Understanding Superposition in RC Circuits with Kirchoff's Law

AI Thread Summary
In analyzing RC circuits with an emf expressed as U(t) = a0 + Ʃaicos(ωt), applying Kirchhoff's law to each term independently raises concerns about physical interpretations. After an infinite amount of time, the constant term a0 results in no current due to the capacitor blocking it, which aligns with expectations. However, when superimposing this scenario with oscillating emfs, the presence of extra charge on the capacitor from the constant term leads to questions about its physical implications. The discussion highlights the need to account for this charge, as it creates a potential drop affecting electron movement. Clarification on how to represent this in circuit diagrams is also requested.
aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
When you work with an emf of the form:

U(t) = a0 + Ʃaicos(\omegat)
it desperately cries for using Kirchoffs law for each term in the sum independently. I guess you can do so since Kirchoffs law is linear but then other the hand I get something weird physically when doing so.
In every exercise I am told that the current has been going on forever. Applying Kirchoffs law for the current due to a0 after an infinite amount of time then shows that there is no current due to this. Which I guess makes sense because for a circuit where the only emf is generated by the constant because then after an infinite amount of there is no current because the capacitor is blocking everything because of the charge on it. But on the other hand when you then superposition this situation with a lot of other emfs that are oscillating something is weird physically- because shouldn't the "extra" charge on the capacitor arising from the constant part of the emf not give rise to a different physical situation? I mean even though there is no current due to it has produced some extra charge on the capacitor which generates a potential drop for every electron going towards the - pole. Shouldn't this somehow be accounted for?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please show the circuit you are referring to.
 
it's a simple RC-circuit
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top