Engineering Weird looking circuit -- Can someone check my attempt?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eehelp150
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circuit Weird
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving a circuit problem involving KCL and differential equations for output voltage (Vo). Initial attempts at formulating equations were incorrect due to misapplication of KCL and misunderstanding of node voltages. Participants emphasized the need to correctly identify all currents and nodes, suggesting a shift to nodal analysis for clarity. The conversation also touched on the implications of using an AC source for Vin, highlighting the importance of considering transients and damping in the circuit. Ultimately, the goal is to derive a differential equation for Vo, with participants correcting each other's equations and clarifying the relationships between voltages.
eehelp150
Messages
235
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


This is kind of what the circuit looks like:
upload_2016-11-28_0-4-31.png


Homework Equations


KCL

The Attempt at a Solution


This my attempt at "normalizing" it:
upload_2016-11-28_0-12-40.png

upload_2016-11-28_0-21-43.png


Solving Attempt:
##\frac{V_{in}-V_o}{R_1}+C_1\dot{V_{in}}=0##
##\frac{V_o-V_{in}}{R_1}+\frac{V_o}{R_3+R_2}=0##

Are my equations correct?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-11-28_0-13-38.png
    upload_2016-11-28_0-13-38.png
    1.6 KB · Views: 418
  • upload_2016-11-28_0-21-11.png
    upload_2016-11-28_0-21-11.png
    1.7 KB · Views: 413
  • upload_2016-11-28_0-21-34.png
    upload_2016-11-28_0-21-34.png
    15.6 KB · Views: 438
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
eehelp150 said:
Are my equations correct
No. The output voltage does not involve ground (-ve terminal of Vin). Hence, Vo=Vο+-Vo-. You need to use both Vo+ and Vo- in the KCL equation.
Also, voltage across the capacitor is not Vin as you have taken in the first equation.

What exactly is the question asking for?
 
  • Like
Likes Carrock
cnh1995 said:
No. The output voltage does not involve ground (-ve terminal of Vin). Hence, Vo=Vο+-Vo-. You need to use both Vo+ and Vo- in the KCL equation.
Also, voltage across the capacitor is not Vin as you have taken in the first equation.

What exactly is the question asking for?
Sorry, I thought I wrote it out. The prompt is "Find the differential equation for Vo"
node vo+ (Vo+ = Vop, Vo- = Vom)
##\frac{V_{op}-V_{in}}{R_1} + \frac{V_{op}-V_{om}}{R_3+R_2}=0##

##C_1(\dot{V_{om}}-\dot{V_{in}}) + \frac{V_{om}-V_{op}}{R_2+R_3}=0##
 
eehelp150 said:
Sorry, I thought I wrote it out. The prompt is "Find the differential equation for Vo"
node vo+ (Vo+ = Vop, Vo- = Vom)
##\frac{V_{op}-V_{in}}{R_1} + \frac{V_{op}-V_{om}}{R_3+R_2}=0##

##C_1(\dot{V_{om}}-\dot{V_{in}}) + \frac{V_{om}-V_{op}}{R_2+R_3}=0##
I didn't follow your equations. Basically, the currents do not add to zero. You are taking only two currents out of three. I think KCL method is not useful here.
 
cnh1995 said:
I didn't follow your equations. Basically, the currents do not add to zero. You are taking only two currents out of three. I think KCL method is not useful here.
Is this better?
Vo+ = V1
Vo- = V2
upload_2016-11-28_11-21-45.png


upload_2016-11-28_11-22-41.png

##\frac{V_{in}-V_1}{R_1} + C_1(\dot{V_{in}}-\dot{V_{2}})=0##

upload_2016-11-28_11-24-56.png

##\frac{V_1}{R_3}+\frac{V_1-V_{in}}{R_1}=0##

upload_2016-11-28_11-25-55.png

##\frac{V_2}{R_2}+C_1(\dot{V_2}-\dot{V_{in}})=0##
 
eehelp150 said:
Is this better?
Vo+ = V1
Vo- = V2
View attachment 109594

View attachment 109595
##\frac{V_{in}-V_1}{R_1} + C_1(\dot{V_{in}}-\dot{V_{2}})=0##

View attachment 109596
##\frac{V_1}{R_3}+\frac{V_1-V_{in}}{R_1}=0##

View attachment 109597
##\frac{V_2}{R_2}+C_1(\dot{V_2}-\dot{V_{in}})=0##
cnh1995 said:
Basically, the currents do not add to zero. You are taking only two currents out of three. I think KCL method is not useful here.
The currents do not add to zero. I believe you need to use a different method. I'll get back to you on this later.
 
cnh1995 said:
The currents do not add to zero. I believe you need to use a different method. I'll get back to you on this later.
Is nodal analysis doable or do I need to use meshcurrent?
 
