How does the current divide in parallel inductors?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of the current divider rule versus the use of the formula V_O = L*(di/dt) in solving a transient problem involving parallel inductors. The initial attempt to apply the current divider rule resulted in an incorrect answer because it assumes a steady-state solution and does not account for initial conditions. The correct solution incorporates transient analysis, revealing that at t=0, each inductor carries 2A, which contradicts the expected 3:5 ratio. The voltage divider rule is valid for resistors but not for inductors, where the relationship involves the rate of change of current. Ultimately, understanding the differences in these approaches is crucial for accurately solving transient problems in circuits.
jangchen
Messages
12
Reaction score
3
Homework Statement
In the circuit of Fig. 63.82 io(0)=2mA. Determine io(t) and Vo(t) for t>0
Relevant Equations
$$V_O = L*\frac{di}{dt}$$
6.60.png
I apologize using English fluently because I am not an Enlgish speaker.

When I tried to solve this problem, I used current divider rule.

So, $$i_o(t) = \frac{3}{3+5}*4e^{-2t} = 1.5*e^{-2t} A$$

However, This was wrong.

The answer is $$ 1.5*e^{-2t} + 0.5 A$$

If I use $$V_O = L*\frac{di}{dt}$$ , I can get right answer.

I wonder why there is a difference
between using current divider rule and using $$V_O = L*\frac{di}{dt}$$.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
The current divider rule assumes a steady state solution. This is a transient problem. The current divider rule doesn't properly account for the initial conditions. At t=0 each inductor has 2A, which isn't consistent with the 3:5 ratio.
 
jangchen said:
The answer is $$ 1.5*e^{-2t} + 0.5 A$$

If I use $$V_O = L*\frac{di}{dt}$$ , I can get right answer.

I wonder why there is a difference
between using current divider rule and using $$V_O = L*\frac{di}{dt}$$.
The voltage divider rule is valid for resistors, when the voltage is proportional to the current, U=RI. In case of inductors, this is not true, U=LdI/dt instead.
 
  • Like
Likes jangchen and Delta2
DaveE said:
The current divider rule assumes a steady state solution. This is a transient problem. The current divider rule doesn't properly account for the initial conditions. At t=0 each inductor has 2A, which isn't consistent with the 3:5 ratio.
Thank you for your advise! I got what is a steady state right away.
 
ehild said:
The voltage divider rule is valid for resistors, when the voltage is proportional to the current, U=RI. In case of inductors, this is not true, U=LdI/dt instead.
Oh, I thought current divider was also applied to the inductor. Thank you for your help!
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...

Similar threads

Back
Top