Converting Complex Impedance to Euler Form: Is it Applicable to Just Cos?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around converting a complex impedance expression involving a cosine function into Euler form. The original poster is uncertain about the applicability of this conversion when only a cosine term is present and seeks clarification on handling the imaginary component in the context of RMS calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster questions whether it is feasible to convert just a cosine function to Euler form and discusses the implications of calculating RMS intensity by focusing on the real part. Other participants provide insights into the relationship between trigonometric and exponential forms, and the role of the imaginary part in these conversions.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the concepts, with some providing clarifications on the definitions of real and imaginary parts in complex numbers. There is a recognition of the relationship between the trigonometric and exponential forms, but no explicit consensus has been reached regarding the original poster's approach.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to specific formulas and relationships in the context of complex impedance and RMS values, highlighting the nuances of handling imaginary components in calculations. There is an acknowledgment of potential misunderstandings in the original formulation of the problem.

wateveriam
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
1. I have a complex Ohm question in which u(t) is given as Umax*[itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex]cos([itex]\varpi[/itex]+[itex]\varphi[/itex]), i know how to convert from trigo to euler form if i have both sin and cos but this doesn't. Is it possible to convert just a cos to Euler form ?





3. Since it is a complex impedance i tried to reason that if we calculate the rms intensity we simply take the real part and leave out the imaginary part, so i by-part the conversion. Is it ok to do that ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cos(ωt +φ) = Re[ei(ωt +φ)]. One calculates with the exponential form, then takes the real part of the result to get the average power, and it comes out that the rms voltage or current is 1/√2 times of the amplitude of the exponential form.

ehild
 
Thank you, i understand now, so the given formula gives the numerical result of the Urms and the imaginary part is implied from the angle?
 
I do not get you. In the original formula, the time dependence should be U(t) = Umax cos (ωt+φ), and Umax =√2*Urms. The Euler form is U0ei(ωt+φ), with U0=Umax.

ehild
 
Oh i meant i(t) = cos(ωt+φ) + j*sin(ωt+φ) so the imaginary part of i(t) is j*sin(ωt+φ) so for U=Ri(t), we take the real part and get U = R*cos(ωt+φ) and hence the imaginary part is implied by (ωt+φ), i.e, it is not written out but we can easily get it to be j*sin(ωt+φ). Is that not correct ?
 
It is about right, but the imaginary part is defined as sin(ωt+φ), without j. But it is multiplied by j when you write the trigonometric form of the complex number. Any complex number is of the form

z=x + j*y, x is called the real part and y the imaginary part.

ehild
 
Thank you i handed in the work yesterday and it seems i somehow got it right, if only the numerical values. Cheers :D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K