Find the Capacitance when given the Power Factor

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the capacitance in an electrical circuit given a power factor of 0.8 lag and a frequency of 1 rad/s. Participants explore different methods to solve the problem, including phasor diagrams and Kirchhoff's Current Law (KCL), while addressing discrepancies between their results and a reference book.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an initial calculation yielding a capacitance of C = 0.5, while a reference book states C = 0.125.
  • Another participant suggests using a phasor diagram to visualize the currents and states that the correct capacitance is indeed 0.125F.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the phase angles in their calculations, questioning why substituting only magnitudes yields the correct answer.
  • Further inquiries are made regarding the treatment of phase angles in KCL equations, particularly about substituting angles versus magnitudes.
  • Another participant points out a potential error in multiplying by √2 and suggests that it should be canceled out, indicating this may be causing confusion with phase angles.
  • There is a recommendation that the phasor approach may be more efficient for solving the problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct method for incorporating phase angles in their calculations, and there are differing opinions on the best approach to solve the problem. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct treatment of phase angles and the discrepancies in capacitance values.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the assumptions made in their calculations, particularly regarding the treatment of phase angles and the use of scaling factors like √2. There are unresolved mathematical steps related to the application of KCL and phasor analysis.

jaus tail
Messages
613
Reaction score
48

Homework Statement


upload_2018-1-25_10-45-12.png

w = 1 rad/s
power factor is 0.8 lag

Homework Equations


Using Phasor we can do

The Attempt at a Solution


upload_2018-1-25_10-45-2.png

Since pf = 0.8 lag. I source lags V source by 36.87 degrees.
Vc is voltage across Capacitor = Voltage across ( Resistor + inductor)
upload_2018-1-25_11-5-14.png


Solving this I get C = 0.5
But book says C = 0.125
I had actually solved this sum many weeks ago and got right answer then but I cannot find the book now and am struggling to solve again. Can anybody help me?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-1-25_10-44-58.png
    upload_2018-1-25_10-44-58.png
    3.3 KB · Views: 590
  • upload_2018-1-25_10-45-2.png
    upload_2018-1-25_10-45-2.png
    3.3 KB · Views: 955
  • upload_2018-1-25_10-45-12.png
    upload_2018-1-25_10-45-12.png
    1.6 KB · Views: 1,031
  • upload_2018-1-25_11-4-11.png
    upload_2018-1-25_11-4-11.png
    54.1 KB · Views: 602
  • upload_2018-1-25_11-5-14.png
    upload_2018-1-25_11-5-14.png
    41.2 KB · Views: 562
Physics news on Phys.org
Your phasor diagram is correct, but it is difficult to get anything out of it.

Assume the source to be of 1V.
Draw the phasor parallelogram of currents whose one phasor is the current in the RL branch (known) and other side as the capacitor current (unknown). Then you can solve it using simple geometry. The answer is indeed 0.125F.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jaus tail
upload_2018-1-26_9-27-52.png

upload_2018-1-26_9-29-18.png

I also get 0.125 if I make this change above.
In circled part, if I take Ic angle as 0 degrees I get answer, but why should Ic angle be zero. Ir = | Ic/(square root 2) / C |at angle -135 degrees as per equation 1. So when I substitute Ir angle 0, shouldn't I substitute Ic/1.414 / C and the angle -135 degrees as well?
But I get right answer when I substitute only magnitude of Ir and not the angle in the KCL equation. Why?

I also get the right answer if I substitute in KCL equation: Ic angle 135 by 1.414 C Ir angle 135.
But shouldn't it be angle 135 + 135? I'm not able to understand why only magnitude should be substituted and not the phase angle from equation 1... to get the right answer?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-1-26_9-27-52.png
    upload_2018-1-26_9-27-52.png
    2.6 KB · Views: 473
  • upload_2018-1-26_9-29-18.png
    upload_2018-1-26_9-29-18.png
    11.8 KB · Views: 485
Last edited:
Can somebody please explain this to me? Why in the red circled part above has the angle not been substituted? If I replace 135 with zero then I get the answer.
 
Sorry for the late reply, I'd almost forgot about this thread.

In your working, why have you multiplied IR by √2? It seems you forgot to multiply Ic by √2 as well, since √2 should not appear in the equations as it is just a scaling factor and gets canceled out on both the sides.
I haven't checked your solution thoroughly, but this is probably why you are having trouble with phase angles (sin 135°=1/√2 and maybe it cancels the √2 in your voltage/current magnitude).

Anyways, I won't recommend this approach for GATE. I believe the phasor approach would be easier and quicker.
All the best!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jaus tail

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
17K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K