Energy Losses in a Circuit with a Switching Element

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Antunovic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating energy losses in a circuit with a switching element after the switch is opened. Initially, the current is determined to be E/R, with energy stored in the inductor calculated as WL(-0) = 0.5 * L * (E/R)^2. After the switch opens, the final stored energy in the capacitors is Wc(infinity) = 0.5 * C * E^2, leading to a difference in energy that represents the energy dissipated in the resistor. The conversation highlights the complexity of using Laplace transforms due to multiple energy storage elements and acknowledges the presence of damped oscillations, although the final state of the network is deemed most important. Ultimately, the conclusion is that while oscillations occur, they do not affect the final energy calculations significantly.
Ivan Antunovic
Messages
109
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


By the time t = 0 network has been in steady state. At time t = 0, the switch S
switches off. Determine the total amount of energy converted to heat in the circle of resistance to the establishment of a new steady state.

Homework Equations


DSC_0950.jpg

DSC_0951.jpg
[/B]

The Attempt at a Solution


Picture,attached.
Okay before the switch is opened, both C and C2 are short circuited,so initial current i(0)=E/R.
So I had this approach,okay let's find voltages on the capacitors vc(t) and from ic(t) = C* dv/dt , I will get a current and then it's easy to find the energy since it's integral of i*R^2 *dt (from 0 to infinity).
I wrote down KCLs and KVLs,and used laplace transform,but things got really complicated,I think my approach isn't right(atleast not the shortest one).
Are those laplace transforms that I wrote,even correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your images do not identify where the switch is located. Also, it is difficult to read and comment on workings in image form. It is much preferable to type them out so that helpers can quote and comment on individual lines. The built-in LaTeX syntax interpretation of PF can help there.

For this type of problem where you're looking for the energy dissipated between two steady states, it generally suffices to find the stored energy in each of the steady states and take the difference. So the first thing to do is identify the conditions at each of the steady states.
 
gneill said:
Your images do not identify where the switch is located. Also, it is difficult to read and comment on workings in image form. It is much preferable to type them out so that helpers can quote and comment on individual lines. The built-in LaTeX syntax interpretation of PF can help there.

For this type of problem where you're looking for the energy dissipated between two steady states, it generally suffices to find the stored energy in each of the steady states and take the difference. So the first thing to do is identify the conditions at each of the steady states.

I forgot to upload a picture,it was very late so I guess that's the reason,sorry.
So before the switch is opened:
We have both R and C2 short circuited,initial current is i(-0)= E/R,no current goes through a capacitor so i(-0) is actually current going through inductor,so stored energy in inductor is WL(-0)=0.5 * L* (i(-0))^2 = 0.5 * L * (E/R)^2 ,okay now if I make KVL for a first loop ,I get +E-i(-0)*R-vc(-0)=0,therefore
vc(-0)=E-i(-0)*R= E-R*(E/R)=E-E=0,which was obvious since there is no induced voltage since we are dealing with DC current(I am not quite sure If I can say 'no voltage drop across inductor',since physicists going to kill me because there is never electric field in the ideal inductor so equation ,integral of E*dl = 0 cannot be applied).
After the switch is opened and after the transient process is over,there is no current flowing, because both C and C1 are charged and they are connected in parallel since no voltage drop on the resistances,and inductor is a short circuit here,and I get Vc(infinity)=Vc2(infinity)=E.
Therefore stored energy in the capacitors Wc(infinity)=0.5 * C * E^2 , Wc1(infinity)=0.5*C1*E^2.\Delta E=( (0.5*E^2)*(C+C1) ) - (0.5*L (E/R)^2 ) = 0.5 * E^2 (C+C1-(L/R^2))

Should this be okay?
 

Attachments

  • Circuit 2.png
    Circuit 2.png
    42 KB · Views: 448
Ivan Antunovic said:
I forgot to upload a picture,it was very late so I guess that's the reason,sorry.
So before the switch is opened:
We have both R and C2 short circuited,initial current is i(-0)= E/R,no current goes through a capacitor so i(-0) is actually current going through inductor,so stored energy in inductor is WL(-0)=0.5 * L* (i(-0))^2 = 0.5 * L * (E/R)^2 ,okay now if I make KVL for a first loop ,I get +E-i(-0)*R-vc(-0)=0,therefore
vc(-0)=E-i(-0)*R= E-R*(E/R)=E-E=0,which was obvious since there is no induced voltage since we are dealing with DC current(I am not quite sure If I can say 'no voltage drop across inductor',since physicists going to kill me because there is never electric field in the ideal inductor so equation ,integral of E*dl = 0 cannot be applied).
After the switch is opened and after the transient process is over,there is no current flowing, because both C and C1 are charged and they are connected in parallel since no voltage drop on the resistances,and inductor is a short circuit here,and I get Vc(infinity)=Vc2(infinity)=E.
Therefore stored energy in the capacitors Wc(infinity)=0.5 * C * E^2 , Wc1(infinity)=0.5*C1*E^2.\Delta E=( (0.5*E^2)*(C+C1) ) - (0.5*L (E/R)^2 ) = 0.5 * E^2 (C+C1-(L/R^2))

Should this be okay?So basically that difference of energy in reactive elements is always lost energy,dissipated in the resistor?
 
I'm thinking about this. Not knowing the position of the switch initially, I thought perhaps the inductors and capacitors would end up isolated so that no new energy could enter the loop. But now I can see that there is the possibility of damped oscillations while the battery E continues to supply energy to charge the capacitors to their final value. I'm not sure that the difference in stored energy between the states will account for all the energy. Current can actually flow back through the battery during the oscillations, and current flowing in either direction still burns energy in the resistors.

I can also see that a complete solution via Laplace transforms will be messy since there are three separate energy storage devices. So I'm not sure what to recommend at the moment. :frown:
 
gneill said:
I'm thinking about this. Not knowing the position of the switch initially, I thought perhaps the inductors and capacitors would end up isolated so that no new energy could enter the loop. But now I can see that there is the possibility of damped oscillations while the battery E continues to supply energy to charge the capacitors to their final value. I'm not sure that the difference in stored energy between the states will account for all the energy. Current can actually flow back through the battery during the oscillations, and current flowing in either direction still burns energy in the resistors.

I can also see that a complete solution via Laplace transforms will be messy since there are three separate energy storage devices. So I'm not sure what to recommend at the moment. :frown:
Okay,found the solution and it's correct,well there will be damped oscillations since we have R,L and C,but it doesn't matter right?We only care about the final state of the network.
 
Ivan Antunovic said:
Okay,found the solution and it's correct,well there will be damped oscillations since we have R,L and C,but it doesn't matter right?We only care about the final state of the network.
That was my initial thought (which I'm happy to have confirmed), but I wish I could think of a theorem that proves that the oscillations don't matter here.. I hate being right but not knowing why :mad:
 
gneill said:
That was my initial thought (which I'm happy to have confirmed), but I wish I could think of a theorem that proves that the oscillations don't matter here.. I hate being right but not knowing why :mad:
Well,it's quite intuitive that oscillations don't matter here.I don't know about the mathematical proof,but I like to think more as an engineer than as a mathematician.Maybe some good physicist could help us about the theorem.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top