EveryCircuit
Contact
Reviews
Home
2ctiby
modified 7 years ago

d.c. RL Inductor switching ... part 2 255mA result

7
20
428
05:56:00
Note: The 10 Ohm res. here has replaced the 10 Ohm which was tucked in as the relay contact resistance. The aim here is to gain a further understanding of the amount of current flowing at any chosen time, say at 1ms after t=0 and i=0 start, from closing a switch in a simple RL circuit.(Opening the switch is a different scenario which is not discussed here). Let's start, with each (numbered) step by step ... 1)   total V = inductor V +  resistor V That description is in the form of a linear first order differential equation, and can be written as: 2)     E(t) = L(di/dt) + iR   ( note: v is replaced as v = 'i x R' for the resistor v, and v = 'change in  i/ change in time' x L for the inductor v,  E is the battery source v which is held constant here throughout our time t ) Schematic example: t = 1ms E = 9v L = 30mH   ...  E.C. ideal inductor R = 10 Ohm 3)    Thus:    9 = 0.03(di/dt) + 10i   Now put di/dt on its own:  divide throughout by 0.03 :       Thus:   300 = di/dt + 333.333i   Let's turn that round to read as: 4)    di/dt + 333.333i =300 5) Now multiply both sides by the integrating factor:   (e^ [∫333.333 dt])   which is also: e^(333.333t) being e^(coefficient of i) so, from our  step 4) where di/dt + 333.333i =300 : Let's do that multiplication: 6) e^[333.333t] di/dt  + 333.333ie^[333.333t]    = 300e^[333.333t] That step 6) can be re-arranged and written equivalently as the derivative of the product of the 'integrating factor e^[333.333t], and the function i' : 7)   d (ie^[333.333t]) / dt     =  300e^[333.333t] 8) Then integrate both sides:  ∫(d/dt)( ie^[333.333t] ) dt  = ∫(300e^[333.333t] )dt Which gives: 9) ie^[333.333t] = 300/333.333 (e^[333.333t]) +C 10) Now divide throughout by e^[333.333t] Which gives our main useful equation: 11)    i = 0.9 + C(e^[-333.333t]) Then find C at i(t=0) 12)    0=0.9 + C   .... where t=0  and i=0 and e^0 =1 So: C= -0.9 13) Now use this known value of C where t=0.001  sec. as per original question above.  use step 11) : i(t=0.001) = 0.9 - 0.9(e^[-333.333 x 0.001]) So: 14)   i(t=0.001) = 0.255  amp This is what we set out to find.... as per the first paragraph above. See the approx 0.255 amp reading on the scope. 15)  check: i(t)=(V/R)  - (V/R)[e^(-Rt/L)]    ** i(t)=9/10 - (9/10)[e^(-0.01/0.03)] i(t)=0.9 - 0.9e^-0.333 i(t)= 0.255. amp. where t = 0.001sec 16)  Thus we have derived this formula to obtain i(t)  ... generalised from step 11)   ** but now with a deeper understanding about what is happening when the current changes. 17) That handy formula can be re-arranged as:               i(t)= (V/R)(1 - e^[-Rt/L]) which is the often used formula found in texts for RL d.c. analysis. Summary: If you have followed all of the above, then you now understand in detail why a current reads as it does at any time after closing a switch, right from the first principle shown at step 1) above, which was: Step 1):        total V = inductor V +  resistor V Your now well-understood usable formula is:  Step17):       i(t)= (V/R)(1 - e^[-Rt/L]) If you are stuck on any step then ask for help. Extra notes : Vₗ = Vₛ x e^[-Rt/L]     where  Vₗ = induced EMF,     Vₛ= full supply V Also: P = i^2R  +  Li(di/dt) .. total Power for the RL circuit 18) Note also that V/R is the max i (seen here as 0.9 amp) which occurs at about '5 x tau' seconds for t in step 17), called the 'transient time' ... where the 'time constant' tau= L/R for an inductor. When di/dt=0, no change in current, then the volt drop across the inductor is zero  ... V=L(di/dt), so the current is dependant only on the resistor, as being  i=V/R A larger inductance gives a larger transient time. A larger Resistor gives a shorter transient time. Note: The way in which the switch is turned off will make a major difference to the entire action... this needs further explanation.... eg switched by spst, pulse, logic train, capacitor etc. Using standard formulae may be fine for many cases, but for ventures in to design, it is possibly better to have an insight in to why and how the current is acting in a particular way at any chosen point in time... and so make adjustments accordingly.
published 7 years ago
hurz
7 years ago
I like it, even its exactly as “dry“ i learned that decades ago from textbooks for my engineering degree, or maybe even before in school. Im a bit dissapointed, I expected much more creative methode to explain this. After you promised soooo much more then boring math and formulas. Whats missing from beginning is a practical usecase, why all this can be helpful. IMHO, but maybe other users like it more. Put around a story like inductor saturation or non linear inductors. Anyway, i like it
kiani
7 years ago
Here 1st question... Going frim step 6 to 7. ( Adi/dt +B =Z) what hapoens to B, it seems to disappear.
2ctiby
7 years ago
@kiani ... Diff product RL ... steps 6 and 7 explained: 6) e^[333.333t] di/dt  + 333.333ie^[333.333t] = 300e^[333.333t] That step 6) can be re-arranged and written equivalently as the derivative of the product of the integrating factor e^[333.333t], and the function i : 7)   d (ie^[333.333t]) / dt  =  300e^[333.333t] Product rule for diff: using 3 instead of 333.333 here for clarity: d/dt  (ie^3t) = [d/dt (i)  x  e^3t]  +  [d/dt (e^3t)  x  i] d/dt  (ie^3t)  =  {  [d/dt (i) x e^3t]   +   [ 3e^3t   x i ]  } Thus writing the left side as in step 7)  and here, is the same as writing its equally shown full right side of here as being the full left side shown in 6) Hence the left side shown at 7) is identical to the entire left side shown at 6) The right sides after the equal sign are the same seen in 6 and 7 ... and need no mention here. The left side etc at step 7) is then ready to continue as per step 8)
kiani
7 years ago
Yes thnx. A little rusty on my diff. Equations.
jason9
7 years ago
