Calculus taught me some of the most important lessons I've learned in life. 1: Don't take a class at 7:30 in the morning five days a week. 2: I'm not a morning person. 3: If you do take a class at 7:30 in the morning, you can find a parking spot right in front of the engineering building and don't have to walk 7 blocks to class.
You can go to engineering school, but, it's easier and cheaper just to read the textbooks. Free, actually. Many books are free pdf online. Get a used oscilloscope, etc, and you can do labs at home. Assets are fully depriciated so, equipment is essentially free also, minus shipping.
When I was in school we used to say that to get a PhD you had to learn more and more about less and less until you knew everything about nothing. Once I jumped into the rabbit hole of electronics math I better understood how/why things worked as they did and how to make something that worked as I wanted it to. Which really does make electronics a lot more fun and satisfying.
I was always kind of confused when I first started learning why people would just pick component values by rule of thumb. You explained it perfectly at the end. There's all this math that explains how ideal components work....then there's reality. It's great to know the theory, but it doesn't necessarily make you better on the breadboard.
Just as a note, you don't have to wait for the voltage to get to 100% (let's say 5V). You can set your electronics to be triggered at 0.7 volts for example, and work with that.
No wonder. After all, that's exactly the mindset "agenda guys" want on you. They prefer "teach" on kids "genre theory" or "s3x.ed" than make them truly understand math basics... Because the first both make you a nice sheep drone, while maths make you a very dang3r0us uncontrollable individual (for them ofc).
Same here, although I got one in Political Sciences :) And here they actually try to teach us this level of physics in high school, in EE it is much more complex.
The "Degree" is not the key to understanding. I know several people with EE degrees that just got by and don't really understand the theory or the math. On the converse, I know many that do not have a piece of paper and understand fully.
I took two pages of notes on this video. Excellent stuff, explain more electronics math please. It was really interesting seeing how the equation was derived. The books are boring. Videos are much more fun.
The whole reason why e appears in the equation is that e^x (e in the power of x - exponential function) is the only function, whose derivative equals to itself. As the voltage across the capacitor is proportional to the charge, and the voltage across resistor is proportional to the rate of change of charge over time, and they both sum up to a constant (the battery voltage), it turns out that the charge will have to be proportional to it's rate of change. And the rate of change is the derivative of charge over time. Meaning, the charge will have to be an exponential function over time, so its derivative is proportional to itself. That's how e gets into the solution.
sounds OK, I learned it from the inverse of an integral. like this: www.york.cuny.edu/academics/departments/earth-and-physical-sciences/physics-lab-manuals/physics-ii/time-constant-of-an-rc-circuit
@@IMSAIGuy The discharge case (discussed in the paper you suggested) is somewhat easier to start with because there you don't have a battery, meaning the rate of discharge is directly proportional to the charge remaining, and the voltages on the resistor and the capacitor are equal and opposite. So R✖️dQ/dt = -Q/C, meaning dQ/dt = -1/RC ✖️ Q, and clearly the solution for Q is some constant times e^(-t/RC), as its derivative is exactly what is on the right side of equation. The voltage on the capacitor V is proportional to Q. As at the time of t=0 the voltage was equal to E, and e^0 = 1, we find the coefficient equals to E, so V(t) = E✖️e^(-t/RC).
