Solving a Second Order Circuit for Capacitor Voltage

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving a second-order circuit for capacitor voltage, focusing on the derivation of differential equations and the application of nodal analysis. Participants explore different techniques for solving the problem, including a preference for deriving equations from first principles rather than relying on memorized formulas.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about their technique and seeks clarification on where they may have gone wrong, preferring a method that requires less memorization.
  • Another participant notes that the provided solution lacks an explicit steady-state solution, suggesting that this could be a point of concern.
  • A participant describes their nodal analysis process, deriving a second-order differential equation and concluding that the circuit is underdamped based on the nature of the roots.
  • There is a repetition of the nodal analysis steps by another participant, reinforcing the derived equation and its implications regarding the circuit's damping characteristics.
  • A participant reflects on their earlier mistakes in substituting component values, indicating a realization of errors in their calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as there are differing approaches to solving the problem and varying opinions on the adequacy of the provided solution. Some participants prefer deriving equations from scratch, while others focus on the provided methods.

Contextual Notes

Participants express limitations in their understanding of the provided solution, particularly regarding the derivation of differential equations and the handling of steady-state conditions. There are also unresolved issues related to the accuracy of component substitutions.

Vishera
Messages
72
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



upload_2014-10-10_11-20-43.png

upload_2014-10-10_11-20-49.png

Homework Equations



Here is the technique I am using:

upload_2014-10-10_11-21-43.png


The Attempt at a Solution



img001.jpg

img002.jpg

[/B]
I understand how to solve the problem using the technique provided by the solution but I was wondering where I messed up in the technique that I used. I prefer the second technique because there is less memorization.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you have a question? The provided solution looks pretty thorough except that they didn't explicitly state the steady-state solution.
 
gneill said:
Did you have a question? The provided solution looks pretty thorough except that they didn't explicitly state the steady-state solution.

The problem is that the provided solution doesn't derive the differential equations from scratch. It uses equations that we are supposed to memorize. I would prefer to just solve the problem from scratch instead of plugging in and chugging. I am trying to derive the differential equations from scratch and I did so but my final solution is incorrect.
 
When I do nodal analysis I see:
$$\frac{v}{R} + \frac{1}{L} \int v\;dt + C \frac{dv}{dt} = 0 $$
Clear the integral by differentiating the whole thing:
$$\frac{1}{R} \frac{dv}{dt} + \frac{1}{L} v + C \frac{d^2 v}{dt^2} = 0$$
$$\frac{d^2 v}{dt^2} + \frac{1}{R C} \frac{dv}{dt} + \frac{1}{L C} v = 0$$
Plugging in component values and changing notation:
RC = 1
LC = 1/4

thus:

v'' + v' + 4v = 0

So you have complex conjugate roots, not a double real root. This makes sense since the circuit is underdamped.
 
gneill said:
When I do nodal analysis I see:
$$\frac{v}{R} + \frac{1}{L} \int v\;dt + C \frac{dv}{dt} = 0 $$
Clear the integral by differentiating the whole thing:
$$\frac{1}{R} \frac{dv}{dt} + \frac{1}{L} v + C \frac{d^2 v}{dt^2} = 0$$
$$\frac{d^2 v}{dt^2} + \frac{1}{R C} \frac{dv}{dt} + \frac{1}{L C} v = 0$$
Plugging in component values and changing notation:
RC = 1
LC = 1/4

thus:

v'' + v' + 4v = 0

So you have complex conjugate roots, not a double real root. This makes sense since the circuit is underdamped.

I just did it this way and it seems to be correct. Is there anything I did wrong with my method?

Actually, I think I figured out what I did wrong. I substituted C=0.25 instead of C=1 and I substituted L=1 instead of L=0.25. Opps.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
788
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K