Voltage in RL Circuit Series: Why?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the behavior of voltage in a series RL circuit, specifically addressing the confusion surrounding the voltage at the ends of an inductor when current is increasing. It is established that the end of the inductor where the current first enters is at a higher voltage due to the induced electromotive force (emf) opposing the source, as described by Lenz's Law. The voltage across the inductor is proportional to the rate of change of current, not the current itself, which clarifies why the higher voltage end corresponds to the entry point of the current during an increase.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lenz's Law and its implications in circuit theory
  • Familiarity with the concept of electromotive force (emf) in inductors
  • Knowledge of Kirchhoff's laws for circuit analysis
  • Basic principles of inductance and its behavior in electrical circuits
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the relationship between voltage and current in inductors using the formula V = L (di/dt)
  • Explore practical applications of Lenz's Law in RL circuits
  • Learn about transient analysis in RL circuits during current changes
  • Investigate the effects of different inductance values on circuit behavior
USEFUL FOR

Electrical engineers, physics students, and anyone studying circuit theory who seeks to deepen their understanding of inductors and their voltage behavior in RL circuits.

Jzhang27143
Messages
38
Reaction score
1
Suppose there is a circuit consisting of a battery, a resistor, and an inductor, and that there is initially no current. As current is increasing, the inductor creates an induced current in the opposite direction. I am confused as to which end of the inductor is at a higher voltage. Since the induced current is in the opposite direction as the natural current, shouldn't the natural current enter the inductor through the lower voltage end? I know this is not true because this would mean that there is an increase in voltage which would completely change the differential equation using Kirchoff. Why is the end of the inductor that the current first enters the higher voltage end?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lenz' Law tells you that the induced voltage opposes the source. So the back emf (so called) will raise the voltage the L end of the resistor, to reduce the current that would flow if the L were just a piece of wire. If you have a very high Inductance, there could be no detectable current.
the Lenz law thing can be confusing at first but following the rule, 'verbally' can often tell you the result. It's not always at all obvious is you just try to follow intuition.
 
Jzhang27143 said:
..., the inductor creates an induced current in the opposite direction. ...
For what it's worth, I don't believe the inductor creates an induced current: I believe it creates an induced emf. I believe there is only one current in the circuit and that it depends on the sum of all the emfs and resistances.
The only emf across the ideal inductance would be the induced emf and it would not generate its own current, but simply help determine the circuit current.

Jzhang27143 said:
Why is the end of the inductor that the current first enters the higher voltage end?
Because it is not a resistor (assuming we are talking ideal elements.)
Accepting your terminology:
The voltage across a resistor is always proportional to the current and the current enters at the higher voltage end.
The voltage across an inductance is proportional to the rate of change of current, not to the current itself. When the current is increasing, the higher voltage end will be where the current enters, when the current is decreasing, it will be the end where the current is leaving.
 
We do have a lot of problems with signs, don't we? (Me too sir)
That's when drawing diagrams (or having them in your head - if you can) can be so important. If you actually say to yourself, the time worn phrases about these things and then add arrows and +- signs to the diagram, accordingly, then things can become a lot clearer. It's very easy to get locked into a nonsense conclusion if you don't follow things through from the basics and rely on that fickle friend intuition.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
152
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
901
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K