Nodal analysis is doable, you just have to recognize how to apply it. It might help if you were to forget +Vo and -Vo labels for a moment and replace them with V1 and V2 (Hence Vo = V1 - V2). Find V1 and V2 separately.
 
gneill said:
Nodal analysis is doable, you just have to recognize how to apply it. It might help if you were to forget +Vo and -Vo labels for a moment and replace them with V1 and V2 (Hence Vo = V1 - V2). Find V1 and V2 separately.
upload_2016-11-28_20-40-33.png


##\frac{V_{in}-V_1}{R_1} + C_1(\dot{V_{in}}-\dot{V_2}) = 0##
##\frac{V_1-V_{in}}{R_1}+\frac{V_1}{R_3}=0##
##\frac{V_2}{R_2}+C_1(\dot{V_2}-\dot{V_{in}})##
What is wrong with my equations?
 
  • #10
The first one is not a node equation. Vin is not an essential node, it is part of the reference supernode since it has a fixed potential with respect to the reference node.

The second equation is good. Solve it for V1.

The third equation is also good. Solve it for V2.
 
  • #11
gneill said:
The first one is not a node equation. Vin is not an essential node, it is part of the reference supernode since it has a fixed potential with respect to the reference node.

The second equation is good. Solve it for V1.

The third equation is also good. Solve it for V2.
##R_3V_1-R_3V_{in}+R_1V_1=0##
##V_2+R_2C_1\dot{V_2}-R_2C_1\dot{V_{in}}##

##V_1=\frac{R_3V_{in}}{R_3+R_1}##
##V_2=R_2C_1(\dot{V_{in}}-\dot{V_2})##

##V_o=V_1-V_2##
##V_o=\frac{R_3V_{in}}{R_3+R_1}-R_2C_1(\dot{V_{in}}-\dot{V_2})##
How would I get rid of ##\dot{V_2}##?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Please do not edit content out your previous posts. It makes followups discussing that content nonsensical. If you do edit a post, make sure that you leave a note in the post indicating what changes you made and why. It is best to have a policy of only adding to a previous post, not removing content. Fixing typos is fine.

eehelp150 said:
##R_3V_1-R_3V_{in}+R_1V_1=0##
##V_2+R_2C_1\dot{V_2}-R_2C_1\dot{V_{in}}##

##V_1=\frac{R_3V_{in}}{R_3+R_1}##
##V_2=R_2C_1(\dot{V_{in}}-\dot{V_2})##

##V_o=V_1-V_2##
##V_o=\frac{R_3V_{in}}{R_3+R_1}-R_2C_1(\dot{V_{in}}-\dot{V_2})##
How would I get rid of ##\dot{V_2}##?

Solve for V2 before you combine with V1. The V2 equation is a simple differential equation. Hint: What is ##\dot{V_{in}}##?
 
  • #13
gneill said:
Please do not edit content out your previous posts. It makes followups discussing that content nonsensical. If you do edit a post, make sure that you leave a note in the post indicating what changes you made and why. It is best to have a policy of only adding to a previous post, not removing content. Fixing typos is fine.
Solve for V2 before you combine with V1. The V2 equation is a simple differential equation. Hint: What is ##\dot{V_{in}}##?
I edited that post on accident and didn't know how to undo. My bad.
##\frac{V_1-V_{in}}{R_1}+\frac{V_1}{R_3}=0##
##V_{in} = V_1(1+\frac{R_1}{R_3})##
##\dot{V_{in}}=\dot{V_1}(1+\frac{R_1}{R_3})##
##V_2=R_2C_1(\dot{V_1}(1+\frac{R_1}{R_3})-\dot{V_2})##
 
  • #14
Question: Is Vin a DC source or an AC source?
 
  • #15
gneill said:
Question: Is Vin a DC source or an AC source?
The problem was given like this as practice for the exam. I think the professor said something about Vin being an AC sinusoid for the exam. Also the prompt for this problem is "Find the differential equation for Vo". I forgot to include that in the OP.
 
  • #16
eehelp150 said:
The problem was given like this as practice for the exam. I think the professor said something about Vin being an AC sinusoid for the exam. Also the prompt for this problem is "Find the differential equation for Vo". I forgot to include that in the OP.
I see. That makes things a bit trickier. I don't think you can eliminate V2' without using the actual function for Vin. I suppose you could write V2 in terms of Vo, since Vo = V1 - V2. That would at least lead to a differential equation for Vo.
 
  • #17
gneill said:
I see. That makes things a bit trickier. I don't think you can eliminate V2' without using the actual function for Vin. I suppose you could write V2 in terms of Vo, since Vo = V1 - V2. That would at least lead to a differential equation for Vo.
What if ##V_{in}## was sin(t)?
How would I go about solving?
 
  • #18
If you have the actual function then you have its derivative, too. You can plug those into your V2 node equation and solve the differential equation. But that would lead to the overall solution, not the differential equation for Vo.
 
