Answer verification Series RLC, Reactance, Voltages, Current

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the verification of calculations related to a series RLC circuit, focusing on reactance, voltages, and current. Participants are seeking confirmation of their approaches and solutions to homework problems involving complex numbers and impedance.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses frustration over the lack of answer verification for their homework, seeking confirmation on their calculations.
  • Another participant points out an error in the current angle calculation, stating that the denominator angle should be subtracted from the numerator angle in polar form.
  • A participant reflects on their mistake in angle subtraction, realizing that using brackets would clarify their calculation.
  • One participant questions whether to use the magnitude of the reactance (40) instead of its complex form (-j40) when calculating voltage across the capacitor.
  • A response clarifies that -j40 Ohms represents the impedance of the capacitor, emphasizing the distinction between reactance and impedance and the importance of using complex arithmetic for calculations.
  • Another participant agrees with the preference for using Z instead of X for impedance but shares their experience of being instructed otherwise by lecturers, highlighting a disconnect in educational approaches.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the notation used for reactance and impedance, with some agreeing on the confusion it causes while others recount experiences of being instructed to use specific terms. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best practices for notation and calculation methods.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the use of complex numbers and the definitions of reactance versus impedance. The participants also mention a lack of clear examples from their coursework, which may affect their understanding.

Ryan Walkowski
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


All relevant data and variables are included in the image. The questions are also included in it.

index3.jpg


Homework Equations


My questsion is just verification. I have attempted all the asked questions on the paper. Its frustrating as the papers don't include answers to check them nor do i have access to my lecturer for another couple of days. Thus verification on what I am doing is difficult.

The Attempt at a Solution


index4.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your current angle (polar form) is not correct. When you divide polar complex values the denominator angle is subtracted from the numerator angle.

Otherwise your methodology looks sound.
 
Are you able to tell me what the correct answer for that part is then. So i can visualise my mistake. As the way i see it is the numerator angle is 0° and the denominator angle is -2.86° those subtracted gives me an angle of -2.86° but it just dawns on me as i write this that a set of brackets might of helped me (0) - (-2.86) = 2.86° Thats pretty basic math. And yet zero still gets me
 
Yup. You fixed it! :smile:
 
Something else maybe you can enlighten me on. The paper that gives me all the variables shows Xc as -j40 now i was taking that complex number too literal and for long enough when i was calculating VC as in (Vc = Is x Xc) i was at first using the -j40 as a literal value for Xc so -40. I am right in saying that it is infact a whole number 40 you use rather than the complex form. I have pages of j notation but its a struggle to grasp when your working by yourself.
 
Technically, -j40 Ohms is the value of the impedance for the capacitor. It's a complex number that is purely imaginary (no real part).
The reactance of that capacitor is 40 Ohms, a real number which is the magnitude of the impedance.

Reactance and impedance are thus closely related. Typically formulas that use reactance values take care to use signs or operators (+ or -) in the expressions to handle the relationship between them, and separate the reactive parts from the real resistance parts, combining them using vector style math (square root of sum of squares style addition). On the other hand, formulas that use complex impedance just use standard complex arithmetic and no special considerations are necessary; Just write your equations as though everything is "resistance" and do the complex arithmetic.

Personally I dislike the use of "X" variable names for what are impedances because it can lead to confusion. Conventionally X represents reactance and Z impedance, so I would have called the impedances ##Z_C## and ##Z_L## with the understanding that they are complex values.
 
I have to agree with you on the use of X and instead Z but when i tried to submit that on a previous paper as quite honestly it made more sense to me i was told not to use them. The lecturers are rigid and very unhelpful. They throw big blocks of paperwork with no explained examples. I was asked to work out the power of something at the very start i used P=I2R and got zero marks as they were looking for P=VI when both are equally correct. Anyway thanks for your help its certainly helped!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K