-2500i_1##).
 
Isn't what already consistent?

Which way are you assuming the currents ##i_1## and ##i_2## flow? If it's clockwise around the loops, then according to your sign convention, the first term should be ##+2500i_1##.
 
vela said:
Isn't what already consistent?

The way I was doing it already.

vela said:
Which way are you assuming the currents ##i_1## and ##i_2## flow? If it's clockwise around the loops, then according to your sign convention, the first term should be ##+2500i_1##.

How so? The negative terminal of the 2500 ohm resistor is on the left.
 
Potential drops as the current flows through the resistor. If the current enters on the left, the left end of the resistor is at a higher potential than the right end.
 
  • #10
Looking back at my homework, I can't reconcile what I did there with what I've done here or what you're telling me vela. I'll have to dig a bit deeper and maybe talk to my instructor to figure out what's going on. Thanks all.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K