Energy in AC-Driven Purely Inductive/Capacitive Circuit

  • Thread starter Thread starter modulus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circuit Energy
AI Thread Summary
Power losses in AC-driven purely inductive and capacitive circuits are influenced by the power factor, which is zero due to a 90° phase difference, resulting in no power transfer. Despite the alternating voltage source providing energy each cycle, energy merely oscillates between the generator and the reactive components without being consumed. The discussion highlights that in real-world scenarios, resistance must be considered, as it impacts power factor and energy loss due to heat. The analogy of a bicycle wheel illustrates that the generator supplies energy only when needed, similar to applying force to maintain speed. Ultimately, practical applications require accounting for resistance to accurately assess energy dynamics in circuits.
modulus
Messages
127
Reaction score
3
The power losses in an AC-driven circuit depend not only upon the rms voltages and currents in the circuit, but also the power factor, cos\phi, where \phi is the phase difference between the current and the applied alternating voltage.
In purely capacitive and purely inductive circuits, the phase difference is 90°, and so, the power factor is:
cos(90°) = 0​
.
Which means there is no power transferred from the alternating voltage source to any part of the circuit.
But how is that possible? The alternating voltage produced by a dynamo (or nay other AC source), during every cycle involve new energy inputs (the rotating armature) every cycle. So, there should be an energy buildup somewhere...
The energy seen in the form of voltage in one direction can't go back to the ac source during the time the voltage decays, because then there would be a buildup of energy in the source - the energy that is returning to it during voltage decay, and the new energy that produces the voltage of the next half of the cycle.
There seems to be a contradiction...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Energy will just slosh back and forth between the generator and the capacitor or inductor. Once 1/2CV2 or 1/2LI2 has been generated, the amount of mechanical power required to turn the generator will only be whatever is required to overcome parasitic loss. It will be like picking a bicycle wheel off the ground and giving it a spin: once the wheel is up to speed it takes almost zero power to keep it spinning.

When the ideal generator voltage drops during the AC cycle, the ideal C/L will feed all of the energy back to the generator. The generator will become an ideal motor, giving back the mechanical energy which was previously supplied. It will be like running the steam turbine or engine or whatever mechanical energy source with no load.

And of course in the real world the circulating current has to plow through the resistance of the circuit, which is why poor power factor is undesirable...it's current that's clogging up the wires, transformers and such without doing any useful work.
 
Last edited:
@modulus
There is little point in considering such 'ideal' situations because they lead to conclusions that have no relevance to real-life. You really have to include some resistance in your circuit or the scenario makes no sense. Remember that, in any case, if there are changing currents and voltages in any circuit, there will be a finite amount of energy radiated as EM waves. That, in itself, is equivalent to having a resistor in the circuit.
I think you just need to bite the bullet and use the equations in their complete form, including the resistive components. You can then investigate the limiting behaviour as the resistance approaches zero.
 
@RankineCycle
Ok...I get it! The bicycle wheel analogy really helped. From what I have understood, the AC generator will not input extra energy into the circuit periodically, it will do so as and when it is needed by the circuit. This is similar to how we would apply a force to the spinning wheel only when it begins to slow down. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
And I noticed this is your first post...so, welcome to Physics Forums! I really appreciate that you took the time to create an account to answer my question.
Thanks a bunch!

@sophiecentuar
Yes, of course. That is what I strive to do.
But I think that sort of analysis is more relevant and effective when you're trying to make something practically. This past month, I was working on a coilgun...and I realized how much different real-world situations can be. The inductor coil I was making had considerable resistance, and I had to carefully assess the effect of its internal resistance on the entire system.
But this post was meant for a theoretical discussion.
Though I completely agree with you, and understand you. :)
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top