Is Differentiating a Sinusoid the Same as Multiplying by jω?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Turion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Differentiating
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between differentiating a sinusoidal function and multiplying its phasor representation by jω. Participants explore the implications of this relationship in the context of phasors, complex voltage, and time-domain representations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that differentiating a sinusoid corresponds to multiplying the phasor by jω, while others question whether this should include an exponential term, suggesting it should be jωe^(jωt).
  • There is a claim that the relationship between the phasors representing v(t) and dv(t)/dt is given by V2 = jωV1, but the interpretation of this relationship is contested.
  • One participant emphasizes the distinction between the real voltage (v) and the complex voltage (V), arguing they represent different domains and should not be conflated.
  • There are disagreements about the validity of certain mathematical expressions, with some participants challenging the correctness of equating dv/dt with jωV.
  • Some participants highlight the importance of understanding the notation used in the book, particularly the difference between "=" and "↔", suggesting that they indicate different relationships between the quantities involved.
  • A later reply introduces the context of transmission line theory, mentioning that derivatives in this context should be treated as partial derivatives and discussing the conversion between time domain and phasor form.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the relationship between differentiating a sinusoid and multiplying by jω. Multiple competing views and interpretations remain, particularly regarding the mathematical expressions and the underlying concepts of phasors and voltage representations.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the derivation of certain relationships and the implications of using different notations. There are also discussions about the assumptions underlying the use of phasors and the treatment of derivatives in different domains.

Turion
Messages
145
Reaction score
2
The textbook says that differentiating a sinusoid is the same as multiplying the phasor by jω. Shouldn't jω be jωejωt?
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    9.7 KB · Views: 524
Engineering news on Phys.org
Hi Turion! :smile:
Turion said:
The textbook says that differentiating a sinusoid is the same as multiplying the phasor by jω. Shouldn't jω be jωejωt?

No, you start with Re(Vejωt),

and differentiating gives you Re(jωVejωt). :wink:
 
So:\\ v(t)=Re(\overrightarrow { V } { e }^{ jωt })\\ \frac { dv(t) }{ dt } =Re(j\omega \overrightarrow { V } { e }^{ jωt })\\ \frac { dv(t) }{ dt } =j\omega v(t)\\ \\ But\quad the\quad book\quad asserts\quad that:\\ \frac { d\overrightarrow { V } }{ dt } =\overrightarrow { V } j\omega
 
The book asserts that if V1 and V2 are phasors that represent v(t) and dv(t)/dt, respectively, then they are related by:

V2 = jωV1
 
milesyoung said:
The book asserts that if V1 and V2 are phasors that represent v(t) and dv(t)/dt, respectively, then they are related by:

V2 = jωV1

Isn't that what I just posted?
 
Turion said:
But\quad the\quad book\quad asserts\quad that:\\ \frac { d\overrightarrow { V } }{ dt } =\overrightarrow { V } j\omega

No, it asserts that \frac { dv}{ dt } \leftrightarrow \overrightarrow { V } j\omega

(You can't have dV/dt anyway, since V (the "complex voltage") is a constant! :wink:)

See eg https://www.physicsforums.com/library.php?do=view_item&itemid=303
 
You wrote:
Re(jωVejωt) = jωv(t)

which isn't true. The LHS is real, the RHS is complex.

V is a constant, so the last line is:
0 = jωV

Edit:
tiny-tim beat me to it.
 
So\quad \frac { dv }{ dt } =\overrightarrow { V } j\omega \quad is\quad right\quad and\quad \frac { dv }{ dt } =vj\omega \quad is\quad wrong.\\ How\quad did\quad the\quad author\quad derive\quad that\quad \frac { dv }{ dt } =\overrightarrow { V } j\omega ?
 
You need to keep track of V and v.
They represent the voltage in different domains: one is real and the other complex, and they never "live" in the same space. Hence, they are not the same thing.

Phasors is just shorthand. What you are "really" doing is applying a Fourier transform to a differential equation. This is not something you have to worry about as long as you keep the usual rules for phasors in mind, but it helps explain why V and v are fundamentally very different.
 
  • #10
Turion said:
So\quad \frac { dv }{ dt } =\overrightarrow { V } j\omega \quad is\quad right

No!

As both milesyoung :smile: and I have said, V is constant.

dv/dt is not constant, it's sinusoidal, it can't equal jωV.

Your book doesn't say =, it says ##\leftrightarrow##.

The v and V methods are completely different and incompatible (see the link above).
 
  • #11
tiny-tim said:
Your book doesn't say =, it says ##\leftrightarrow##.

There's a difference? I wasn't aware.
 
  • #12
Turion said:
There's a difference? I wasn't aware.

erm … yes!

Books don't use fancy symbols like that if they don't need to!

= means that the LHS and RHS (as f95toli :smile: says) "live" in the same space.

##\leftrightarrow## is used to show that the LHS and RHS are completely different, but that they represent the same thing.

Turion, you need to read all about complex voltage and current again, from the start.
 
  • #13
tiny-tim said:
erm … yes!

Books don't use fancy symbols like that if they don't need to!

= means that the LHS and RHS (as f95toli :smile: says) "live" in the same space.

##\leftrightarrow## is used to show that the LHS and RHS are completely different, but that they represent the same thing.

Turion, you need to read all about complex voltage and current again, from the start.

I don't see a derivation in your library entry as attached.

The issue is that I don't see how the author derived ##\frac { dv }{ dt } \leftrightarrow\overrightarrow { V } j\omega##.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    7.1 KB · Views: 492
  • #14
Turion said:
I don't see a derivation in your library entry as attached.

The issue is that I don't see how the author derived ##\frac { dv }{ dt } \leftrightarrow\overrightarrow { V } j\omega##.

I don't see how you don't see it, both in the book and in the library entry. :confused:

You really need to spend an hour studying this, from the start.​
 
  • #15
Normally this type of problem is encountered in transmission line theory.Here the derivative must be replaced by partial derivative.V is being converted to frequency domain in this problem.This is called the phasor form.This type of conversion reduces the computation steps involved in the time domain form.If you again want to convert to time domain form then multiply the right hand expression of the phasor form with exp(jwt) and then take the real part i.e. only cosine part.
 
  • #16
\partialV/\partialt=Re(jwVsexp(jwt)).
This means taking the real part ,of phasor form multiplied with exp(jwt), gives you back the time domain form of V.
Here phasor form is jwVs.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
12K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K