New venture for you on EC

I’m happy to try this calculus. The math will probably be fun. I’m totally self taught when it comes to anything above 9th grade level though, so I’ve probably missed a lot. Like how to isolate x when x is bound up in an integral.

Btw, if any of the math isn’t something that Desmos graphing calculator can help me with because it contains functions that Desmos doesn’t have then I’m out. It does have a pretty extensive variety of functions though. The only thing it’s missing and really needs is imaginary numbers. That’s really the only limiting factor I can think of. If you mess around with imaginary numbers and google calculator isn’t sufficient to solve it due to it not having necessary functions, then I can’t do it because Desmos won’t solve it either because it contains imaginary numbers.

Btw, I know nothing about quadratic equations. You’ll have to teach me that if necessary.

@giant gason. That is the best way to learn (i say). As the best teachers can only make you interested and show you. And the learning has to be done by oneself, at the end of the day.

Also, I know nothing about differential equations. Does it have something to do with derivatives (finding the slope of an equation at a certain spot on the x-axis)? Because that’s what google tells me.

@jason9 ... I'm not setting myself up as a maths teacher here... far too rusty for that. My guidelines will all appear simple and self-explanatory with help as required. The main thing is to aim for simplicity in all things, which unfortunately may sometimes be mis-interpreted as naive. Complex outcomes will then not be complex to those who have followed each step.... I hope that my earlier rms article a few months back demonstrated that.

Yhat's right... Rate of change... With respect to time. Or anuthing uou like. Like velocity which is in meter per seconds.. Is rare of change of distant with respect to time. Meter prr seconds. .... M/s........ ........... .. d (distance)/dt. You can do it..

Through the simplest beginnings knowledge will come.

Sounds good to me !!!! 😊😉

@2ctiby if you have time, we need a tasks to do. And maybe you could then reveal the answers after a day or so.

@jason9, what @2ctiby is missing here is, WHY IS THIS DONE? The answere is, we would like to get rid of L(di/dt) cuz this we can use, and its not wrong to use it, but its a linear approximation to what we have in real. In case the current is linear, and there are situations were it is precise enough to see it just linear, we can use this differential form. In software and programming we might even prefer this differential version, cuz we calculate in steps t, t+1, t+n and calculating with di/dt would be our first choice. Both formulas are correct at mean the same actually they are identical in result! What @2ctiby did is a transformation, and only a transformation from one existing formula to another formula. Both formulas are well known and describe the current in coils. The procedure of transformation itself step 1 to 17 doesn't bring anything new. Not an insight view of coils and as @2ctiby just running its cooking recipe 1 to 17 also nothing new in Math. So if you see formulas in differential form were di/dt or du/d something there is a cooking recipe to bring transform the formula. Nothing what gained knowledge in electronic. As long its presented in this form as @2ctiby limited does.

Sounds like the bees knees to me.

I have the utmost respect for you @2ctiby, you’re a natural leader and a great teacher, give yourself some credit, go ahead, the entire EC community would benefit my friend...😎

[BLOCKED]

and LJ do support this behaviour, wow. LJ what you have published so far is quite some bullshit, bad documented statements without any evidence or basis. Just a mess. One more Charlatan on everycircuit.

[BLOCKED]

[BLOCKED]

[BLOCKED]

[BLOCKED]

[BLOCKED]

[BLOCKED]

Teacher? Tell us who shall inherit the earth 🌎?

Stupid question, although not not unexpected given your historical retarded comments!