DE explaining simple RC circuit

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the dynamics of a simple RC circuit and deriving the equation for dV/dt in terms of Vcmd, R1, R2, and C. The user expresses confusion about the behavior of the system, particularly regarding the implications of R1 approaching zero or infinity on dV/dt. A key point made is that an ideal voltage source with zero output impedance cannot be combined with an ideal capacitor in a real-world scenario, which leads to unrealistic results like infinite dV/dt. The equations presented are valid, but the assumptions about ideal components need reevaluation to avoid contradictions. Clarifying these assumptions will help resolve the confusion regarding the circuit's behavior.
bill.connelly
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to wrap me head around what should be a very simple system, but I just can't manage it. I know there is no closed form for this problem (ignoring a voltage step like is shown in the diagram below, imagine it is a arbitrary voltage supply, or even more exactly, that R2 changes over time), and that to solve it I need to convolve equations (though I would hope I could do a pretty good numerical approximation too).

attachment.php?attachmentid=22234&stc=1&d=1259790891.gif


What I'm trying to do is get the equation for dV/dt in terms of Vcmd, R1, R2 and C

So I know
Itot = Ires + Icap
Itot = V/R2 + C * dV/dt

I also know V = Vcmd - Itot*R1
Itot = (Vcmd-V)/R1

Therefore

(Vcmd-V)/R1 = V/R2 + C * dV/dt
rearranging gives
C*dV/dt = (Vcmd-V)/R1 - V/R

I like that, because it means as R1 drops to zero, dV/dt approaches infinity (which is what I would expect, i.e. V should approach Vcmd instantly) BUT if R1 did drop to zero, and V = Vcmd, dV/dt should be zero, right? But that equation says otherwise. Likewise, as R1 approaches infinity, I would have thought dV/dt would approach zero.

Am I doing something wrong here? Making an invalid assumption?
 

Attachments

  • circuit.gif
    circuit.gif
    4.2 KB · Views: 570
Engineering news on Phys.org
bill.connelly said:
I'm trying to wrap me head around what should be a very simple system, but I just can't manage it. I know there is no closed form for this problem (ignoring a voltage step like is shown in the diagram below, imagine it is a arbitrary voltage supply, or even more exactly, that R2 changes over time), and that to solve it I need to convolve equations (though I would hope I could do a pretty good numerical approximation too).

attachment.php?attachmentid=22234&stc=1&d=1259790891.gif


What I'm trying to do is get the equation for dV/dt in terms of Vcmd, R1, R2 and C

So I know
Itot = Ires + Icap
Itot = V/R2 + C * dV/dt

I also know V = Vcmd - Itot*R1
Itot = (Vcmd-V)/R1

Therefore

(Vcmd-V)/R1 = V/R2 + C * dV/dt
rearranging gives
C*dV/dt = (Vcmd-V)/R1 - V/R

I like that, because it means as R1 drops to zero, dV/dt approaches infinity (which is what I would expect, i.e. V should approach Vcmd instantly) BUT if R1 did drop to zero, and V = Vcmd, dV/dt should be zero, right? But that equation says otherwise. Likewise, as R1 approaches infinity, I would have thought dV/dt would approach zero.

Am I doing something wrong here? Making an invalid assumption?

Not sure why you think there is no closed form solution -- looks like your equations are just fine. The only issue is the infinity you think you are getting with R1 --> 0. You cannot use an ideal voltage source with zero output impedance and an ideal capacitor together in series with a voltage step. The non-real zero output impedance of the voltage source is what is giving you the non-real infinity.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top