Why Does My Inductive Impedance Calculation Seem Incorrect?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thepipersson80
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Head
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around issues with calculating inductive impedance and total impedance in RLC circuits. The user is confused about their results, particularly the large values obtained for impedance, and questions the accuracy of their calculations. A key point raised is that at low frequencies, the reactive components have minimal impact, suggesting that higher frequencies should be tested for more accurate results. Additionally, the importance of understanding significant digits in calculations is emphasized, as well as the necessity of taking the square root of the final impedance value. The user is encouraged to verify their calculations and consider using online calculators for comparison.
thepipersson80
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

Firstly I apologise that I'm even asking this... I have gone over it so many times now I don't know what to believe is the right answer, can someone please help me out and let me know where I'm going wrong PLEASE

Ok so first is the inductive impedance

Z= SQRT R^2 + (WL)^2

R = 2.7*10^6 2.7MΩ
W= 2piF = 2pi*10 2pi*10Hz
L= 300*10^-3 300mH

R^2 = 7.29*10^12
WL = 18.84955592 WL^2 = 355.3057584
R^2+WL^2 = 7.29*10^12 + 355.3057584 =7.29*10^12

How can that be right? I may of well just squared R to start with... so what am I doing wrong?

Second,

Impedance in RLC circuits

Z= SQRT R^2 +(Xl - Xc)2

W = 2piF = 628318.5307

F = 100*10^3 = 100000
C = 300*10^-6 = 3*10^-4
L = 300*10^-3 = 0.3
R = 2.7*10^6 = 2700000
Xl = WL = 188495.5592
Xc = 1/WC = 5.30516477*10-3

so R^2 +(Xl - XC)^2 = 7.325530574*10^12 and to me that just does not seem the right answer??

Can you guys see where I would be going wrong? and if so how do I put it into my calculator?
Many thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Why do you think you are doing something wrong? The reactance factors are frequency dependent. What you have learned is that at 10Hz (a very low frequency) the reactive elements have very little effect. Try higher frequencies.

Side note. Do NOT copy every digit off of your calculator display. It would do you much good to find a explanation of significant digits. This bit of work will save you time and effort in the future.
 
I just don't think it's right? and when I go to a online calculator I get different answers.

My maths is not that great to say the least, so to be honest I don't know what is significant and what isn't (sorry)
 
thepipersson80 said:
I just don't think it's right? and when I go to a online calculator I get different answers.

My maths is not that great to say the least, so to be honest I don't know what is significant and what isn't (sorry)
Don't forget to take the square root, to end up with Z.
 

Thread 'Trigonometry problem of interest'

Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
View full post »
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'

Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'

Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
View full post »

Thread 'Fermat's Last Theorem'

Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
View full post »

Similar threads

Calculating Impedance of a RLC Circuit Connected to a 60 Hz AC Source
Replies
2
Views
2K
Why can we add impedances in series?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Calculating Complex Apparent Power in a Sinusoidal Circuit
Replies
12
Views
2K
Calculating Resistance and Inductance of Coil in AC Circuit
Replies
3
Views
7K
Why Does My Integration Over a Sphere Give Incorrect Results?
Replies
2
Views
1K
RLC Circuit: Calculate Resonant Frequency, Reactance & Impedence
Replies
1
Views
2K
Effective Current Impedance Calculation without Inductive Coupling
Replies
3
Views
2K
Inductor Impedance vs Inductive Reactance: Clarification Needed
Replies
2
Views
4K
Calculating Impedance and Voltage Drop in an RLC Circuit
Replies
2
Views
5K
Calculating Impedance of 2.80k W Resistor and 4.60mF Capacitor
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top