Why does i(t)=dq(t)/dt give the value of AC current only?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of the formula i(t) = dq(t)/dt in relation to AC and DC currents. Participants clarify that this formula applies to both AC and DC currents, emphasizing that it represents the rate of charge flow. A key point raised is the distinction between the rate of charge flow and the rate of change of charge flow, with examples illustrating how a constant current still results in a non-zero current value. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding current density and charge accumulation over time. Ultimately, the participants reach a consensus on the correct interpretation of the formula in the context of current flow.
gikiian
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
I know the mathematical and geometrical reason, but does there exist a physical interpretation behind this?

Thanks :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not sure what you mean.
That formula works for DC as well. An "exotic" example would be a single electron pump where the (dc) current is given by the number of electrons pumped per second...
 
f95toli said:
I am not sure what you mean.
That formula works for DC as well. An "exotic" example would be a single electron pump where the (dc) current is given by the number of electrons pumped per second...

I don't believe it does. Say that a constant 10 Coulombs of charge per second is flowing through a conductor. This would be equivalent of 10 Amps of current. The rate of change in Coulombs per second is zero. So the equation i(t)=dq(t)/dt would yield zero also.
 
2milehi said:
I don't believe it does. Say that a constant 10 Coulombs of charge per second is flowing through a conductor. This would be equivalent of 10 Amps of current. The rate of change in Coulombs per second is zero. So the equation i(t)=dq(t)/dt would yield zero also.
!? The rate at which charges move is dq/dt. That is the current. You appear to be confusing dq/dt with d2q/dt2. The rate of change of charge flow is not the same as the rate of charge flow.

AM
 
2milehi said:
This would be equivalent of 10 Amps of current.

No, it is 10 amps of current.
 
Andrew Mason said:
!? The rate at which charges move is dq/dt. That is the current. You appear to be confusing dq/dt with d2q/dt2. The rate of change of charge flow is not the same as the rate of charge flow.

AM

Say at t = 2 seconds there is 10 Coulombs flowing in the conductor, at t = 3 seconds there is 10 Coulombs flowing in the conductor. A simplified way of figuring dq/dt would be (10 - 10) / (3 - 2) = 0. A slope of a horizontal line is always zero.

d2q/dt2 is the rate of change of the rate of change.
 
Last edited:
Say at t = 2 seconds there is 10 Coulombs flowing in the conductor

There is or there are?

But no, there are 10 coulombs per second flowing.

If you re-examine your units you will understand what everyone is telling you.
 
2milehi said:
I don't believe it does. Say that a constant 10 Coulombs of charge per second is flowing through a conductor. This would be equivalent of 10 Amps of current. The rate of change in Coulombs per second is zero. So the equation i(t)=dq(t)/dt would yield zero also.

It helps if you think in terms of current DENSITY at first:
J = ρ.v = ρ.(dx/dt)

Now consider a cross-section of your conductor and perform a surface integral, the result:
I = (dq/dx) (dx/dt) = dq/dt

So the proper interpretation of the dq/dt term is the rate of charges that cross a certain reference surface. So even for a DC current of, say, 10 A, then every second 10 C cross that surface.
 
Studiot said:
There is or there are?

But no, there are 10 coulombs per second flowing.

If you re-examine your units you will understand what everyone is telling you.

OK I get it now. I was thinking in terms of current flow, not charge flow. At t=2, 20 coulombs have flown through a conductor. At t=3 30 coulombs have flown through a conductor. So (30 - 20) / (3 - 2) = 10 coulombs per second. The coulomb count is accumulative.

Sorry for the confusion (and bad grammar) - watching a two-year old can cause a lack of concentration.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top