  • #19
gneill said:
If you have the actual function then you have its derivative, too. You can plug those into your V2 node equation and solve the differential equation. But that would lead to the overall solution, not the differential equation for Vo.
What do you mean for overall solution? Is that not the differential equation for Vo?
How would I get Vo in terms of Vin? I don't see how to eliminate V2, even with a function for Vin
 
  • #20
eehelp150 said:
What do you mean for overall solution? Is that not the differential equation for Vo?
It would be the time domain solution for Vo. Some combination of sine and cosine functions.
How would I get Vo in terms of Vin? I don't see how to eliminate V2, even with a function for Vin
You make the substitution for V2 that I suggested using Vo = V1 - V2. Then V2 becomes V1 - Vo, and you already have V1 in terms of Vin.
 
  • #21
gneill said:
It would be the time domain solution for Vo. Some combination of sine and cosine functions.

You make the substitution for V2 that I suggested using Vo = V1 - V2. Then V2 becomes V1 - Vo, and you already have V1 in terms of Vin.
This look good?
##V_1=\frac{R_3V_{in}}{R_3+R_1}##

##V_2=R_2C_1(\dot{V_{in}}-\dot{V_2})##

##V_O=V_1-V_2##
##V_2=V_O-V_1##
##\dot{V_1}=\frac{R_3\dot{V_{in}}}{R_3+R_1}##
##\dot{V_2}=\dot{V_O}-\dot{V_1}##

##V_2=R_2C_1(\dot{V_{in}}-\dot{V_2})##
##V_O-\frac{R_3V_{in}}{R_3+R_1}=R_2C_1(\dot{V_{in}}-(\dot{V_O}-\frac{R_3\dot{V_{in}}}{R_3+R_1}))##
 
  • #22
Yes, that's what I meant.
 
  • #23
gneill said:
Yes, that's what I meant.
There is only one energy storage element in this circuit so there is no dampening right? Would tau simply be Rth*C? Where Rth = R1+R2+R3?
 
  • #24
eehelp150 said:
There is only one energy storage element in this circuit so there is no dampening right? Would tau simply be Rth*C? Where Rth = R1+R2+R3?

There will be dampening if there are transients that die out due to the resistance in the circuit. Transients will occur if the driving source Vin is discontinuous in some way (such as if the signal is suddenly applied when it is at a non-zero part of its cycle). Dampening in single reactor circuits are characterized by a ##\tau## that is the time constant for the exponential decay of the transients.

If you are determining the Rth that the capacitor "sees", then you should re-draw what the circuit looks like with the source suppressed. I think you'll find that R1 and R3 can play no role.

I thought that Vin was an AC source and that you'd be looking at the steady-state (driven) solution, no? Is there some part of the problem statement that we haven't seen?
 
  • #25
gneill said:
There will be dampening if there are transients that die out due to the resistance in the circuit. Transients will occur if the driving source Vin is discontinuous in some way (such as if the signal is suddenly applied when it is at a non-zero part of its cycle). Dampening in single reactor circuits are characterized by a ##\tau## that is the time constant for the exponential decay of the transients.

If you are determining the Rth that the capacitor "sees", then you should re-draw what the circuit looks like with the source suppressed. I think you'll find that R1 and R3 can play no role.

I thought that Vin was an AC source and that you'd be looking at the steady-state (driven) solution, no? Is there some part of the problem statement that we haven't seen?
R1 and R3 play no role because they are shorted when the source is shorted, correct?

There is no problem statement, the teacher simply told us to solve this as is for practice. He said there will be an AC source and numerical values for resistors and capacitor on the exam.
 
  • #26
eehelp150 said:
R1 and R3 play no role because they are shorted when the source is shorted, correct?
Right.
There is no problem statement, the teacher simply told us to solve this as is for practice. He said there will be an AC source and numerical values for resistors and capacitor on the exam.
I can see deriving the differential equation on an exam, but solving it as well seems ambitious.
 
  • #27
eehelp150 said:
This look good?
##V_1=\frac{R_3V_{in}}{R_3+R_1}##

##V_2=R_2C_1(\dot{V_{in}}-\dot{V_2})##

##V_O=V_1-V_2##
##V_2=V_O-V_1## This should be: ##V_2=V_1-V_O##
##\dot{V_1}=\frac{R_3\dot{V_{in}}}{R_3+R_1}##
##\dot{V_2}=\dot{V_O}-\dot{V_1}## This should be: ##\dot{V_2}=\dot{V_1}-\dot{V_O}##

##V_2=R_2C_1(\dot{V_{in}}-\dot{V_2})##
##V_O-\frac{R_3V_{in}}{R_3+R_1}=R_2C_1(\dot{V_{in}}-(\dot{V_O}-\frac{R_3\dot{V_{in}}}{R_3+R_1}))##

You made a silly error as indicated above. 10 points off!

The reason I noticed this is because I worked the problem using the Laplace variable s, and didn't get the same result you did.
 

Similar threads

Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top