Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
The reason I described a specific way to draw the circuit is because I am criticizing a particular textbook. But in reality there is only one way to draw the circuit (capacitor, resistor, switch, all in a single loop). Whether the capacitor is on the left, right, top, bottom doesn't matter. Likewise for the resistor and switch. The only circuit analysis difference comes when you state which capacitor plate is positive, and that determines whether the current through the resistor will be headed in a clockwise sense around the loop or in a counterclockwise sense around the loop.
Once you state which plate is positive, and from that determine which way the current goes through the resistor, you can apply the loop theorem.
You can navigate your loop in the same direction as the current through the resistor and get -IV + q/C = 0 or you go the opposite direction and get IV-q/C = 0.
In either case, when writing the loop equation in this manner (zero on one side, voltages on the other side) the signs of IV and q/C must be different. But Serway/Jewitt has -q/C-IV = 0. That just seems wrong.
The reason I say current is defined as I = dq/dt is because that is the way every textbook on my shelf defines it, generally inside a yellow-highlighted box. Indeed, the next step in Serway/Jewitt is to remind the student that I = dq/dt.
I have often exclaimed my frustration that students don't read the textbook, and others on this list have stated the same frustration. However, often the students can fight back by saying they have read the textbook and it didn't make any sense.... and I have to agree with them.
John Denker is correct that this one manifestation of the plug-and-chug mentality of the students. But I give them some sympathy on this one. Getting the plus/minus signs correct in circuit analysis is crucial, and students view it as something not learnable because it appears the professor and the textbook change definitions or conventions willy-nilly to get the right answer.
That is, they don't understand how we know a sign has to be changed.