Engineering Help deriving a circuit equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter monahanj09
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circuit deriving
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around deriving a circuit equation based on the voltage function Vc(t) = A + Be^(-t/τ). Participants explore relationships between variables m, n, and p, which represent voltage differences at specific times. They suggest comparing V(t) and V(t+τ) to establish these relationships but encounter confusion regarding the graph's orientation and the correct application of the equations. A key suggestion is to set A to zero to simplify the analysis, leading to the realization that the ratio m/n should yield e^-1, although participants struggle to confirm this outcome. The conversation highlights the complexities in relating the variables and the need for clarity in the graphical representation.
monahanj09
Messages
21
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Question is here

Homework Equations



Shown in the image, but just to restate:

Vc(t) = A+Be^(-t/τ)

n/m=e^-1

OR

p/m=1-e^-1

The Attempt at a Solution



First thing I tried to do was solve the Vc(t) equation for e, which comes out to e=(-A/B)^(-τ/t). I'm not even sure if that's relevant, though, or where to take it from there if it is. I'm a little lost on how to proceed with this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
monahanj09 said:

Homework Statement



Question is here


Homework Equations



Shown in the image, but just to restate:

Vc(t) = A+Be^(-t/τ)

n/m=e^-1

OR

p/m=1-e^-1

The Attempt at a Solution



First thing I tried to do was solve the Vc(t) equation for e, which comes out to e=(-A/B)^(-τ/t). I'm not even sure if that's relevant, though, or where to take it from there if it is. I'm a little lost on how to proceed with this.

The key is to use the equation for the V(t), and compare V(t) to V(t+τ)...
 
berkeman said:
The key is to use the equation for the V(t), and compare V(t) to V(t+τ)...

So try setting V(t) equal to V(t+τ), which would be A+Be^(-t/τ)=A+Be^(-t+τ/τ)? That still doesn't relate n, m, and p to each other, though. From looking at the graph, it looks like there's some sort of relationship between m/n/p and A or A+B, but I can't quite tell what it is.
 
monahanj09 said:
So try setting V(t) equal to V(t+τ), which would be A+Be^(-t/τ)=A+Be^(-t+τ/τ)? That still doesn't relate n, m, and p to each other, though. From looking at the graph, it looks like there's some sort of relationship between m/n/p and A or A+B, but I can't quite tell what it is.

No, don't set them equal because they are not.

The key in the figure (it is small and hard to see on the figure) is that the two vertical lines are a time τ apart...
 
berkeman said:
No, don't set them equal because they are not.

The key in the figure (it is small and hard to see on the figure) is that the two vertical lines are a time τ apart...

I see that the m line is time τ apart from the n/p line. I also see that m is the difference between A (the maximum possible voltage) at time t and V(t), and that n is the difference between A and V(t+τ), and that p is the difference between m and n. I can't quite tell how to relate them though. Maybe...A+Be^(-t/τ)+m=A+Be^(-t+τ/τ)+n?

EDIT: Wait, no. m=A-(A+Be^(-t/τ)) and n=A-(A+Be^(-t+τ/τ)), but I'm still not sure how to relate them.
 
Last edited:
monahanj09 said:
I see that the m line is time τ apart from the n/p line. I also see that m is the difference between A (the maximum possible voltage) at time t and V(t), and that n is the difference between A and V(t+τ), and that p is the difference between m and n. I can't quite tell how to relate them though. Maybe...A+Be^(-t/τ)+m=A+Be^(-t+τ/τ)+n?

EDIT: Wait, no. m=A-(A+Be^(-t/τ)) and n=A-(A+Be^(-t+τ/τ)), but I'm still not sure how to relate them.

Now that I look closer at the diagram, it is pretty confusing. It's like they drew it upside down, with A+B at the bottom, and A at the top of the vertical axis. Weird.

Try this as a first way to prove the ratios, and then you can see if you can prove it for this upside down version.

Flip the drawing about its middle horizontal axis, so A is at the bottom, and A+B is at the top. Now set A=0, so the waveform starts with initial value B and decays exponentially to zero. Now since A=0, the equation for the waveform becomes V(t) = B e^-t/τ

Now take the ratio of V(t+τ) / V(t), and see what you get...EDIT -- I fixed the V(t) equation -- I had left out the minus sign in the exponent.
 
berkeman said:
Now that I look closer at the diagram, it is pretty confusing. It's like they drew it upside down, with A+B at the bottom, and A at the top of the vertical axis. Weird.

Try this as a first way to prove the ratios, and then you can see if you can prove it for this upside down version.

Flip the drawing about its middle horizontal axis, so A is at the bottom, and A+B is at the top. Now set A=0, so the waveform starts with initial value B and decays exponentially to zero. Now since A=0, the equation for the waveform becomes V(t) = B e^-t/τ

Now take the ratio of V(t+τ) / V(t), and see what you get...


EDIT -- I fixed the V(t) equation -- I had left out the minus sign in the exponent.

So in that case V(t+τ) = A+Be^(-t+τ/τ). I put that over the equation you gave me for V(t), but I'm not sure what it represents or what it's equivalent to. I assume it's equivalent to one of the ratios it shows in the problem statement, I just can't tell which or how to prove it.
 
monahanj09 said:
So in that case V(t+τ) = A+Be^(-t+τ/τ). I put that over the equation you gave me for V(t), but I'm not sure what it represents or what it's equivalent to. I assume it's equivalent to one of the ratios it shows in the problem statement, I just can't tell which or how to prove it.

Did you miss where I said to set A=0?
 
berkeman said:
Did you miss where I said to set A=0?

I think that example confused me.

But I understand what's going on now a little bit better.

I think n=V(t+τ)=A+Be^(-t+τ/τ) and m=A+Be^(-t/τ), and that setting them over each other and reducing that should come out to e^-1. But it comes out to e, not e^-1. m/n does come out to e^-1 though, so I think I'm just missing one last component of the problem.

EDIT: I also played around with the flipped graph a little more, and I get e instead of e^-1 for that one as well. I can't figure out why that is or what I should do to fix it.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
3K
Back
Top