Well I am once again at a stand still. Its basically a simple circuit problem, but not so simple to me. Heres where im at:
e^(t/RC) q = CV e^(t/RC) + K
All letters in capital are constant. So what i need to do from here is show that if q(0) = 0, then K = -CV.
It is probably easy but im new to the natural base honestly so if someone could explain the process a little bit, id really appreciate it.
This is the 1st of 2 parts
Thanks guys
Chris
Boy i feel silly, thanks Jhevon.
Welp from there i had to derive:
CV(1 - e^(-t/RC))
What id did was plug in -K and executed the product rule. From there i used the quotient rule on the riased power of (-t/RC) to get t/RC.
My final derivative was dq/dt = K(e^(-t/RC) t/RC)
Did i execute this correctly?
check this to make sure you typed the equation correctly. you are missing parentheses and i don't know what else.
why would you do that. we went through all the trouble of finding out that K = -CV. shouldn't we plug that in for K and see what we get?What id did was plug in -K and executed the product rule. From there i used the quotient rule on the riased power of (-t/RC) to get t/RC.
My final derivative was dq/dt = K(e^(1-t/RC) t/RC)
Did i execute this correctly?
Ahh sorry, i corrected my last post. both equations were written wrong.
But i plugged K back in so i would have 1 constant to work with for the product rule rather than 2 constants. But maybe should plug the -CV for K at the end for further simplification?
dq/dt = K(e^(-t/RC) t/RC) --------> dq/dt = -V(e^(-t/RC) t/R)
what do you think?
Hmm, or maybe its possible to figure out from the q(t)
Where C is capacitance, V is voltage and R is resistance. All these values should be positive i believe. The dq/dt is actually the formala for i(t) which is the current at time (t). Does this make any more sense to you? Im certainly no electrical engineer..
Thank you again Dan. I didnt have enough time last night to thoroughly try out one of your answers. I tried it now, and actually i dont see the process..
What did you do to get
Im deriving the 1st CV as 1, then the rest as a prodect rule but not getting the above answer...