Finding Steady State Amplitude of Voltage Across Load Resistor

  • Thread starter Thread starter CoolDude420
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Phasor Voltage
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the steady state amplitude of voltage across a load resistor in an electrical circuit. The initial calculations led to an incorrect result of 0.02 volts instead of the correct answer of 0.12 volts, due to not including the load resistor in the voltage division. Participants emphasize the importance of using the magnitude of complex values for real-world applications rather than just the imaginary part. Suggestions for improving efficiency in calculations include using symbolic work and online complex math calculators. The conversation highlights common challenges in mastering phasor analysis and voltage division in circuit theory.
CoolDude420
Messages
199
Reaction score
9

Homework Statement


Find the steady state amplitude in volts of the voltage across the load resistor
69a1726ae4.jpg


Homework Equations



V source = 4sin4t
Resistors = both 1ohm
Cap = 1.414F
Inductor = 1.414H

The Attempt at a Solution


I converted to phasor domain first, then applied voltage division. Voltage across load resistor = voltage across capacitor(1.414 impedance.) The answer will be in rectangular form. To get the real-world amplitude, take the positive value of the Imaginary part of the complex number(part with j) which gives me 0.02.

We have been told that when converting to the real world from scalar always take imaginary part.

The correct answer is 0.12. I keep getting 0.02. I am noticing that the correct answer of 0.12 is the real part of my answer. No clue what I did wrong
 
Physics news on Phys.org
CoolDude420 said:
I converted to phasor domain first, then applied voltage division. Voltage across load resistor = voltage across capacitor(1.414 impedance.) The answer will be in rectangular form. To get the real-world amplitude, take the positive value of the Imaginary part of the complex number(part with j) which gives me 0.02.

We have been told that when converting to the real world from scalar always take imaginary part.
That's not true unless you are working with the rotating phasor projections onto an axis. Usually this view of how phasor vectors are interpreted is superseded early on when the complex arithmetic representation is introduced. Since you're working with complex impedance and voltages and currents, you need to take the magnitude of the complex values to find their "real world" or time-domain magnitudes.
The correct answer is 0.12. I keep getting 0.02. I am noticing that the correct answer of 0.12 is the real part of my answer. No clue what I did wrong
You didn't include the load resistor in the voltage division. It parallels the capacitor and will draw current, too.

You can either replace that resistor and capacitor with an equivalent resistance before applying voltage division, or just go straight to nodal analysis and let it handle everything; there's only one essential node and it happens to correspond to the output voltage...
 
gneill said:
That's not true unless you are working with the rotating phasor projections onto an axis. Usually this view of how phasor vectors are interpreted is superseded early on when the complex arithmetic representation is introduced. Since you're working with complex impedance and voltages and currents, you need to take the magnitude of the complex values to find their "real world" or time-domain magnitudes.

You didn't include the load resistor in the voltage division. It parallels the capacitor and will draw current, too.

You can either replace that resistor and capacitor with an equivalent resistance before applying voltage division, or just go straight to nodal analysis and let it handle everything; there's only one essential node and it happens to correspond to the output voltage...

This is taking years. soo many decimals. Is there a faster way?
 
CoolDude420 said:
This is taking years. soo many decimals. Is there a faster way?
Heh. It seems that every student has to go through this trial by algebra :smile:

My advice is to do much of the work symbolically, simplify algebraically, and plug in numbers at the end. That way you're not lugging around a boatload of decimal places over several pages of calculations. If there are repeated combinations of quantities, calculate once and give it a variable name. Use that as you carry on.

Finding an online complex math calculator or an app for your phone or tablet can help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K