RCL series circuit analysis: Damping Constant

  • Thread starter Thread starter hoangpham4696
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the damping constant for an RCL circuit, with the user calculating it as 1.296 based on their analysis. They assert that at t > infinity, the switch will be closed, making the equivalent resistance (Req) equal to Rx, which they clarify is actually R1. Questions arise regarding the terminology used, such as the meaning of "t > infinity" and the absence of Rx in the circuit. Additionally, there is confusion about the application of the critical damping equation and whether it is appropriate for the given scenario. The user seeks confirmation of their approach and calculations.
hoangpham4696
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
Please help me to confirm if my approach is correct. If not, please guide me to a right approach. Thank you
Relevant Equations
$$ \zeta=\frac{R}{2}(\sqrt{\frac{C}{L}})$$

$$v(c)=A_{1}exp(\frac{-t}{\tau_{1}})+A_{2}exp(\frac{-t}{\tau_{2}})+A_{3}$$
I am trying to find a damping constant of this circuit and below is my analysis. I just want to confirm if my approach is correct.

At t > infiniti, the switch will be closed. Therefore, Req for damping constant equation will just be Rx because R2 because R2 is neither in series or parallel with R1. As per calculation, damping constant is equal to:

$$\zeta=\frac{R}{2}(\sqrt{\frac{C}{L}})=\frac{3}{2}(\sqrt{\frac{6.8nF}{9.1mH}})=1.296$$

In this case, the equation for critical damping RCL circuit will be:

$$v(c)=A_{1}exp(\frac{-t}{\tau_{1}})+A_{2}exp(\frac{-t}{\tau_{2}})+A_{3}$$

Switch is close when t> Infiniti. Therefore, ##A_{3}## will be 0.

Please help to confirm if my approach is correct. Thank you so much.

Screen Shot 2024-10-13 at 13.21.40 PM.png
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
hoangpham4696 said:
Homework Statement: Please help me to confirm if my approach is correct.

Can you please post the complete, verbatim problem statement ?


hoangpham4696 said:
$$v(c)=A_{1}\exp(\frac{-t}{\tau_{1}})+A_{2}\exp(\frac{-t}{\tau_{2}})+A_{3} \tag{1}$$
Where did you get (1) ?

hoangpham4696 said:
At t > infiniti, the switch will be closed. Therefore, Req for damping constant equation will just be Rx because R2 because R2 is neither in series or parallel with R1. As per calculation, damping constant is equal to:

$$\zeta=\frac{R}{2}(\sqrt{\frac{C}{L}})=\frac{3}{2}(\sqrt{\frac{6.8nF}{9.1mH}})=1.296$$

In this case, the equation for critical damping RCL circuit will be:

$$v(c)=A_{1}\exp(\frac{-t}{\tau_{1}})+A_{2}\exp(\frac{-t}{\tau_{2}})+A_{3}$$

Switch is close when t> Infiniti. Therefore, ##A_{3}## will be 0.


1. What do you mean with t> Infiniti

2. there is no Rx anywhere in sight. Do you mean R1 ?

3. Did you notice I1 is a current source ?

4. 'this case'? Where does the 'critical damping come from ? Does (1) apply to that case ?

##\ ##
 
  • Like
Likes SammyS and berkeman
Thread 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
822
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
978