Alternating Current Wheatstone-like Bridge

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on solving a problem involving an AC Wheatstone-like bridge circuit with inductors and capacitors. The goal is to find the frequency at which the voltage drop across the components is zero. Initial attempts using Kirchhoff's rule led to confusion due to incorrect application of the sign convention. The correct frequency for achieving zero voltage drop is determined to be ω = 1/√(LC). The thread concludes with an acknowledgment of the mistake in applying Kirchhoff's loop rule.
ke7q
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The goal of this problem is to find a frequency at which the voltage drop across several components of a circuit will be zero. The circuit is identical to a wheatstone bridge (where two pairs of two resistors in series are wired in parallel) except that opposite (diagonally) resistors are replaced with identical ideal inductors, and the other two resistors are replaced with identical ideal capacitors. Also, the voltage applied is not a DC voltage, and is instead given by

\epsilon = \epsilon_o Cos(\omega t)


Homework Equations



I know that the impedance of the capacitor and inductor are given by...

X_c = -\frac{i}{\omega C}

X_L = i \omega L

... and the reactance of these is just given by the magnitude of these in the imaginary plane.

The Attempt at a Solution



Even though the voltage drops across the inductors and capacitors are out of phase, my first thought was to use Kirchoff's rule and take a loop from one end of the current meter bridge to the other through one capacitor and one inductor. From this, I yield the equation that

Δ V_c = Δ V_L
-i\frac{I}{\omega C} = i \omega L I
-\frac{1}{\omega C} = \omega L

which yields that

\omega^{2} = -\frac{1}{LC}

But then I ran into a problem that I have a square of something that is supposed to be a real number being negative.

I considered just using the reactances from the beginning and just setting them equal, which yields the same as above, except for the minus sign, but I couldn't justify it.

Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
And, of course, right after I post this I realize my problem.

My issue was that I was applying Kirchoff's loop rule incorrectly. Because I am going "against" the current in one case, I pick up a minus sign and didn't realize it. Therefore, the frequency I would want so that there is no voltage drop across the bridge would be

\omega = \frac{1}{\sqrt{LC}}

apologies for the spamish post on my very first post :/
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanged mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top