Understanding Time Constants and the Mathematical Equation for Current Decay

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the concept of time constants in the context of current decay in capacitors, specifically questioning the significance of the number 5 in the statement that current will be approximately 0 after 5 time constants.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants express confusion about the mathematical reasoning behind the choice of 5 time constants, with some noting that current decays exponentially and questioning the interpretation of this decay over time.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the exponential decay of current and the notion of 'magic numbers' in this context. However, there is no explicit consensus on the reasoning behind the specific choice of 5 time constants.

Contextual Notes

There appears to be a focus on the mathematical equation governing current decay, with participants exploring the implications of different time constants and their interpretations. The original poster's understanding is limited to the last 30 seconds of the explanation, indicating a potential gap in information or clarity.

transgalactic
Messages
1,386
Reaction score
0
i understood every thing except at the last 30 seconds

he says "after 5 time constants t=rc" current will be 0
i can't understand by what mathematical equation he got this number 5
??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
intuitively i know that after the capacitor will be filled with charge
it will stop being a conductor

but how he came up with the "5"
??
 
The 5 he choose is an example of a 'magic number'.

We know that current decays as [tex]I = I_{initial} e^{-\frac{t}{R C}}[/tex].

Hence, as time passes, I gets smaller and smaller.

After 1 time constant,
[tex]\frac{I}{I_{initial}} = e^{-1} = 0.368[/tex]
After 2 time constants,
[tex]\frac{I}{I_{initial}} = e^{-2} = 0.135[/tex]
After 3 time constants,
[tex]\frac{I}{I_{initial}} = e^{-3} = 0.050[/tex]
After 4 time constants,
[tex]\frac{I}{I_{initial}} = e^{-4} = 0.018[/tex]
After 5 time constants,
[tex]\frac{I}{I_{initial}} = e^{-5} = 0.007[/tex]

So a more accurate statement is, "After 5 time constants, the current is approximately 0."

He could have easily said 4 or 6 or 100. They key point is that after about 3-5 time constants, the current is effectively 0.

Edit: Formatting error, sorry,
 
Last edited:
Hao said:
The 5 he choose is an example of a 'magic number'.

We know that current decays as [tex]I = I_{initial} e^{-\frac{t}{R C}}[/tex].

Hence, as time passes, I gets smaller and smaller.

After 1 time constant, [tex]\frac{I}{I_{initial} = e^{-1} = 0.368}[/tex]
After 2 time constant, [tex]\frac{I}{I_{initial} = e^{-2} = 0.135}[/tex]
After 3 time constant, [tex]\frac{I}{I_{initial} = e^{-3} = 0.050}[/tex]
After 4 time constant, [tex]\frac{I}{I_{initial} = e^{-4} = 0.018}[/tex]
After 5 time constant, [tex]\frac{I}{I_{initial} = e^{-5} = 0.007}[/tex]

So a more accurate statement is, "After 5 time constants, the current is approximately 0."

He could have easily said 4 or 6 or 100. They key point is that after about 3-5 time constants, the current is effectively 0.
xyzt
 
thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K