In a purely inductive circuit, due to Kirchoff's voltage law we say that voltage drop across the inductor is equal to (negative of) applied AC voltage. However whenever we calculate the voltage drop across an inductor anywhere else, for example in an RLC circuit, we say that the voltage drop across the inductor is equal to inductive reactance multiplied by current passing through it, i.e. $X_L\times I$
However, these 2 cannot be the same. We derive an expression for current in a purely Inductive circuit by fulfilling the following condition (AC voltage is mentioned as $V(t)$) $$ V(t)=L\frac{di}{dt}\\ V(t)\ dt=L\ di $$ Assuming $V(t)=10\sin(\omega t)$ and integrating both sides $$ i = -10\cos(\omega t)/\omega L\\ i = 10\sin(\omega t + 90)/\omega L $$
Now if we multiply current with inductive reactance, we get $i\omega L = 10\sin(\omega t+90)$.
Multiplying current with inductive reactance should supposedly give us the voltage across the inductor, right? But instead of $10\sin(\omega t)$ we are getting a curve which is phase shifted by 90 degrees! Where am I going wrong and how does multiplying current with capacitive reactance give you voltage across inductor anyway (intuitively)?
If we assume that multiplying current with inductive reactance gives us voltage drop across the inductor then the net voltage in that purely inductive circuit won't be zero.
Also what exactly does $10\sin(\omega t+90)$ tell us: is it the voltage across the inductor, net potential in the circuit, what exactly does it denote?
I know that the current and voltage are out of phase by 90 degrees but how does that relate to these?
If possible, please try to explain your answer using math upto Calculus 2.
Edit: My main question here is, $X_L\times I$ is this expression equivalent to voltage dropped across an Inductor in
- A purely Inductive circuit
- Any other circuit which isn't purely Inductive