How Do We Derive the Transmission Line Equations Using Differential Methods?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of current and voltage equations in a transmission line model, specifically using equations (2.1), (2.2), and (2.5). By substituting equation (2.5) into equations (2.1) and (2.2), the current is expressed in terms of voltage, leading to the form i(z,t) = (V^+/Z_0)f(t - z/v_p) + (V^-/Z_0)f(t + z/v_p). The second-order partial differential equations derived from differentiating equations (2.1) and (2.2) confirm the wave-like nature of the solutions, with phase velocity v_p = 1/sqrt(LC). The coefficients for the current are determined by equating terms after differentiation, establishing relationships between voltage and current amplitudes. This process clarifies the derivation and confirms the expected results in the context of transmission line theory.
yayscience
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Eqn. (2.1)
\frac{\partial v}{\partial z} = -L \frac{\partial i}{\partial t}
Eqn. (2.2)
\frac{\partial i}{\partial z} = -C \frac{\partial v}{\partial t}
Eqn. (2.5)
v(z,t)=V^+f(t-\frac{z}{v_p})+V^-f(t+\frac{z}{v_p})

From the book I'm reading:
"By substituting Equation (2.5) into Equations (2.1) and (2.2), we
determine that the current has the form:"
i(z,t)=\frac{V^+}{Z_0}f(t-\frac{z}{v_p})+\frac{V^-}{Z_0}f(t+\frac{z}{v_p})

So, I've seen this derivation about four different ways, and I know this is the result, but I can't see what moves I need to substitute 2.5 into 2.1 and 2.2 to get 2.5. Can someone please enlighten me? Thanks all!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yayscience said:
Eqn. (2.1)
\frac{\partial v}{\partial z} = -L \frac{\partial i}{\partial t}
Eqn. (2.2)
\frac{\partial i}{\partial z} = -C \frac{\partial v}{\partial t}
Eqn. (2.5)
v(z,t)=V^+f(t-\frac{z}{v_p})+V^-f(t+\frac{z}{v_p})

From the book I'm reading:
"By substituting Equation (2.5) into Equations (2.1) and (2.2), we
determine that the current has the form:"
i(z,t)=\frac{V^+}{Z_0}f(t-\frac{z}{v_p})+\frac{V^-}{Z_0}f(t+\frac{z}{v_p})

So, I've seen this derivation about four different ways, and I know this is the result, but I can't see what moves I need to substitute 2.5 into 2.1 and 2.2 to get 2.5. Can someone please enlighten me? Thanks all!

Just some preliminaries first. If you differentiate 2.1 wrt "t" and 2.2 wrt "z" (and then repeat the other way around) you get the following second order PDE's.

\frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial z^2} = L C \frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial t^2}

\frac{\partial^2 i}{\partial z^2} = L C \frac{\partial^2 i}{\partial t^2}

These separable PDE's give the motivation for the form given in 2.5 and tell us that the phase velocity is:

v_p = \frac{1}{\sqrt{L C}}


Since the above second order PDE's tell us that i(z,t) will be in the same form as v(z,t) we can therefore write:

i(z,t)=I^+ \, f(t-\frac{z}{v_p})+I^- \, f(t+\frac{z}{v_p})

By differentiating the above wrt "t" and differentiating 2.5 wrt "z" and substituting into 2.1 we can equate coefficients to show the following:

I+ = \frac{V^+}{L v_p} = \frac{V^+}{Z_0}

I- = - \frac{V^-}{L v_p} = - \frac{V^-}{Z_0}

Hope that helps.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top