- #1

- 734

- 0

but why doesn't the "I" in "RI" have to be "dI"?

- Thread starter asdf1
- Start date

- #1

- 734

- 0

but why doesn't the "I" in "RI" have to be "dI"?

- #2

dlgoff

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 3,833

- 1,769

If ther were no inductor, would you need (dI/dt)?

Regards

Regards

- #3

- 734

- 0

no, but in that case there is an inductor,

so shouldn't the "I" be "dI"?

so shouldn't the "I" be "dI"?

- #4

dlgoff

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 3,833

- 1,769

Think of two circuits; one with just a resistor and one with just an inductor (ideal with no resistance).asdf1 said:no, but in that case there is an inductor,

so shouldn't the "I" be "dI"?

- #5

Integral

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,201

- 56

- #6

- 734

- 0

still a little confused~

but isn't the current always changing?

so there isn't supposed to be "I"?

- #7

SGT

In an inductor, the instant magnetic flux is proportional to the instant current: [tex]\phi(t) = L i(t)[/tex].

But by Faraday's law, the voltage in a circuit is the derivative of the flux: [tex]v(t) =\frac{d\phi}{dt}[/tex], so [tex]v(t) =L\frac{di}{dt}[/tex].

- #8

- 734

- 0

thanks~

i think i thought too much...

:P

i think i thought too much...

:P

- Last Post

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 520

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 957

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K