What assumption leads to dB/dt=0 in the lumped element model?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahmad Kishki
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element Model
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the assumptions leading to dB/dt=0 in the lumped element model, specifically questioning the validity of these assumptions in the context of sinusoidal voltage variations. The first assumption posits that the change of magnetic flux outside a conductor is zero, which is challenged by the presence of a changing electric field. The second assumption suggests that the change of charge inside conducting elements is also zero, implying no displacement current. Participants note that while the lumped element model has been effective for over a century, it simplifies reality and may not hold under certain conditions, particularly with time-varying fields. The conversation emphasizes the need for careful consideration of these assumptions when applying the model to AC circuit analysis.
Ahmad Kishki
Messages
158
Reaction score
13
First assumption: the change of magnetic flux in time outside a conductor is zero.

Last semester in circuit analysis we treated circuits with sinusoidal voltage variation as steady state circuits while using the phasor notation. But now that i know electrodynamics i begin to doubt my concepts that were built in circuit analysis. For sinusoidal variation of voltage the electric field through the conductor will also vary sinusoidally which means that there will be a changing magnetic field enclosed by the circuit. What assumption here is needed to lead to the assumption that the change in magnetic flux outside a conductor is zero? Is it that the surface area of the circuit is too small? But that is not satisfactory...

Second assumption: the change of charge in time inside conducting elements is zero.

This means that displacement current is zero, right?

Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumped_element_model
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Ahmad Kishki said:
But that is not satisfactory...
If the assumptions made in your application are “not satisfied” sufficiently then you should not be using a lumped element model.

No simple model can ever be an exact representation of the reality it attempts to model. Assumptions are made to simplify the model to the point where it can be solved numerically in a reasonable time. The “lumped element model” has worked sufficiently well in most situations over the last 100 years. Without those assumptions, the physical dimensions of the components and the path taken by the connecting wires would need to be specified in an EM model. That would be most inconvenient when not essential.
 
Baluncore said:
If the assumptions made in your application are “not satisfied” sufficiently then you should not be using a lumped element model.

No simple model can ever be an exact representation of the reality it attempts to model. Assumptions are made to simplify the model to the point where it can be solved numerically in a reasonable time. The “lumped element model” has worked sufficiently well in most situations over the last 100 years. Without those assumptions, the physical dimensions of the components and the path taken by the connecting wires would need to be specified in an EM model. That would be most inconvenient when not essential.

You misunderstood me.. I am asking for the basis of these two assumptions in field theory...
 
In my opinion, if you follow Kirchhoff laws for lumped circuit then Sum(Ii)=0 in a connection point that means [ in the connection point] i [result]= dq/dt =0.
The second law Sum(Vi)=0 in a loop that means no magnetic field change which could produce an EMF in the loop. dB/dt=0.
 
Babadag said:
In my opinion, if you follow Kirchhoff laws for lumped circuit then Sum(Ii)=0 in a connection point that means [ in the connection point] i [result]= dq/dt =0.
The second law Sum(Vi)=0 in a loop that means no magnetic field change which could produce an EMF in the loop. dB/dt=0.

Yes i get this, but what assumption is required to say that dB/dt=0? I mean, a time changing electric field will lead to a time changing magnetic field... So how can this assumption hold when the voltage is sinusoidal wrt time?
 
  • Like
Likes Babadag
Ahmad Kishki said:
what assumption is required to say that dB/dt=0
The average dB/dt over one sinusoidal cycle will be zero.
 
Baluncore said:
The average dB/dt over one sinusoidal cycle will be zero.

Hmmm...
 
AC circuit analysis applies to integral numbers of whole cycles, average quantities, and ignoring non-sinusoidal startup transients.

You are perfectly free to skip AC analysis, and to analyze the circuits transiently using differential equations. That is more general and more universal, but a whole lot more work. Where the simplifications of AC analysis are justified, they save a lot of time and effort.
 
Ahmad Kishki said:
Yes i get this, but what assumption is required to say that dB/dt=0? I mean, a time changing electric field will lead to a time changing magnetic field... So how can this assumption hold when the voltage is sinusoidal wrt time?
You are right, Ahmad. But this is the simplification of the Kirchhoff laws. He neglected the magnetic flux outside the conductors. Actually, it is an EMF around the loop due to fact dB/dt>0.It is one of the self-imposed constraints by the Lumped Matter Discipline.
 
  • Like
Likes Ahmad Kishki

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
16K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K