How to Find i(t) for an Inductor in an LC Circuit?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the current i(t) for an inductor in an LC circuit. Participants are exploring the implications of having no resistance in the circuit and how that affects the analysis compared to RLC circuits.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the transient and steady state responses in the context of an LC circuit, questioning whether resistance can be considered zero. There are inquiries about the damping factor and its relevance in this scenario, as well as the correct interpretation of frequency in relation to the circuit's parameters.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered guidance on avoiding standard RLC formulas due to the absence of resistance, suggesting a return to the fundamental differential equations for the circuit. Multiple interpretations of the damping factor and frequency are being explored, indicating a productive exchange of ideas.

Contextual Notes

There are discussions about the definitions and formulas related to damping factors and frequencies, with some participants noting discrepancies in textbook references. The lack of resistance in the circuit is a central point of contention affecting the application of standard formulas.

Abdulwahab Hajar
Messages
56
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


In the figure given, find i(t) for the inductor
My problem is though when we found i(t) with a source we find the transient response and the steady state response...
I know how to do the transient response of an RLC circuit not an LC one... do i just consider R to be 0

Homework Equations


the damping factor is given as (1/RC) for a parallel RLC circuit
the frequency is given as 1/(√LC) which in this case is 1/2 am I right?

The Attempt at a Solution


There obviously is no damping factor therefore α = 0, however if R = 0 and we substitute for R in the damping factor equation we get infinity??
and for some reason the book says the frequency is 1/4... where did I go wrong??
Thank you
 

Attachments

  • lc circuit.jpg
    lc circuit.jpg
    18.6 KB · Views: 426
Physics news on Phys.org
Abdulwahab Hajar said:
the damping factor is given as (1/RC) for a parallel RLC circuit
Is this the damping factor ζ or is it the Quality factor Q?

The frequency of ½ looks right, though you need to specify its units.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Abdulwahab Hajar
NascentOxygen said:
Is this the damping factor ζ or is it the Quality factor Q?

The frequency of ½ looks right, though you need to specify its units.
In my textbook it's the damping factor which is R/2L for series RLC circuits and 1/RC for parallel RLC circuits
 
Abdulwahab Hajar said:
In my textbook it's the damping factor which is R/2L for series RLC circuits and 1/RC for parallel RLC circuits
More commonly known as the attenuation factor, ##\alpha##. Are you sure the last one isn't ##\mathsf {\frac 1{2RC}}##?

wikipedia is a good resource for this, along with myriad others
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Abdulwahab Hajar
Since the circuit in question does not contain any resistance it is unwise to apply the "standard" RLC circuit formulas. With R = 0, any derivations of quantities or terms that rely on a division by R will be undefined or infinite (in other words, nonsense).

A better approach might be to start from the beginning, writing the differential equation for the given circuit.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Abdulwahab Hajar
gneill said:
Since the circuit in question does not contain any resistance it is unwise to apply the "standard" RLC circuit formulas. With R = 0, any derivations of quantities or terms that rely on a division by R will be undefined or infinite (in other words, nonsense).

A better approach might be to start from the beginning, writing the differential equation for the given circuit.
Thank you
 
NascentOxygen said:
More commonly known as the attenuation factor, ##\alpha##. Are you sure the last one isn't ##\mathsf {\frac 1{2RC}}##?

wikipedia is a good resource for this, along with myriad others
Never mind, I found it
thanks ;)
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
900
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K