Woah. This is extremely complicated and a quite bit past my capability. Btw, for the first two lines in the “extra notes” section the symbol after each of the Vs aren’t recognized by my device.
hurz
7 years ago
So after we derived it for current in RL circuits we could do the same for voltages and we can do it for current and voltages in RC circuits as well, and all this for the charge and discharge case. Its always the same thing and the formulas look all very similar. Also we need to have a way to not start at zero volt or ampere. So to set the startvalue. If we have all this formulas we can easily calculate e.g. RC or RL relaxation oscillators. Deriving these formulas should be done ones in your life as engineer. Anyway, these formulas are already available since Mr. Henry and Mr. Faraday. Deriving formulas is math and Everycircuit is electronics. Now i think its time to use all the derived formulas and apply them to electronic (by the way the same formulas can be used to calculate the temperatur of a cooling pot of tea) Again, its good to know a formula can be derived of simple observation we made in lab. But the job for everycircuit starts now to apply the formulas to circuits.
2ctiby
7 years ago
Those who are interested in exploring calculus in electronics here on EC can do so. It will enable them to hold their corner in structured discussion, (such as with the RL example here) and offer depth of understanding in various aspects of some circuit structures. That would put them in a better position than being subservient to a 'master' who wishes to keep them suppressed.
hurz
7 years ago
Actually this formula is so trivial an experienced electronics engineer dont need to look it up in a formula collection. Anyway, i and you we both forgot the cooking recipe for step 1 to 17. So in case we are lost on an island like robinson and have to reinvent the DC jump-response of an RL series circuit, we are lost anyway. Would be better we understand why step 1 till 17 is done this why. But we both do not and we are not mathematics. Again, an experienced electronics engineer have it in its mind or can it as one of hundred exp(-t/tau) combinations which exist recreate without step 1 to 17. Its getting more interessting for complex RLC circuit in AC analysis were Laplace comes into the game, cause derive it like you did here is also possible but will be more and more a nightmare, but with the help of Laplace transformtion it make it just handy! Here to continue would make sense but is anyway far to much for 99.999999% of everycircuit average user. It was you who requested my encouragement, but why i have the feeling it was just a lie...
2ctiby
7 years ago
It appears to me that you are choosing to discourage users from exploring calculus in their electronics... possibly because they would then be in a position of greater understanding than yourself in certain areas which you would then be unable to discuss.
hurz
7 years ago
Now your are leaving the way of argumentation.
hurz
7 years ago
Its obvious, yourself have to lookup step 1 to 17, cuz you have nothing said about why they done. So you need this as a form of cooking recipe. So why this arrogance about users who need to lookup a formula? Youself have to lookup how to solve a first order differential equation!
2ctiby
7 years ago
That's very funny hurz... I created all step numbers to help readers ask me questions about any stage where they have a query... such as step6 to step7 which I promptly answered above... If you are stuck on any step number, you can ask too.
zorgrian
7 years ago
Professor 2citybeez, at it again. Lecturing himself on 'the boys own guide to electricity' circa 1938
zorgrian
7 years ago
In part 3 we can learn about Leiden bottles and lamp bulbs?
zorgrian
7 years ago
Hurz, please dont encourage him to produce more shit
zorgrian
7 years ago
I am convinced that the 2citybeeez, reads some badly written content from ancient 'boy guide' manuals. He then is compelled to regurgitate his interpretation at us. However, in reality this is some form of malpracticing superego or worse at play. I say this because he/it has no experience. Put in simpler words "he doesn't know what he's talking about"
zorgrian
7 years ago
And then, there is the 'lecture' style! It is fantastic! "Tune in for next week's episode where construct (a) + (b) will be explained"
hurz
7 years ago
Right Zorg, what he just have done is a transformation from one valid formula to another valid formula. L(di/dt) + iR is valid and I(1-exp(-t/tau)) is a valid formula. He did a transformation in 17 step he dont understand. Anyway, there is no more insight view in electroncis which he gained he said. Both formulas describe the same thing and nothing new is generated. Funny how he feels like god by apply 17 step of math to not have anything new in his hands. Hes talking about standard formulas, this is what im gave him already, i dont know what a standard formula is all about and whats good or bad about is. A formula is a formula.
hurz
7 years ago
@2cent, you continue to answere on another thread from @lenzrulz? How funny is that. You are a nessy in circuits and a messy in use of everycircuit as forum. Why not an answer here? Messy
hurz
7 years ago
Here you can find your nasty answer http://everycircuit.com/circuit/6552515704520704 is this what you like to continue, exchance or arguments or nasty propaganda?

EveryCircuit is an easy to use, highly interactive circuit simulator and schematic capture tool. Real-time circuit simulation, interactivity, and dynamic visualization make it a must have application for professionals and academia. EveryCircuit user community has collaboratively created the largest searchable library of circuit designs. EveryCircuit app runs online in popular browsers and on mobile phones and tablets, enabling you to capture design ideas and learn electronics on the go.

Copyright © 2026 by MuseMaze, Inc.     Terms of use     Privacy policy