Driven resonance v. natural resonance

  • Thread starter Thread starter BunmiFariyike
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Natural Resonance
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences between driven resonance and natural resonance in an LC circuit, specifically focusing on a lab setup involving a 150 milliHenry inductor and a 0.5 microfarad capacitor. The original poster is trying to reconcile measured resonance frequencies with theoretical predictions, noting discrepancies that require explanation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants inquire about the configuration of the circuit (series or parallel) and the expected versus measured frequencies. There are also questions regarding the components' values and the impact of lead connections on inductance.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights and considerations that may influence the results. Some guidance has been offered regarding the calculation of frequency and the potential effects of additional inductance from lead connections.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the importance of measuring actual inductance and capacitance values due to possible manufacturing tolerances, which could affect the outcomes of the experiment.

BunmiFariyike
I am in a physics lab course and we set up the following circuit. Given that we had a 150 milliHenry capacitor and a .5 microfarad capacitor, we calculated the expected resonance frequency using the formula for the natural frequency of an LC circuit: omega = 1/ sqrt(LC). We then measured the driven resonance frequency through an oscilloscope. Obviously, the two values should differ slightly because the natural resonance isn't the same as the driven one due to damping from the resistor and the internal resistance of the circuit. However, this should make the driven resonance smaller than the natural one, not larger, right? For all of the measured values, our resonance frequency was larger than what was given by the formula and I need to explain why in my report, but I have researched for hours and genuinely don't know. Can anyone help? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The 150 mH was for an inductor, correct?
 
Were the L and C in series or in parallel? Also, what frequency did you expect to see and what did you measure?
 
magoo said:
Were the L and C in series or in parallel? Also, what frequency did you expect to see and what did you measure?
My apologies. I thought the picture of the circuit would display. L and C were in series. We tested 3 different resonance values: 10, 50, and 500 ohms and I obtained values for angular frequency of 3727, 4242, and 3759, respectively. The expected value was 3651.48. Thank you.
 
I didn't see any picture with what you submitted. Normally I would calculate the frequenct - f - rather than omega. This will give you 581.2 hertz.

By calculating the frequency, the result is a smaller result so the 3 test values will appear closer. Percentagewise, they will be the same.
 
One additional item to consider is the lead connections in your test circuit. They add some inductance - like about 0.4 mH /ft of lead length. With 5 ft of lead, you'd have 2 mH of inductance added to what you already had. This factor is often used by lightning or surge protection engineers.

2 mH isn't much, but it will change your calculated angular frequency to 3627.4.
 
Did you measure the inductance and capacitance or rely on the nominal value? They can have significant manufacturing tolerances.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: collinsmark

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K