Finding Capacitor Voltage Time Dependencies

AI Thread Summary
To find the time dependencies of capacitor voltages after closing a switch at t=0, the initial voltages V01 and V02 must match the calculated values at t=0. A misunderstanding exists regarding the use of limits in integration, specifically that the initial conditions must be correctly applied to ensure V1(0) equals V10 and V2(0) equals V20. The difference between initial conditions and steady-state voltages decays exponentially in a first-order circuit, which is crucial for solving the problem. Participants are encouraged to correct their integration approach and clarify any confusion regarding the teacher's feedback. Properly addressing these points will lead to a more accurate solution.
@lex@nder
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
New member warned about posting with no effort

Homework Statement


The switch is closed at the moment t=0 and initial capacitor voltages are V01 and V02. How to find capacitor voltage time dependencies for both capacitors.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


bezymjannyj-png.87168.png
bezymjannyj2-png.87170.png
[/B]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What have you tried till now ?
 
Qwertywerty said:
What have you tried till now ?
 

Attachments

  • Безымянный.png
    Безымянный.png
    48.6 KB · Views: 623
  • Безымянный2.png
    Безымянный2.png
    47.5 KB · Views: 597
Qwertywerty said:
It seems fine .
I also think so, but my teacher's feedback:
"Time constant and steady-state are OK but the whole solution not - when I substitute t=0 and I don't get V1(0) and V2(0).

Steady-state may be found using charge conservation law. The difference between initial condition and steady-state decays exponentially in the 1st order circuit.

So please make another (final) iteration."
 
I think I see a mistake - you first use indefinite integration for ' i ' as a function of ' t ' .
You don't use the limits correctly , i.e. , you don't subtract ' i ' at t = 0 .

Correct this , and then we can check if some other error creeps up .

Hope this helps .
 
Qwertywerty said:
I think I see a mistake - you first use indefinite integration for ' i ' as a function of ' t ' .
You don't use the limits correctly , i.e. , you don't subtract ' i ' at t = 0 .

Correct this , and then we can check if some other error creeps up .

Hope this helps .
I did not quiet get it. What limits should I use: t and 0?
 
  • Like
Likes Qwertywerty
[USER=32958]@lex[/USER]@nder said:
I did not quiet get it. What limits should I use: t and 0?
Could you explain what my teacher wanted to say by: "the whole solution not - when I substitute t=0 and I don't get V1(0) and V2(0)" and "difference between initial condition and steady-state decays exponentially in the 1st order circuit"
 
[USER=32958]@lex[/USER]@nder said:
Could you explain what my teacher wanted to say by: "the whole solution not - when I substitute t=0 and I don't get V1(0) and V2(0)" and "difference between initial condition and steady-state decays exponentially in the 1st order circuit"
The first part - At t = 0 , by your solution , V1 is not equal to V10 , as given in the question . Same for the other capacitor's initial potential drop ( V20 ) .

The second part - This means that q ( charge on anyone capacitor at time t ) would be such a function that -

q0 - q = k.ek1 , where k and k1 are some constants that will be found on solving entirely .
 
Qwertywerty said:
I think I see a mistake - you first use indefinite integration for ' i ' as a function of ' t ' .
You don't use the limits correctly , i.e. , you don't subtract ' i ' at t = 0 .

Correct this , and then we can check if some other error creeps up .

Hope this helps .
Isn't there when t=0: V1(0)=V10? Because by calculation I get the same equation.

Did you mean this? But answer doesn't change.
 
  • #10
@@lex@nder, please stop deleting the content of your posts. When other people have responded, deleting your posts makes it impossible to follow the discussion.
 
Back
Top