Average value of AC over a complete cycle is always zero

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the average value of alternating current (AC) over a complete cycle, with the first statement asserting that this average is always zero, which is confirmed as true. The second statement claims that the average value of AC is defined over half a cycle, which is deemed vague and not entirely accurate. While the arithmetic mean over a full cycle yields zero, the root mean square (RMS) value can be calculated over half a cycle to provide a non-zero result. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding different types of averages in relation to periodic functions. Overall, the distinction between arithmetic and RMS calculations is crucial in evaluating these statements.
atavistic
Messages
105
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Statement 1: Average value of AC over a complete cycle is always zero.
Statement 2: Average value of AC is always defined over half cycle.

We need to tell whether these two statements are right, and if 1 is right then whether 2 is its explanation.


Homework Equations


Well arithmetic mean = integral f(x)dx/ integral dx
root mean sqaure = root( integral f(x)^2 dx/ integral dx)


The Attempt at a Solution



I think both are false since it depends upon the type of mean we are taking. Arithmetic would be zero and root mean square non zero. And I think we take mean over complete cycle only. But my answer is wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


Is this the right place to post this?
 


Who says your answer is wrong? (or right?)

The first statement is pretty clearly true. If you perform a simple average of a sinusoid over one full cycle it comes out zero.

As you observe, it does not make sense to try to average a periodic function over only half of its period, so the second statement does not look correct. If, however, you make an rms calculation over the half period it will be the correct rms value. So the second statement is not clearly right or wrong, but rather seems just vague as to what it means.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging 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