- #1

- 734

- 0

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

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- 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

- 4,126

- 2,193

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

- 4,126

- 2,193

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

- 7,212

- 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

Share: