Understanding the Definition of Average Power in Sinusoidal Functions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of average power in sinusoidal functions, specifically why average power is typically calculated over one period. It highlights that averaging over a single period simplifies calculations and provides a long-time average, while averaging over a longer or arbitrary interval can yield different results. The example of the power function p(t) = 1/2(1 + cos(2x)) illustrates that the average power varies based on the interval chosen. It emphasizes that for accurate mean power calculations, the chosen period must be clearly defined, as different intervals can lead to varying outcomes. Ultimately, averaging over one period is a standard practice to achieve a reliable approximation of the mean power.
jakey
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
I am slightly confused by the definition of average power if the power function $p(t)$ is sinusoidal. Why is it that only one period is considered?

I mean I know that it simplifies calculations but if we assume that the period of $p(t)$ is $T$ and I compute the average power over $[0,\sqrt{2}T]$, I do not get the same result had I computed the average power over $[0,T].$

Case in point: If $p(t)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\cos(2x))$ then the average power is not the same for both cases mentioned...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you want to know the instantaneous power then you would use VI. For a mean power value, you could choose any period you liked, to integrate over, but you would need to state that period (absolute phase intervals). It seem perfectly reasonable to me to choose a single cycle (or any integral number) because it's the most likely thing that anyone else would do. Any other period would be arbitrary and could introduce a massive range of possible outcomes (as you seem to be finding).
 
so are you saying that this is simply a definition? I'm sorry but I still can't seem to understand it...so the average power based on this definition, then, is merely an approximation of the "real mean"?
 
Think how you'd tackle a 1kW electric heater. If you took the first 10ms of one cycle, the average power would be somewhat less. Would that make sense?
 
jakey said:
so are you saying that this is simply a definition? I'm sorry but I still can't seem to understand it...so the average power based on this definition, then, is merely an approximation of the "real mean"?

The "real" mean depends on how long you are averaging over the power. Averaging over one period gives the long-time average. If you were given a power function and asked the average power over a certain period of time, then you would average over just that time. If the period (of the power function) is short, you are probably interested in the average over many periods rather than one small random interval. The average over one period approximates this quite well.
 
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