MHB How can I find the center and radius of a circle from two different equations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aruwin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Center Radius
aruwin
Messages
204
Reaction score
0
Hi,
how do I find the center and radius from these equations? The 2 equations represent 2 different circles, by the way.
 

Attachments

  • circle.JPG
    circle.JPG
    7.3 KB · Views: 100
Physics news on Phys.org
aruwin said:
Hi,
how do I find the center and radius from these equations? The 2 equations represent 2 different circles, by the way.

The only visible function and the exponential function...

$\displaystyle e^{z} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{z^{n}}{n!}\ (1)$

... which has centre in z=0 and converges for any value of z...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
chisigma said:
The only visible function and the exponential function...

$\displaystyle e^{z} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{z^{n}}{n!}\ (1)$

... which has centre in z=0 and converges for any value of z...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

I forgot to mention that P+Q is a complex number in the form Z= X+iY because P is the real power while Q is the reactive power.
 
I will work the 1st equation. I will eliminate subscripts to make the notation simpler and also let \(\alpha = \theta - \frac{\pi}{2} \) and \(K = \frac{E^2}{X}\)

So the 1st equation becomes:
\(P + Q = K(\,(0.9)^2j + 0.9e^{j\alpha}\,)\)

we know that \(e^{j\alpha} = \cos(\alpha) + j \sin(\alpha)\)

so the 1st equation becomes:
\(P + Q = K[\,(0.9)^2j + 0.9(\,\cos(\alpha) + j \sin(\alpha)\,)]\)

or
\(P + Q = 0.9K(\,\cos(\alpha) + j \sin(\alpha)\,) + (0.9)^2Kj \)

so \(P + Q\) as a function of \(\alpha\) is a circle of radius \(0.9K\) and center (\(0.9)^2Kj \)
 
Last edited:
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
13K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K