Understanding Superposition in RC Circuits with Kirchoff's Law

AI Thread Summary
In analyzing RC circuits with an emf expressed as U(t) = a0 + Ʃaicos(ωt), applying Kirchhoff's law to each term independently raises concerns about physical interpretations. After an infinite amount of time, the constant term a0 results in no current due to the capacitor blocking it, which aligns with expectations. However, when superimposing this scenario with oscillating emfs, the presence of extra charge on the capacitor from the constant term leads to questions about its physical implications. The discussion highlights the need to account for this charge, as it creates a potential drop affecting electron movement. Clarification on how to represent this in circuit diagrams is also requested.
aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
When you work with an emf of the form:

U(t) = a0 + Ʃaicos(\omegat)
it desperately cries for using Kirchoffs law for each term in the sum independently. I guess you can do so since Kirchoffs law is linear but then other the hand I get something weird physically when doing so.
In every exercise I am told that the current has been going on forever. Applying Kirchoffs law for the current due to a0 after an infinite amount of time then shows that there is no current due to this. Which I guess makes sense because for a circuit where the only emf is generated by the constant because then after an infinite amount of there is no current because the capacitor is blocking everything because of the charge on it. But on the other hand when you then superposition this situation with a lot of other emfs that are oscillating something is weird physically- because shouldn't the "extra" charge on the capacitor arising from the constant part of the emf not give rise to a different physical situation? I mean even though there is no current due to it has produced some extra charge on the capacitor which generates a potential drop for every electron going towards the - pole. Shouldn't this somehow be accounted for?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please show the circuit you are referring to.
 
it's a simple RC-circuit
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top