I Outright understanding L/R inductor time constant

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the behavior of an LR circuit when an external voltage is applied. It highlights that while a higher voltage increases the current more rapidly, it also results in a larger final current, leading to a balance that keeps the time constant independent of the voltage. The time constant, determined by the resistance (R) and inductance (L), indicates that a greater resistance results in a shorter charging time for the inductor. This relationship is supported by differential equations that describe the system's dynamics. Ultimately, the time required for the inductor to charge is influenced by resistance rather than the applied voltage.
abdulbadii
Messages
43
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Scientifically understanding L/R inductor time constant r reciprocates it
How is the real understanding, when an external constant E potential (voltage) is imposed/applied on a LR circuit, that is being charged as the characteristic L/R inductor time constant: the greater R the shorter time inductor get (full) charged

This absolutely independent to the E; it could simply be so great while time constant (charge time) still being shorter time than that of far less E, as proven or inspected by the (DE) equation
 
Physics news on Phys.org
abdulbadii said:
Summary: Scientifically understanding L/R inductor time constant r reciprocates it

as proven or inspected by the (DE) equation
yes.
 
A larger voltage means that the current increases faster, but it also means that the final current is larger. The two effects balance out so the time required is independent of the voltage.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Back
Top