# How can this discrepancy be explained?

1. Jul 22, 2010

### vze3bbyp

@All,

I've attached a short text demonstrating a discrepancy in the numerical calculation of an integral and series supposed to describe the same thing. What are your thoughts? What might this discrepancy be due to?

#### Attached Files:

• ###### text.pdf
File size:
149.7 KB
Views:
94
2. Jul 22, 2010

### Office_Shredder

Staff Emeritus
It's kind of confusing to read you calculation of the derivative, because your variables keep changing names. At one point you have E(t) when you mean E(T), you have these functions Iin and Vin whose difference from I and V is unclear (if there is one).

Then you say capital T is the period, which would seem to indicate that it's a constant and not a variable. I can't really figure out what your function is

3. Jul 22, 2010

### vze3bbyp

Iin and Vin and I and V are the same quantities.

4. Jul 22, 2010

### Office_Shredder

Staff Emeritus
And what about the fact that the definition of E(t) is not a function that actually depends on t? I would assume that it was intended to read E(T) but you later define T to be the period of your voltage so that wouldn't be a function either

5. Jul 22, 2010

### vze3bbyp

Correct, it's E(T) where, T, before defining it as the period is a variable. I should've started with $$E(\tau) = \int_0^\tau I_{in}V_{in} dt$$ instead.

6. Jul 22, 2010

### vze3bbyp

Another correction. Please replace the word 'integral' with the word 'series' in the following part of the last paragraph: