Convert AC Waveform from Polar to Rectangular with Phaser

  • Thread starter Thread starter dE_logics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cartesian
AI Thread Summary
Converting an AC waveform from polar to rectangular form involves representing the waveform as v(t) = x + jy, where x and y correspond to the cosine and sine of the phase angle, respectively. The discussion highlights confusion regarding the inclusion of complex numbers in this conversion, as the original waveform appears to consist solely of real values. It clarifies that the phase angle is derived from the arctangent of the imaginary over real components. The participants question the accuracy of the representation and whether the complex component (jx) is necessary, suggesting that it might not impact the real value of v(t). Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding complex numbers in AC waveform analysis.
dE_logics
Messages
742
Reaction score
0
When converting an AC waveform (from polar) to a rectangular form, a source quotes v(t) as x + jy.

But how is this possible?...I mean v(t) is clearly the x-axis length of r (vm).

Further more how does complex number come into the picture?...every thing is real.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is my source wrong?
 
Are you not getting the question?
 
dE_logics said:
When converting an AC waveform (from polar) to a rectangular form, a source quotes v(t) as x + jy.

But how is this possible?...I mean v(t) is clearly the x-axis length of r (vm).

Further more how does complex number come into the picture?...every thing is real.

in a polar form, you'll have the magnitude and a phase where a phase is nothing but actan(imaginary/real).

thus in rectangular form indeed, you you'll have v(t) = x +jy wheer x = cos(phase) and y = sin(phase).

Ok?
 
Ok so one of the axes will return a wrong value...right?

So how come v(t) = y + jx?; I mean it should be v(t) = y...the jx doesn't make a difference?
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top