Electrodynamics: Amplitude of currents

Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hi all.

Please take a look at the attached circuit. I've have found the amplitude of the current through the resistance to be:

<br /> \left| {I_0 } \right| = \frac{{\varepsilon _0 }}{{\left| {R - \frac{R}{{\omega ^2 LC}} + \frac{i}{{\omega C}}} \right|}},<br />

where ε_0 is the amplitude of the EMF, and the EMF is given by ε_0 cos(ωt). This is all good (and correct too! :approve:), but in my book it says that in general, the amplitude of the current is given by:

<br /> \left| {I_0 } \right| = \frac{{\varepsilon _0 }}{{\left| Z \right|}},<br />

where Z is the impedance. So according to my book, the amplitude of the current through the resistance must be:

<br /> \left| {I_0 } \right| = \frac{{\varepsilon _0 }}{{\left| {R - i\omega L + \frac{i}{{\omega C}}} \right|}}.<br />

What's wrong here? I mean, I know my result is correct, but it is obviously not the same as the one my book wants. What impedance is it I have in my denominator then?

Thanks in advance.Niles.
 

Attachments

  • circuit.png
    circuit.png
    1.1 KB · Views: 449
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Something's amiss here. Don't know where your first equation came from, but the third equation (from your book, you say) describes a series tank circuit and not the series/parallel circuit you drew.
 
Last edited:
Note that

{R - i\omega L + \frac{i}{{\omega C}}}

would be the impedance if all three elements were in series. However that is not the case in the circuit you show.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top